[gailtate]

Agreed. Moreover even the guys who have been with the program three plus years aren’t better than they were when they started. I mean, was Adebo last year any better than he was a redshirt freshman?  Is Robinson any better today than he was his redshirt freshman year (even allowing for a position change).  Has Antoine, now a fifth year senior, made any progress?  If it were one or two guys, maybe you think these are players who decided to coast, but when the entire lineup makes the same basic mistakes it has made year after year, that’s on the coaches.

To the extent that anyone focuses on playcalling and things like delays of game is to see the tip of the iceberg without appreciating the problems underneath, which have a greater impact and are probably harder to solve.

BC

on your exchange with Teejers, I don't see it necessarily as an either or situation.  I think both can be correct.  Shaw as a playcaller/offensive schemer/game manager sure seems to have regressed.  the repeated DOGs, the wasted timeouts, the predictability of call based on personnel, the poor clock management (I've been told no play clocks used at Shaw practices -- is that true?) etc are maddening.  in short, he does not appear to be developing/adapting, but regressing.  the old Fritz Hollings saw comes to mind:  "there is no education in the 2nd kick of a mule."  I now wonder if our mule is just damned tired of kicking.

on the BC side, I agree about the developmental issues (physical, mental) that are obvious with a not-so-young team.  I think a lot of this is on the coaches and our coaches just don't seem to be the same caliber as in the more recent past.  we seem to be trading down from the days of Fangio and Roman as coordinators.  a bright spot of late has been the OL, at least in the Oregon game, plus may be the RBs under Gould.  lastly, our talent pipeline appears to mirroring this downturn.  the incoming class will collectively not replace the outbound talent.  I also wonder about the makeup of the recruits mirroring the head man.  Harbaugh signed a lot of hair on fire types; I don't see that trait as much now.

Nice, even-handed summary. I've lost patience with those who refuse to recognize any of the above. Since the 1960's, I've seen four cycles of renewal/descent/renewal, from Ralston to Harbaugh. During each descent, the defeatists saw declining programs as the inevitable Stanford default condition brought on simply by Stanford being Stanford. Calls for coaching change were more or less derided as unbecoming and uncouth. As we approach a moment of truth in the next couple of years--and what appears to be a clear decline--is another cycle inevitable? Renewal is possible. Just takes the right guy(s) at the right time.

[gailtate]

Agreed. Moreover even the guys who have been with the program three plus years aren’t better than they were when they started. I mean, was Adebo last year any better than he was a redshirt freshman?  Is Robinson any better today than he was his redshirt freshman year (even allowing for a position change).  Has Antoine, now a fifth year senior, made any progress?  If it were one or two guys, maybe you think these are players who decided to coast, but when the entire lineup makes the same basic mistakes it has made year after year, that’s on the coaches.

To the extent that anyone focuses on playcalling and things like delays of game is to see the tip of the iceberg without appreciating the problems underneath, which have a greater impact and are probably harder to solve.

BC

on your exchange with Teejers, I don't see it necessarily as an either or situation.  I think both can be correct.  Shaw as a playcaller/offensive schemer/game manager sure seems to have regressed.  the repeated DOGs, the wasted timeouts, the predictability of call based on personnel, the poor clock management (I've been told no play clocks used at Shaw practices -- is that true?) etc are maddening.  in short, he does not appear to be developing/adapting, but regressing.  the old Fritz Hollings saw comes to mind:  "there is no education in the 2nd kick of a mule."  I now wonder if our mule is just damned tired of kicking.

on the BC side, I agree about the developmental issues (physical, mental) that are obvious with a not-so-young team.  I think a lot of this is on the coaches and our coaches just don't seem to be the same caliber as in the more recent past.  we seem to be trading down from the days of Fangio and Roman as coordinators.  a bright spot of late has been the OL, at least in the Oregon game, plus may be the RBs under Gould.  lastly, our talent pipeline appears to mirroring this downturn.  the incoming class will collectively not replace the outbound talent.  I also wonder about the makeup of the recruits mirroring the head man.  Harbaugh signed a lot of hair on fire types; I don't see that trait as much now.

Nice, even-handed summary. I've lost patience with those who refuse to recognize any of the above. Since the 1960's, I've seen four cycles of renewal/descent/renewal, from Ralston to Harbaugh. During each descent, the defeatists saw declining programs as the inevitable Stanford default condition brought on simply by Stanford being Stanford. Calls for coaching change were more or less derided as unbecoming and uncouth. As we approach a moment of truth in the next couple of years--and what appears to be a clear decline--is another cycle inevitable? Renewal is possible. Just takes the right guy(s) at the right time.