03-17-2022, 10:37 PM
I don’t find the fact that other schools revamped their coaching staffs convincing one way or another. Many of those schools had bad defenses, and likely will continue to have bad defenses. There is sometimes an underpants gnome theory of coaching: fire coaches -> ??? -> win.
The poor statistical performance of the team, regardless of metric one uses (pts/drive, FEI, etc.), when coupled with a qualitative evaluation that supports the findings, is a much more convincing argument. Specifically, I don’t think saying that our defense the last few years was fundamentally unsound would draw much dissent. We missed more tackles way more than we should have (I don’t know if anyone keeps track of yards after contact given up, I would have to believe our defense was at or near the bottom), we were frequently out of position, giving up big plays (we gave up twelve 50+ yard plays, eight 60+ yard plays, five 70+ yard plays, two 80+ yard plays (only USC gave up even one), and were the only team in the PAC-12 to give up a 90+ yard play; all of those were dead last in the PAC-12. And we were simply manhandled up front, with guys getting pushed around way too easily.
I think recruiting, particularly recruiting holes, did play a role in our poor defense the last few years. That is not to absolve our coaching staff; Anderson has been DC 8 years I think, so he recruited (or failed to recruit) every one on the defensive roster. Yes, we’ve been fine at the top end, continuing to get our share of highly rated recruits. The problem is the lack of depth behind them. For several years, we were well below the 85-scholarship limit, which is worse when you subtract the walk ones who were given scholarships. We would have one big class of, say, defensive linemen, and then we would recruit zero or one DL the next two years. That puts a lot of pressure on the big class to deliver, because there are no younger guys behind them. It also means that if one of your 4* players is injured, or is a bust, or gets into disciplinary trouble, there is simply not enough depth behind them. And, it means you are forced to play young guys before they are ready.
Have a look at this depth chart:
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=22759
We have one scholarship DT with very little experience. We have six defensive ends (a few of whom will have to move inside), all of whom are true freshmen or sophomores, with little experience. If you are playing a 4-3 front, as we are moving to next year, you should have about 15 defensive linemen, ideally approximately evenly distributed. Especially up front, you want most of your two deep to be made up of juniors, seniors and fifth years (unless you are Alabama), so they have had time to gain size and strength. The depth chart is panic inducing, and the last few years, there have been MIA pockets like that at linebacker and safety as well.
Again, Anderson is the DC, and he damned well should have sounded the alarms before the situation became critical. I get it, defensive line is probably the hardest position to recruit at Stanford, but that’s all the more reason to redouble efforts. And this is not retconning; guys like Sam McFadden and others were sounding the alarm at the time and were predicting bad things down the line.
It’s a very negative post, but if there is one reason to be a bit more positive, it is that the class of 2022 was the first one in a while to deliver quality and depth at pretty much all defensive positions (except grrrr, DT, but I assume one of the three DE’s will move inside). If we can keep that up, and do it consistently, then at least one part of the problem will be better once those freshmen get to be juniors.
Of course, you gotta coach them up too.
BC
The poor statistical performance of the team, regardless of metric one uses (pts/drive, FEI, etc.), when coupled with a qualitative evaluation that supports the findings, is a much more convincing argument. Specifically, I don’t think saying that our defense the last few years was fundamentally unsound would draw much dissent. We missed more tackles way more than we should have (I don’t know if anyone keeps track of yards after contact given up, I would have to believe our defense was at or near the bottom), we were frequently out of position, giving up big plays (we gave up twelve 50+ yard plays, eight 60+ yard plays, five 70+ yard plays, two 80+ yard plays (only USC gave up even one), and were the only team in the PAC-12 to give up a 90+ yard play; all of those were dead last in the PAC-12. And we were simply manhandled up front, with guys getting pushed around way too easily.
I think recruiting, particularly recruiting holes, did play a role in our poor defense the last few years. That is not to absolve our coaching staff; Anderson has been DC 8 years I think, so he recruited (or failed to recruit) every one on the defensive roster. Yes, we’ve been fine at the top end, continuing to get our share of highly rated recruits. The problem is the lack of depth behind them. For several years, we were well below the 85-scholarship limit, which is worse when you subtract the walk ones who were given scholarships. We would have one big class of, say, defensive linemen, and then we would recruit zero or one DL the next two years. That puts a lot of pressure on the big class to deliver, because there are no younger guys behind them. It also means that if one of your 4* players is injured, or is a bust, or gets into disciplinary trouble, there is simply not enough depth behind them. And, it means you are forced to play young guys before they are ready.
Have a look at this depth chart:
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=22759
We have one scholarship DT with very little experience. We have six defensive ends (a few of whom will have to move inside), all of whom are true freshmen or sophomores, with little experience. If you are playing a 4-3 front, as we are moving to next year, you should have about 15 defensive linemen, ideally approximately evenly distributed. Especially up front, you want most of your two deep to be made up of juniors, seniors and fifth years (unless you are Alabama), so they have had time to gain size and strength. The depth chart is panic inducing, and the last few years, there have been MIA pockets like that at linebacker and safety as well.
Again, Anderson is the DC, and he damned well should have sounded the alarms before the situation became critical. I get it, defensive line is probably the hardest position to recruit at Stanford, but that’s all the more reason to redouble efforts. And this is not retconning; guys like Sam McFadden and others were sounding the alarm at the time and were predicting bad things down the line.
It’s a very negative post, but if there is one reason to be a bit more positive, it is that the class of 2022 was the first one in a while to deliver quality and depth at pretty much all defensive positions (except grrrr, DT, but I assume one of the three DE’s will move inside). If we can keep that up, and do it consistently, then at least one part of the problem will be better once those freshmen get to be juniors.
Of course, you gotta coach them up too.
BC