[msqueri]

Injuries killed us last year, remember 2-1 with wins over Oregon and USC
of immense proportions problem is lack of depth
Hope springs eternal but it’s a game of attrition…

Pet peeve of mine: Stanford fans always citing "lack of depth." This is a muscle memory instinct for those who were fans from 1960-2008. It is not an evidence-based way of thinking about any team Shaw has coached. Shaw has always had one of the top 25 rosters in America top to bottom. Yes, there are individual positions that are problematic when it comes to depth, notably RB and DL this year. But that's life. Outside of a very small handful of teams that would be true for everyone. Thinking systematically about Stanford's roster one shouldn't think "depth" has been a particular problem for us over the last decade, at least not in a way our opponents don't have to deal with too. The constant harping on depth lets Shaw off the hook too easily. Historically we had depth issues because our recruiting/admissions standards meant we only brought like 8-12 Pac-10/12-level players in every year, which guaranteed serious depth issues across the roster. But that hasn't been our environment for a long, long time. Shaw's recruiting/Stanford's admission allows us to recruit competitively or better than most of our opponents. If depth issues arise, in most cases it's because of a lack of development rather than anything inherent about being at Stanford.

[msqueri]

Injuries killed us last year, remember 2-1 with wins over Oregon and USC
of immense proportions problem is lack of depth
Hope springs eternal but it’s a game of attrition…

Pet peeve of mine: Stanford fans always citing "lack of depth." This is a muscle memory instinct for those who were fans from 1960-2008. It is not an evidence-based way of thinking about any team Shaw has coached. Shaw has always had one of the top 25 rosters in America top to bottom. Yes, there are individual positions that are problematic when it comes to depth, notably RB and DL this year. But that's life. Outside of a very small handful of teams that would be true for everyone. Thinking systematically about Stanford's roster one shouldn't think "depth" has been a particular problem for us over the last decade, at least not in a way our opponents don't have to deal with too. The constant harping on depth lets Shaw off the hook too easily. Historically we had depth issues because our recruiting/admissions standards meant we only brought like 8-12 Pac-10/12-level players in every year, which guaranteed serious depth issues across the roster. But that hasn't been our environment for a long, long time. Shaw's recruiting/Stanford's admission allows us to recruit competitively or better than most of our opponents. If depth issues arise, in most cases it's because of a lack of development rather than anything inherent about being at Stanford.