[Goose]

Goose, I think your example of strength metric is not a great proxy for on-field performance.  First, reps in a weight room don't always translate to "functional strength" or explosiveness.  Isolating muscle groups for magnitude and reps is great for bodybuilding, but I think Turley and many other high-level coaches have moved on to full-body motions and then isolating and improving weak links in a player's kinetic chain.  I seem to recall players not acing the Combine workouts and yet turning in effective careers.  Conversely, there have been many Combine studs who didn't pan out on the field.

Secondly, we don't even know that the weights/reps in the Stanford S&C room are even at the same level where they used to be.  Injuries can be a big setback to players, and there have been many injuries.  The cumulative effect of injuries over a several-year college football career can be significant.

+1. The job of the S&C coach is to maximize football performance, not win weightlifting contests. McCaffrey turned in a pitiful lifting performance at the combine but was healthy and explosive at Stanford. Post-Turley overall health and performance have declined, but of course it's impossible to quantify what portion of that can be ascribed to S&C and what portion is the result of other factors. Anecdotally it seems that Turley's departure was a loss for Stanford and that the S&C area of the football program is one where there's room for improvement, but there's no way to prove this.

I totally agree that S&C is more than how much you can lift. I would imagine that there are metrics that have been established for the various types of explosiveness as well. As you also correctly point out, we as fans don't know what the numbers show. However, the coaches do know that, so if there has been a general drop off in strength, due to injury or other factors, they would know. I am pretty sure that if they thought there was even a possibility of an S&C problem they would get some outside known "expert" S&C guy to come through and take a look at the program. While losing Turley may have been a factor, as others have repeatedly pointed out things were going downhill on the OL before Turley left.
The S&C program may have "lost a step" from what it was, but it certainly can't be the primary cause of the OL just getting run over by Utah (and others) without the coaches knowing it. By all means, we should have the best strength and condition program imaginable, but It is hard for me to believe that is a major contributor to the OL problem and nobody notices it. The players themselves talk to other guys on other teams. If there are things that others are doing and they are not, it would be known. I think the majority of the problem lies elsewhere, unfortunately. Even more unfortunately, I don't know where that is.
As a side note, Cmac spent basically two full off seasons developing his upper body strength, which he felt was inadequate for the NFL. He isn't an OL guy though, so I am not sure what that means. It is just a data point.

[Goose]

Goose, I think your example of strength metric is not a great proxy for on-field performance.  First, reps in a weight room don't always translate to "functional strength" or explosiveness.  Isolating muscle groups for magnitude and reps is great for bodybuilding, but I think Turley and many other high-level coaches have moved on to full-body motions and then isolating and improving weak links in a player's kinetic chain.  I seem to recall players not acing the Combine workouts and yet turning in effective careers.  Conversely, there have been many Combine studs who didn't pan out on the field.

Secondly, we don't even know that the weights/reps in the Stanford S&C room are even at the same level where they used to be.  Injuries can be a big setback to players, and there have been many injuries.  The cumulative effect of injuries over a several-year college football career can be significant.

+1. The job of the S&C coach is to maximize football performance, not win weightlifting contests. McCaffrey turned in a pitiful lifting performance at the combine but was healthy and explosive at Stanford. Post-Turley overall health and performance have declined, but of course it's impossible to quantify what portion of that can be ascribed to S&C and what portion is the result of other factors. Anecdotally it seems that Turley's departure was a loss for Stanford and that the S&C area of the football program is one where there's room for improvement, but there's no way to prove this.

I totally agree that S&C is more than how much you can lift. I would imagine that there are metrics that have been established for the various types of explosiveness as well. As you also correctly point out, we as fans don't know what the numbers show. However, the coaches do know that, so if there has been a general drop off in strength, due to injury or other factors, they would know. I am pretty sure that if they thought there was even a possibility of an S&C problem they would get some outside known "expert" S&C guy to come through and take a look at the program. While losing Turley may have been a factor, as others have repeatedly pointed out things were going downhill on the OL before Turley left.
The S&C program may have "lost a step" from what it was, but it certainly can't be the primary cause of the OL just getting run over by Utah (and others) without the coaches knowing it. By all means, we should have the best strength and condition program imaginable, but It is hard for me to believe that is a major contributor to the OL problem and nobody notices it. The players themselves talk to other guys on other teams. If there are things that others are doing and they are not, it would be known. I think the majority of the problem lies elsewhere, unfortunately. Even more unfortunately, I don't know where that is.
As a side note, Cmac spent basically two full off seasons developing his upper body strength, which he felt was inadequate for the NFL. He isn't an OL guy though, so I am not sure what that means. It is just a data point.