[OutsiderFan]

Let's agree on this: David Shaw is not the only person who can make Stanford a winner on and off the field. This season has not been his best. Scholarships went unused. Players didn't develop. There were also a ton of injuries for whatever reason. For right now Shaw's earned a pass in my book. A few more seasons without some change in direction and I might be convinced otherwise. Remember, too, the list of proven head coaches who would make Stanford a destination is short.

There is no doubting the points in bold.

I'm not of the belief Shaw should be let go after one horrific year. But another less than 7 win season would have me pulling the rip cord. I've been of the belief Shaw should hand over OC duties to Pritchard or someone else for two years. And I also think there is plenty of evidence to conclude Lance Anderson can be improved upon as a DC. Was hoping Derek Mason would get fired at Vandy and Shaw could bring him back, but Vandy re-committed to him.

That all said, can anyone point to a team that started 3 True Frosh OL in what is it, now 5 games? and was .500 or better? So not to put too fine a point on it, but it *could* be that just having an experienced OL in 2020 is enough to vault Stanford back over .500 minimum, without any other major changes.  Still, the game management and urgency in the program on all fronts simply has to increase or one down year will be leading to a continuing downward spiral.

[OutsiderFan]

Let's agree on this: David Shaw is not the only person who can make Stanford a winner on and off the field. This season has not been his best. Scholarships went unused. Players didn't develop. There were also a ton of injuries for whatever reason. For right now Shaw's earned a pass in my book. A few more seasons without some change in direction and I might be convinced otherwise. Remember, too, the list of proven head coaches who would make Stanford a destination is short.

There is no doubting the points in bold.

I'm not of the belief Shaw should be let go after one horrific year. But another less than 7 win season would have me pulling the rip cord. I've been of the belief Shaw should hand over OC duties to Pritchard or someone else for two years. And I also think there is plenty of evidence to conclude Lance Anderson can be improved upon as a DC. Was hoping Derek Mason would get fired at Vandy and Shaw could bring him back, but Vandy re-committed to him.

That all said, can anyone point to a team that started 3 True Frosh OL in what is it, now 5 games? and was .500 or better? So not to put too fine a point on it, but it *could* be that just having an experienced OL in 2020 is enough to vault Stanford back over .500 minimum, without any other major changes.  Still, the game management and urgency in the program on all fronts simply has to increase or one down year will be leading to a continuing downward spiral.

[oman]

---

Aww   fuckit.

[oman]

---

Aww   fuckit.

[teejers1]

So not to put too fine a point on it, but it *could* be that just having an experienced OL in 2020 is enough to vault Stanford back over .500 minimum, without any other major changes.  Still, the game management and urgency in the program on all fronts simply has to increase or one down year will be leading to a continuing downward spiral.

If everyone who is eligible to come back does so next season, then Stanford should easily be a .500 team with an especially good offense.  But that's the rub:  David Shaw is like one of those golf cart engine moderators/regulators that prevents the cart from reaching full speed/top performance.  And this limitation is really hurting Stanford . . . and has been for years.

[teejers1]

So not to put too fine a point on it, but it *could* be that just having an experienced OL in 2020 is enough to vault Stanford back over .500 minimum, without any other major changes.  Still, the game management and urgency in the program on all fronts simply has to increase or one down year will be leading to a continuing downward spiral.

If everyone who is eligible to come back does so next season, then Stanford should easily be a .500 team with an especially good offense.  But that's the rub:  David Shaw is like one of those golf cart engine moderators/regulators that prevents the cart from reaching full speed/top performance.  And this limitation is really hurting Stanford . . . and has been for years.

[qwerty49]

Y'know what's indicative of this season?  The fact that we have one more game to go and we're already deep into the off-season speculation.

I'm as much a critic of Shaw as anyone else here, but at the end of the day I am resigned to couple of stone cold truths.

1) There's way too much inertia, at the institutional level, and personally inside Shaw's head, to make significant changes.  Ain't gonna happen.  Institutionally, this ain't comparable to Buddy/Wlat, and Coach Shaw himself has really not shown any inclination to shake-up staff, roles, or approach.  (I admit I have no clue as to the Turley departure.) 

2) With the exception of Shaw, none of our staff have anywhere to go -- at least not upwards.  Everyone says Tavita needs more seasoning -- but where's he gonna go?  Not too much of a market for an OC coming off a 4-win season with an unknown role in playcalling.  Akina has the resume but is in the autumn of his years.  The rest?

On offense, there's a lot of in-bred DNA to this football team.  Sometimes I think we assume too much about our personnel.  Not every RB can hit a small hole like Gerhart and Taylor, and not every QB makes decisions like Luck and clutch plays like Hogan.  We still take forever to get plays in, shoot ourselves in the foot with DOG penalties, and this is in spite of moving away from the clock-chewing TWU-led offensive game plan.  We don't seem to have the 2000-page playbook any more, having distilled our game plan down to maybe a dozen bread-and-butter base plays, and we still can't always execute those well when it counts.  Part of that is we see those plays succeed during the week in practice -- against our own slow, soft and sieve-like defense.

On D, we've got a couple of studs (Toohill, Booker) but generally just don't have the horses anymore.  We all know what a crapshoot recruiting is at Stanford, for so many reasons.  It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline.  It's hard to point fingers at player development when the first 5 guys on our ILB depth chart were a converted OLB, a converted S, a walk-on, a converted lacrosse player, and a guy who's been injured all year.

And yet, here we are.  A bitter pill to swallow, but it's not like no one saw this coming, looking at the schedule and the roster.  The injuries just cost us at best 2-3 wins, not a championship run. And this was the greatest decade ever for Stanford football, and yes, we lived long enough to see it. But trends are trends, and regression to the mean is just one of those inconvenient realities.

You wanna feel better about the off-season?  Don't count on any football news; I really doubt there will be any.  The biggest questions between now and spring ball are:

a) Will WVB get it together and make a run to defend their National Championship? 

b) Does WBB have what it takes to make a run at the Final Four?

[qwerty49]

Y'know what's indicative of this season?  The fact that we have one more game to go and we're already deep into the off-season speculation.

I'm as much a critic of Shaw as anyone else here, but at the end of the day I am resigned to couple of stone cold truths.

1) There's way too much inertia, at the institutional level, and personally inside Shaw's head, to make significant changes.  Ain't gonna happen.  Institutionally, this ain't comparable to Buddy/Wlat, and Coach Shaw himself has really not shown any inclination to shake-up staff, roles, or approach.  (I admit I have no clue as to the Turley departure.) 

2) With the exception of Shaw, none of our staff have anywhere to go -- at least not upwards.  Everyone says Tavita needs more seasoning -- but where's he gonna go?  Not too much of a market for an OC coming off a 4-win season with an unknown role in playcalling.  Akina has the resume but is in the autumn of his years.  The rest?

On offense, there's a lot of in-bred DNA to this football team.  Sometimes I think we assume too much about our personnel.  Not every RB can hit a small hole like Gerhart and Taylor, and not every QB makes decisions like Luck and clutch plays like Hogan.  We still take forever to get plays in, shoot ourselves in the foot with DOG penalties, and this is in spite of moving away from the clock-chewing TWU-led offensive game plan.  We don't seem to have the 2000-page playbook any more, having distilled our game plan down to maybe a dozen bread-and-butter base plays, and we still can't always execute those well when it counts.  Part of that is we see those plays succeed during the week in practice -- against our own slow, soft and sieve-like defense.

On D, we've got a couple of studs (Toohill, Booker) but generally just don't have the horses anymore.  We all know what a crapshoot recruiting is at Stanford, for so many reasons.  It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline.  It's hard to point fingers at player development when the first 5 guys on our ILB depth chart were a converted OLB, a converted S, a walk-on, a converted lacrosse player, and a guy who's been injured all year.

And yet, here we are.  A bitter pill to swallow, but it's not like no one saw this coming, looking at the schedule and the roster.  The injuries just cost us at best 2-3 wins, not a championship run. And this was the greatest decade ever for Stanford football, and yes, we lived long enough to see it. But trends are trends, and regression to the mean is just one of those inconvenient realities.

You wanna feel better about the off-season?  Don't count on any football news; I really doubt there will be any.  The biggest questions between now and spring ball are:

a) Will WVB get it together and make a run to defend their National Championship? 

b) Does WBB have what it takes to make a run at the Final Four?

[teejers1]

Y'know what's indicative of this season?  The fact that we have one more game to go and we're already deep into the off-season speculation.

I'm as much a critic of Shaw as anyone else here, but at the end of the day I am resigned to couple of stone cold truths.

1) There's way too much inertia, at the institutional level, and personally inside Shaw's head, to make significant changes.  Ain't gonna happen.  Institutionally, this ain't comparable to Buddy/Wlat, and Coach Shaw himself has really not shown any inclination to shake-up staff, roles, or approach.  (I admit I have no clue as to the Turley departure.) 

2) With the exception of Shaw, none of our staff have anywhere to go -- at least not upwards.  Everyone says Tavita needs more seasoning -- but where's he gonna go?  Not too much of a market for an OC coming off a 4-win season with an unknown role in playcalling.  Akina has the resume but is in the autumn of his years.  The rest?

On offense, there's a lot of in-bred DNA to this football team.  Sometimes I think we assume too much about our personnel.  Not every RB can hit a small hole like Gerhart and Taylor, and not every QB makes decisions like Luck and clutch plays like Hogan.  We still take forever to get plays in, shoot ourselves in the foot with DOG penalties, and this is in spite of moving away from the clock-chewing TWU-led offensive game plan.  We don't seem to have the 2000-page playbook any more, having distilled our game plan down to maybe a dozen bread-and-butter base plays, and we still can't always execute those well when it counts.  Part of that is we see those plays succeed during the week in practice -- against our own slow, soft and sieve-like defense.

On D, we've got a couple of studs (Toohill, Booker) but generally just don't have the horses anymore.  We all know what a crapshoot recruiting is at Stanford, for so many reasons.  It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline.  It's hard to point fingers at player development when the first 5 guys on our ILB depth chart were a converted OLB, a converted S, a walk-on, a converted lacrosse player, and a guy who's been injured all year.

And yet, here we are.  A bitter pill to swallow, but it's not like no one saw this coming, looking at the schedule and the roster.  The injuries just cost us at best 2-3 wins, not a championship run. And this was the greatest decade ever for Stanford football, and yes, we lived long enough to see it.  But trends are trends, and regression to the mean is just one of those inconvenient realities.

You wanna feel better about the off-season?  Don't count on any football news; I really doubt there will be any.  The biggest questions between now and spring ball are:

a) Will WVB get it together and make a run to defend their National Championship? 

b) Does WBB have what it takes to make a run at the Final Four?

and 

c) Does MBB have what it takes this year to return to the Big Dance?  (Okay, that may be a bit premature . . . ).

[teejers1]

Y'know what's indicative of this season?  The fact that we have one more game to go and we're already deep into the off-season speculation.

I'm as much a critic of Shaw as anyone else here, but at the end of the day I am resigned to couple of stone cold truths.

1) There's way too much inertia, at the institutional level, and personally inside Shaw's head, to make significant changes.  Ain't gonna happen.  Institutionally, this ain't comparable to Buddy/Wlat, and Coach Shaw himself has really not shown any inclination to shake-up staff, roles, or approach.  (I admit I have no clue as to the Turley departure.) 

2) With the exception of Shaw, none of our staff have anywhere to go -- at least not upwards.  Everyone says Tavita needs more seasoning -- but where's he gonna go?  Not too much of a market for an OC coming off a 4-win season with an unknown role in playcalling.  Akina has the resume but is in the autumn of his years.  The rest?

On offense, there's a lot of in-bred DNA to this football team.  Sometimes I think we assume too much about our personnel.  Not every RB can hit a small hole like Gerhart and Taylor, and not every QB makes decisions like Luck and clutch plays like Hogan.  We still take forever to get plays in, shoot ourselves in the foot with DOG penalties, and this is in spite of moving away from the clock-chewing TWU-led offensive game plan.  We don't seem to have the 2000-page playbook any more, having distilled our game plan down to maybe a dozen bread-and-butter base plays, and we still can't always execute those well when it counts.  Part of that is we see those plays succeed during the week in practice -- against our own slow, soft and sieve-like defense.

On D, we've got a couple of studs (Toohill, Booker) but generally just don't have the horses anymore.  We all know what a crapshoot recruiting is at Stanford, for so many reasons.  It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline.  It's hard to point fingers at player development when the first 5 guys on our ILB depth chart were a converted OLB, a converted S, a walk-on, a converted lacrosse player, and a guy who's been injured all year.

And yet, here we are.  A bitter pill to swallow, but it's not like no one saw this coming, looking at the schedule and the roster.  The injuries just cost us at best 2-3 wins, not a championship run. And this was the greatest decade ever for Stanford football, and yes, we lived long enough to see it.  But trends are trends, and regression to the mean is just one of those inconvenient realities.

You wanna feel better about the off-season?  Don't count on any football news; I really doubt there will be any.  The biggest questions between now and spring ball are:

a) Will WVB get it together and make a run to defend their National Championship? 

b) Does WBB have what it takes to make a run at the Final Four?

and 

c) Does MBB have what it takes this year to return to the Big Dance?  (Okay, that may be a bit premature . . . ).

[SpokaneLee]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

[SpokaneLee]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

[qwerty49]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

Cmon.  Surely it's occurred to you that Stanford-eligible ILBs don't just grow on trees?  Hasn't our staff consistently said that there are no more than about 100 really highly-rated prospects nationwide every year that can even sniff admissions here?  It follows that some years the pipeline is lean, and other years well-stocked.

Come back with specifics over the last 3-4 recruiting cycles at ILB and we can talk.  And not just one or two examples; you know those are statistically in realm of coin flips.

[qwerty49]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

Cmon.  Surely it's occurred to you that Stanford-eligible ILBs don't just grow on trees?  Hasn't our staff consistently said that there are no more than about 100 really highly-rated prospects nationwide every year that can even sniff admissions here?  It follows that some years the pipeline is lean, and other years well-stocked.

Come back with specifics over the last 3-4 recruiting cycles at ILB and we can talk.  And not just one or two examples; you know those are statistically in realm of coin flips.

[SamuelMcF]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

Cmon.  Surely it's occurred to you that Stanford-eligible ILBs don't just grow on trees?  Hasn't our staff consistently said that there are no more than about 100 really highly-rated prospects nationwide every year that can even sniff admissions here?  It follows that some years the pipeline is lean, and other years well-stocked.

Come back with specifics over the last 3-4 recruiting cycles at ILB and we can talk.  And not just one or two examples; you know those are statistically in realm of coin flips.

Here are 3 swings and misses: Jeffrey McCulloch, Dax Hollifield, unnamed potential flip this year who will not flip. (Sorry, can't go more specific than that.) Leonard Warner was door #1'ed. There are a few P5-caliber guys this year we will not pursue because we decided after said non-flip was out that we aren't taking a single ILB. WTF?!

This after the fact that we didn't recruit a single true ILB for two back-to-back years in '16 and '17. Hell, our two-deep at the beginning of the season was: a converted OLB (who, for the record, should've started out at ILB and rendered my statement about '16 incorrect), a converted S, an actual ILB, and a converted lacrosse player.

[SamuelMcF]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

Cmon.  Surely it's occurred to you that Stanford-eligible ILBs don't just grow on trees?  Hasn't our staff consistently said that there are no more than about 100 really highly-rated prospects nationwide every year that can even sniff admissions here?  It follows that some years the pipeline is lean, and other years well-stocked.

Come back with specifics over the last 3-4 recruiting cycles at ILB and we can talk.  And not just one or two examples; you know those are statistically in realm of coin flips.

Here are 3 swings and misses: Jeffrey McCulloch, Dax Hollifield, unnamed potential flip this year who will not flip. (Sorry, can't go more specific than that.) Leonard Warner was door #1'ed. There are a few P5-caliber guys this year we will not pursue because we decided after said non-flip was out that we aren't taking a single ILB. WTF?!

This after the fact that we didn't recruit a single true ILB for two back-to-back years in '16 and '17. Hell, our two-deep at the beginning of the season was: a converted OLB (who, for the record, should've started out at ILB and rendered my statement about '16 incorrect), a converted S, an actual ILB, and a converted lacrosse player.

[BostonCard]

I do think it is fair to wonder why we have a hole in our ILB pipeline.
2019: Sinclair, Danumi (returning from mission)
2018: Magnum-Farrar and Miezan (a nice, late find; we need more of these types)
2017: nobody
2016: nobody
2015: Branch, Barton (returning from Mission)
2014: Perez
2013: Kalambayi, Palma

Basically, we took two years off from recruiting inside linebackers.  Those would have been juniors and seniors now, and would be anchoring the center of our defense.  Yeah, you don't always get qualified a-list guys who are natural fits for Stanford.  But then in those cases you have to work so you don't have to consecutive donuts in recruiting.  That means maybe a guy who might not have been leaning towards Stanford gets more recruiting effort than he would have otherwise, because you can't afford to have to have two consecutive holes in your recruiting classes.  Maybe you make a personal appeal to admissions, or work hard to get the recruit to take and retake and retake and retake their tests until they get in (worked for Harbaugh, but Shaw doesn't like to push admissions).  Or maybe you scour the country for guys like Miezan, who are super athletic but might have come to football later and are still raw, or guys who are maybe a touch undersized for the position and you work with your S&C to bulk them up.  Or maybe you take a flyer on a guy who was injured and couldn't camp with you.  Or maybe you recognize the impending hole and institute a position change early in someone's career, not after they've been here three years.

Yes, it would be great if you could find a recruit who ticked off all the boxes: blue chip football player, straight a student with stellar test scores, has loved Stanford since birth, but sometimes you are going to have to take players who meet two of the three and are borderline on the third just so that you are not in a situation three years later where your starting inside linebackers are a converted safety and a converted outside linebacker.

BC

[BostonCard]

I do think it is fair to wonder why we have a hole in our ILB pipeline.
2019: Sinclair, Danumi (returning from mission)
2018: Magnum-Farrar and Miezan (a nice, late find; we need more of these types)
2017: nobody
2016: nobody
2015: Branch, Barton (returning from Mission)
2014: Perez
2013: Kalambayi, Palma

Basically, we took two years off from recruiting inside linebackers.  Those would have been juniors and seniors now, and would be anchoring the center of our defense.  Yeah, you don't always get qualified a-list guys who are natural fits for Stanford.  But then in those cases you have to work so you don't have to consecutive donuts in recruiting.  That means maybe a guy who might not have been leaning towards Stanford gets more recruiting effort than he would have otherwise, because you can't afford to have to have two consecutive holes in your recruiting classes.  Maybe you make a personal appeal to admissions, or work hard to get the recruit to take and retake and retake and retake their tests until they get in (worked for Harbaugh, but Shaw doesn't like to push admissions).  Or maybe you scour the country for guys like Miezan, who are super athletic but might have come to football later and are still raw, or guys who are maybe a touch undersized for the position and you work with your S&C to bulk them up.  Or maybe you take a flyer on a guy who was injured and couldn't camp with you.  Or maybe you recognize the impending hole and institute a position change early in someone's career, not after they've been here three years.

Yes, it would be great if you could find a recruit who ticked off all the boxes: blue chip football player, straight a student with stellar test scores, has loved Stanford since birth, but sometimes you are going to have to take players who meet two of the three and are borderline on the third just so that you are not in a situation three years later where your starting inside linebackers are a converted safety and a converted outside linebacker.

BC

[cardcrimson]

Maybe you make a personal appeal to admissions, or work hard to get the recruit to take and retake and retake and retake their tests until they get in (worked for Harbaugh, but Shaw doesn't like to push admissions).

Good grief. Even our former sailing coach pushed admissions.

As for developing raw talent, we've not been so hot in that area of late, at least according to the many pundits here.

[cardcrimson]

Maybe you make a personal appeal to admissions, or work hard to get the recruit to take and retake and retake and retake their tests until they get in (worked for Harbaugh, but Shaw doesn't like to push admissions).

Good grief. Even our former sailing coach pushed admissions.

As for developing raw talent, we've not been so hot in that area of late, at least according to the many pundits here.

[BostonCard]

Maybe you make a personal appeal to admissions, or work hard to get the recruit to take and retake and retake and retake their tests until they get in (worked for Harbaugh, but Shaw doesn't like to push admissions).

Good grief. Even our former sailing coach pushed admissions.

As for developing raw talent, we've not been so hot in that area of late, at least according to the many pundits here.

That's not quite what I was going for.

Shaw has a good relationship with admissions; he should leverage it.  There were a couple of players for whom admissions stretched during the Harbaugh years, and they paid off (not just by being studs on the field, but proving themselves, and those who vouched for them, academically)

BC

[BostonCard]

Maybe you make a personal appeal to admissions, or work hard to get the recruit to take and retake and retake and retake their tests until they get in (worked for Harbaugh, but Shaw doesn't like to push admissions).

Good grief. Even our former sailing coach pushed admissions.

As for developing raw talent, we've not been so hot in that area of late, at least according to the many pundits here.

That's not quite what I was going for.

Shaw has a good relationship with admissions; he should leverage it.  There were a couple of players for whom admissions stretched during the Harbaugh years, and they paid off (not just by being studs on the field, but proving themselves, and those who vouched for them, academically)

BC

[MVCard]

Anyone else notice the dismal turnout this season?  In the odd year when we have all the good home games?

Even Big Game didn't sell out.

Gotta fill the seats.  That requires change and I think it's a straightforward discussion between Muir and Shaw that ends in a S&C hire + a new OC.  It will go like this:

Muir: "David, people are bailing and we can't wait for the new TV contract to fix this."
Shaw: "Bernard, I need money to fix the S&C problem."
Muir: "Sure.  And I can't get it until you find a new OC because the people who will help with S&C want a new OC."
Shaw: "... ok.  Fine.  I need some money for the OC too."
Muir: "You got it."

Need another Roman... someone we'll be grateful to have for 3 years before he turns pro OC or leaves to take a HC position.  Need a S&C coach who won't do... ok, I'll say it: whatever Turley did to deserve a 2 month leave and then termination... but who will be a relentless take-residence-inside-your-head-like-a-brain-eating-amoeba, sharpen-your-mind-and-body Dark Overlord of the Sith when it comes to re-instilling Intellectual Brutality on the Farm.

If Shaw says no, he gets another year.  But then, absent improvement, people will start drawing equivalencies to Walsh II.  One of the greatest NFL coaches of all time left Stanford after two losing seasons, same should happen now, etc.

[MVCard]

Anyone else notice the dismal turnout this season?  In the odd year when we have all the good home games?

Even Big Game didn't sell out.

Gotta fill the seats.  That requires change and I think it's a straightforward discussion between Muir and Shaw that ends in a S&C hire + a new OC.  It will go like this:

Muir: "David, people are bailing and we can't wait for the new TV contract to fix this."
Shaw: "Bernard, I need money to fix the S&C problem."
Muir: "Sure.  And I can't get it until you find a new OC because the people who will help with S&C want a new OC."
Shaw: "... ok.  Fine.  I need some money for the OC too."
Muir: "You got it."

Need another Roman... someone we'll be grateful to have for 3 years before he turns pro OC or leaves to take a HC position.  Need a S&C coach who won't do... ok, I'll say it: whatever Turley did to deserve a 2 month leave and then termination... but who will be a relentless take-residence-inside-your-head-like-a-brain-eating-amoeba, sharpen-your-mind-and-body Dark Overlord of the Sith when it comes to re-instilling Intellectual Brutality on the Farm.

If Shaw says no, he gets another year.  But then, absent improvement, people will start drawing equivalencies to Walsh II.  One of the greatest NFL coaches of all time left Stanford after two losing seasons, same should happen now, etc.

[JustAnotherFan]

I wouldn't bet a roll of toilet paper that Shaw does ANYTHING this off-season to shakeup his sad-sack staff or change anything in his deteriorating program. He is well-paid, apparently well-regarded by the folks whose esteem he seems to value most, and mule-headed. I say right now that Shaw-vita returns INTACT to take this program down another notch. Shaw is surgically attached to the status quo and business as usual, comfortable in the firm belief that this season is nothing more or less than an anomaly: purely and simply the result of capricious injuries and a pesky failure to "execute". After all, as he regularly intones in his Ted Talk gravitas, "It's a game of inches. And we are so close." Close to where, I can only wonder.

Unfortunately, I have the same misgivings.  It will take another 4-8/3-9 campaign for Shaw to feel any urgency.  Of course, if he changes nothing and comes back next season to win the Pac-12, I would be pleased to eat a smorgasbord of crow.  Just don't think that's going to happen.  He needs to do what Kelly did after his 4-8 campaign in 2016 (yes, we nicked them in South Bend without McCaffrey that year): an entire overhaul of the coaching staff, including a new OC and a new DC.  Shake the place up, make it uncomfortable, instill a sense of urgency and create a positive upward potentiation of energy in the program.  Could Shaw do that?  Not sure.

Shaw, with a "sense of urgency"? Oh, would that be welcome.

When I think of Shaw and "sense of urgency," I think of a situation where Stanford is down by 4 points, 1st and 10 with the ball on our 25 yard line, with 39 seconds left in the fourth quarter. And Shaw chooses a run play. 

[JustAnotherFan]

I wouldn't bet a roll of toilet paper that Shaw does ANYTHING this off-season to shakeup his sad-sack staff or change anything in his deteriorating program. He is well-paid, apparently well-regarded by the folks whose esteem he seems to value most, and mule-headed. I say right now that Shaw-vita returns INTACT to take this program down another notch. Shaw is surgically attached to the status quo and business as usual, comfortable in the firm belief that this season is nothing more or less than an anomaly: purely and simply the result of capricious injuries and a pesky failure to "execute". After all, as he regularly intones in his Ted Talk gravitas, "It's a game of inches. And we are so close." Close to where, I can only wonder.

Unfortunately, I have the same misgivings.  It will take another 4-8/3-9 campaign for Shaw to feel any urgency.  Of course, if he changes nothing and comes back next season to win the Pac-12, I would be pleased to eat a smorgasbord of crow.  Just don't think that's going to happen.  He needs to do what Kelly did after his 4-8 campaign in 2016 (yes, we nicked them in South Bend without McCaffrey that year): an entire overhaul of the coaching staff, including a new OC and a new DC.  Shake the place up, make it uncomfortable, instill a sense of urgency and create a positive upward potentiation of energy in the program.  Could Shaw do that?  Not sure.

Shaw, with a "sense of urgency"? Oh, would that be welcome.

When I think of Shaw and "sense of urgency," I think of a situation where Stanford is down by 4 points, 1st and 10 with the ball on our 25 yard line, with 39 seconds left in the fourth quarter. And Shaw chooses a run play. 

[cardcrimson]

Starting next week, I expect Shaw to hit the recruiting trail pretty hard. I predict several trips to personally scout off the radar talent hidden in the Pacific Islander communities. The Samoas, Fiji, Tahiti, Tonga, and even Hawaii certainly have talent for Shaw to discover. Of course, he'll bring along his dad and the rest of the family to help evaluate. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Starting next week, I expect Shaw to hit the recruiting trail pretty hard. I predict several trips to personally scout off the radar talent hidden in the Pacific Islander communities. The Samoas, Fiji, Tahiti, Tonga, and even Hawaii certainly have talent for Shaw to discover. Of course, he'll bring along his dad and the rest of the family to help evaluate. . . .

[StanfordMatt]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

For the umpteenth time, the ILB coach is not responsible for recruiting ILBs. An assistant coach may have input on recruits brought in at his position, but recruiting responsibilities are primarily based on geography.

Apologies if my tone seems harsh. It's just frustrating to me to see assistants inaccurately lauded with extra praise (e.g. Bloomgren) or unfairly criticized (e.g. Hansen) for recruiting results.

[StanfordMatt]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

For the umpteenth time, the ILB coach is not responsible for recruiting ILBs. An assistant coach may have input on recruits brought in at his position, but recruiting responsibilities are primarily based on geography.

Apologies if my tone seems harsh. It's just frustrating to me to see assistants inaccurately lauded with extra praise (e.g. Bloomgren) or unfairly criticized (e.g. Hansen) for recruiting results.

[JohnR34231]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

For the umpteenth time, the ILB coach is not responsible for recruiting ILBs. An assistant coach may have input on recruits brought in at his position, but recruiting responsibilities are primarily based on geography.

Apologies if my tone seems harsh. It's just frustrating to me to see assistants inaccurately lauded with extra praise (e.g. Bloomgren) or unfairly criticized (e.g. Hansen) for recruiting results.

You know the old saying, Matt.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

[JohnR34231]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

For the umpteenth time, the ILB coach is not responsible for recruiting ILBs. An assistant coach may have input on recruits brought in at his position, but recruiting responsibilities are primarily based on geography.

Apologies if my tone seems harsh. It's just frustrating to me to see assistants inaccurately lauded with extra praise (e.g. Bloomgren) or unfairly criticized (e.g. Hansen) for recruiting results.

You know the old saying, Matt.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

[BostonCard]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

For the umpteenth time, the ILB coach is not responsible for recruiting ILBs. An assistant coach may have input on recruits brought in at his position, but recruiting responsibilities are primarily based on geography.

Apologies if my tone seems harsh. It's just frustrating to me to see assistants inaccurately lauded with extra praise (e.g. Bloomgren) or unfairly criticized (e.g. Hansen) for recruiting results.

That is not exactly right.  The position coach is still responsible for the overall recruitment strategy, identifying players to go after and prioritizing amongst them, and is jointly responsible for their individual recruitment.  And although the coach responsible for geography has administrative responsibility for particular recruits, and is the primary point of contact, it would be illogical for the position coach not to be heavily involved.  If you ever read recruits' twitter feeds when they commit, you will see that they typically thank Coach Shaw, their future position coach, and the primary recruiter for their region.

I think if a position coach is having recruitment issues, it is fair to question the position coach's ability to identify, pursue, and close on recruits.

BC

[BostonCard]

"It's hard to point fingers because a Martinez or Skov hasn't appeared in the ILB pipeline."

What? 

Why the hell can't you point a finger at the ILB coach who is supposed to recruit ILB's? Or, the head coach who basically is in charge of all assistant coaches, which includes recruiting as one of their primary efforts? Or, the head coach who needs to work more hours on the phone and/or traveling, in order to "close" the [recruiting] deals? Read this: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/recr...id=6403943

For the umpteenth time, the ILB coach is not responsible for recruiting ILBs. An assistant coach may have input on recruits brought in at his position, but recruiting responsibilities are primarily based on geography.

Apologies if my tone seems harsh. It's just frustrating to me to see assistants inaccurately lauded with extra praise (e.g. Bloomgren) or unfairly criticized (e.g. Hansen) for recruiting results.

That is not exactly right.  The position coach is still responsible for the overall recruitment strategy, identifying players to go after and prioritizing amongst them, and is jointly responsible for their individual recruitment.  And although the coach responsible for geography has administrative responsibility for particular recruits, and is the primary point of contact, it would be illogical for the position coach not to be heavily involved.  If you ever read recruits' twitter feeds when they commit, you will see that they typically thank Coach Shaw, their future position coach, and the primary recruiter for their region.

I think if a position coach is having recruitment issues, it is fair to question the position coach's ability to identify, pursue, and close on recruits.

BC

[teejers1]

Anyone else notice the dismal turnout this season?  In the odd year when we have all the good home games?

Even Big Game didn't sell out.

It's the dirty little topic that no one likes to raise in these parts because there is no explication for it, given Stanford now has "the best coach in Stanford history" at the helm.  SMH . . .

[teejers1]

Anyone else notice the dismal turnout this season?  In the odd year when we have all the good home games?

Even Big Game didn't sell out.

It's the dirty little topic that no one likes to raise in these parts because there is no explication for it, given Stanford now has "the best coach in Stanford history" at the helm.  SMH . . .

[Mick]

Starting next week, I expect Shaw to hit the recruiting trail pretty hard. I predict several trips to personally scout off the radar talent hidden in the Pacific Islander communities. The Samoas, Fiji, Tahiti, Tonga, and even Hawaii certainly have talent for Shaw to discover. Of course, he'll bring along his dad and the rest of the family to help evaluate. . . .

What's your mental over/under of his rounds of golf on the recruiting trip?

[Mick]

Starting next week, I expect Shaw to hit the recruiting trail pretty hard. I predict several trips to personally scout off the radar talent hidden in the Pacific Islander communities. The Samoas, Fiji, Tahiti, Tonga, and even Hawaii certainly have talent for Shaw to discover. Of course, he'll bring along his dad and the rest of the family to help evaluate. . . .

What's your mental over/under of his rounds of golf on the recruiting trip?

[cardcrimson]

Anyone else notice the dismal turnout this season?  In the odd year when we have all the good home games?

Even Big Game didn't sell out.

It's the dirty little topic that no one likes to raise in these parts because there is no explication for it, given Stanford now has "the best coach in Stanford history" at the helm.  SMH . . .

"Well, there's so many other things to do in the Bay Area" is the common explanation for the declining interest. Well that may be true, but there are also 70% more people in the Bay Area than in 1970, that's a lot bigger market to draw from. From a share of market perspective, a sell out would be six tenths of one percent of the population. Our marketing efforts can't even get close to that six days a year. Ugh.

[cardcrimson]

Anyone else notice the dismal turnout this season?  In the odd year when we have all the good home games?

Even Big Game didn't sell out.

It's the dirty little topic that no one likes to raise in these parts because there is no explication for it, given Stanford now has "the best coach in Stanford history" at the helm.  SMH . . .

"Well, there's so many other things to do in the Bay Area" is the common explanation for the declining interest. Well that may be true, but there are also 70% more people in the Bay Area than in 1970, that's a lot bigger market to draw from. From a share of market perspective, a sell out would be six tenths of one percent of the population. Our marketing efforts can't even get close to that six days a year. Ugh.