[Snorlax94]

What were they seeing in Hinton in high school that he is not delivering today? Was it just that this was a big kid and the son of a pro bowler? How soft was the HS opposition? Is he not motivated? A mystery.

There are a bunch of OL coming in next year. If one shows phenomenal promise will Shaw unseat an underachiever like Hinton? Or will the old "Massive playbook" keep him on the bench?

Why do you call Hinton an underachiever? What game? What plays? 

I recently re-watched parts of the Washington State game reviewing this one particular question, and I'd rewind the key run plays and watch them, focusing on a different lineman each time, and from the plays I saw, the problem is not Hinton. If I had to pick on anyone from what I saw, first I'd pick on the guards, then on the fullback, then on the center.

From what I watched, the biggest problems are:
#1) Schematically, it's just too easy to anticipate, prepare for, and defend Stanford's run game. Often, it feels like the opposing team knows what we're going to run. Occasionally we throw a wrinkle to exploit the aggressiveness, but it's been many years since Stanford had an offense where it felt like the running game and the run/pass game was keeping an opponent off-balance. Probably my favorite coach in this respect was Bill Walsh in the early nineties. He'd have different backs (Milburn and Vardell) and mix up the plays, the locations, the speed of the plays (a mix of fast dives and slower-developing plays). He mixed up straight and angled runs, inside and sweeps, and it punished gambling defenses and kept them off-balance, which is the opposite of what we have now.
2) Combining with the above, the run plays we have have odd technique. Not since the Bloomgren days have they come into a game with the specific priority to hit the defense and get the run blocking into a rhythm and to tenderize the defense and assert dominance. 
3) Then, there is some poor play, we're not delivering punishing, accurate blows particularly at the second level onto the linebackers. Blocking at the second level takes a lot more athleticism than is given credit for -- there's a lot of balance and timing combined with the physicality. In recent years, the technique seems to emphasize just "getting hands" on defenders and running with them. Maybe this works in the NFL with already-developed, NFL athletes, but it's not working at Stanford.
4) Lastly, the most upsetting thing is when we occasionally see Stanford O-linemen just physically manhandled and tossed aside like a rag doll. It's outrageous to see that happen. It doesn't happen as often as the doomsayers yell about, but it does happen sometimes, which is way too much.

So those are the observed phenomena. But what are the root causes? This is where it's more speculative -- one observation can have many different possible causes, and it's a guess. But my guess is that:
#1) The first fix is at a schematic level. Do we even have a running game offensive coordinator? We have a former WR head coach, a former QB offensive coordinator, a running back coach who seems to focus only on RBs, and a new o-line coach from the NFL who seems to have experience with the nuances of the NFL game but seems like a poor fit planning any X's and O's for the running game, or developing and motivating college players who aren't pros yet. I've been the defender for Tavita Pritchard, and this isn't necessarily an attack on him, but just in terms of looking for a balance of specializations on the coaching staff, it feels like no one is that running game genius, or even just the run game vision owner.
#2) I actually think the last two o-line coaches from the NFL have gotten some really good pass blocking going -- it's really, really hard because there is plenty of scheming, blitzing, and crossing in our opponents, and a *lot* of athleticism. It's actually impressive that they've kept McKee somewhat upright when you have no balance and no running game to take the heat of the pass rush. But despite apparent gains in pass blocking, I wonder if we're getting the wrong o-line coaches overall. It just feels like we aren't developing/growing/motivating the O-line into road grinders like we used to.
#3) There is something also going on with the physical development. I guess there's a little bit of a pass because these guys weren't on campus in 2020 due to the pandemic. So we lost a year of physical development. And I think the injuries are now more in line with other teams, and not like, say 2019. But I'm still concerned about how linemen are developing athletically. For one, nobody is blocking linebackers well. The guards in particular seem sluggish, they have poor balance, and no one appears to be delivering blows. Is that the strength and conditioning coach? is that the line coach? Is that a cultural issue where there's a lack of leadership to work on their bodies in the offseason? Is it a recruiting issue where Stanford isn't getting the right guys? I don't know, but I just think back about how people like David Yankey used to move -- with a pad level like a submarine, and then he'd just blow someone up. My guess is that it is all three -- it's a problem with the S&C coach, it's a problem with the o-line coach, and it's a problem with locker room leadership during the offseason, all of which, ultimately, are the responsibility of the head coach to fix.

[Snorlax94]

What were they seeing in Hinton in high school that he is not delivering today? Was it just that this was a big kid and the son of a pro bowler? How soft was the HS opposition? Is he not motivated? A mystery.

There are a bunch of OL coming in next year. If one shows phenomenal promise will Shaw unseat an underachiever like Hinton? Or will the old "Massive playbook" keep him on the bench?

Why do you call Hinton an underachiever? What game? What plays? 

I recently re-watched parts of the Washington State game reviewing this one particular question, and I'd rewind the key run plays and watch them, focusing on a different lineman each time, and from the plays I saw, the problem is not Hinton. If I had to pick on anyone from what I saw, first I'd pick on the guards, then on the fullback, then on the center.

From what I watched, the biggest problems are:
#1) Schematically, it's just too easy to anticipate, prepare for, and defend Stanford's run game. Often, it feels like the opposing team knows what we're going to run. Occasionally we throw a wrinkle to exploit the aggressiveness, but it's been many years since Stanford had an offense where it felt like the running game and the run/pass game was keeping an opponent off-balance. Probably my favorite coach in this respect was Bill Walsh in the early nineties. He'd have different backs (Milburn and Vardell) and mix up the plays, the locations, the speed of the plays (a mix of fast dives and slower-developing plays). He mixed up straight and angled runs, inside and sweeps, and it punished gambling defenses and kept them off-balance, which is the opposite of what we have now.
2) Combining with the above, the run plays we have have odd technique. Not since the Bloomgren days have they come into a game with the specific priority to hit the defense and get the run blocking into a rhythm and to tenderize the defense and assert dominance. 
3) Then, there is some poor play, we're not delivering punishing, accurate blows particularly at the second level onto the linebackers. Blocking at the second level takes a lot more athleticism than is given credit for -- there's a lot of balance and timing combined with the physicality. In recent years, the technique seems to emphasize just "getting hands" on defenders and running with them. Maybe this works in the NFL with already-developed, NFL athletes, but it's not working at Stanford.
4) Lastly, the most upsetting thing is when we occasionally see Stanford O-linemen just physically manhandled and tossed aside like a rag doll. It's outrageous to see that happen. It doesn't happen as often as the doomsayers yell about, but it does happen sometimes, which is way too much.

So those are the observed phenomena. But what are the root causes? This is where it's more speculative -- one observation can have many different possible causes, and it's a guess. But my guess is that:
#1) The first fix is at a schematic level. Do we even have a running game offensive coordinator? We have a former WR head coach, a former QB offensive coordinator, a running back coach who seems to focus only on RBs, and a new o-line coach from the NFL who seems to have experience with the nuances of the NFL game but seems like a poor fit planning any X's and O's for the running game, or developing and motivating college players who aren't pros yet. I've been the defender for Tavita Pritchard, and this isn't necessarily an attack on him, but just in terms of looking for a balance of specializations on the coaching staff, it feels like no one is that running game genius, or even just the run game vision owner.
#2) I actually think the last two o-line coaches from the NFL have gotten some really good pass blocking going -- it's really, really hard because there is plenty of scheming, blitzing, and crossing in our opponents, and a *lot* of athleticism. It's actually impressive that they've kept McKee somewhat upright when you have no balance and no running game to take the heat of the pass rush. But despite apparent gains in pass blocking, I wonder if we're getting the wrong o-line coaches overall. It just feels like we aren't developing/growing/motivating the O-line into road grinders like we used to.
#3) There is something also going on with the physical development. I guess there's a little bit of a pass because these guys weren't on campus in 2020 due to the pandemic. So we lost a year of physical development. And I think the injuries are now more in line with other teams, and not like, say 2019. But I'm still concerned about how linemen are developing athletically. For one, nobody is blocking linebackers well. The guards in particular seem sluggish, they have poor balance, and no one appears to be delivering blows. Is that the strength and conditioning coach? is that the line coach? Is that a cultural issue where there's a lack of leadership to work on their bodies in the offseason? Is it a recruiting issue where Stanford isn't getting the right guys? I don't know, but I just think back about how people like David Yankey used to move -- with a pad level like a submarine, and then he'd just blow someone up. My guess is that it is all three -- it's a problem with the S&C coach, it's a problem with the o-line coach, and it's a problem with locker room leadership during the offseason, all of which, ultimately, are the responsibility of the head coach to fix.