[d4cohn]

That is a devastating analysis. As I asked earlier, why would TAt have brought Lamson in as a transfer, just to run an occasional QB sneak.

At that point in history it was not obvious that Lamson couldn't be an effective passer. Remember that last year Lamson and Daniels both got a shot at the starting position. It wasn't a one game only thing. Both QBs at times throw very good on target passes into tight windows. Unfortunately both QBs throw more passes that are barely in the right zip code (or directly into the wrong zip code). Daniels was and is a better passer, but he also has received the benefit of lots more reps after he won the starting job. TT needed a QB. Patu was never the answer. TT took what he could get. It wasn't perfect.

My analysis of Lamson was in response to the argument that, almost two years after he left the job, somehow David Shaw is at fault for the state of affairs. If people are going to criticize a 3-time Pac-12 winning coach and the winningest coach in program history two years after he left for the current state of the program, then I think it is completely fair to criticize TT for either his evaluation and/or development of Lamson. GMs don't pick players, nor coaches recruit players, that they think will not be able to perform. The GMs and coaches are evaluated on the results regardless. At a program like Stanford, you get at most one bite of the transfer portal apple. Neither may not be fair, but both are the reality of college football and coaching at Stanford respectively.

[d4cohn]

That is a devastating analysis. As I asked earlier, why would TAt have brought Lamson in as a transfer, just to run an occasional QB sneak.

At that point in history it was not obvious that Lamson couldn't be an effective passer. Remember that last year Lamson and Daniels both got a shot at the starting position. It wasn't a one game only thing. Both QBs at times throw very good on target passes into tight windows. Unfortunately both QBs throw more passes that are barely in the right zip code (or directly into the wrong zip code). Daniels was and is a better passer, but he also has received the benefit of lots more reps after he won the starting job. TT needed a QB. Patu was never the answer. TT took what he could get. It wasn't perfect.

My analysis of Lamson was in response to the argument that, almost two years after he left the job, somehow David Shaw is at fault for the state of affairs. If people are going to criticize a 3-time Pac-12 winning coach and the winningest coach in program history two years after he left for the current state of the program, then I think it is completely fair to criticize TT for either his evaluation and/or development of Lamson. GMs don't pick players, nor coaches recruit players, that they think will not be able to perform. The GMs and coaches are evaluated on the results regardless. At a program like Stanford, you get at most one bite of the transfer portal apple. Neither may not be fair, but both are the reality of college football and coaching at Stanford respectively.