[Griffins78]

ESPN Insider teamed with Blue Ribbon College Football Yearbook to provide a comprehensive look at 120 FBS teams and posted this one on Stanford (Link to article) It is currently on the ESPN NCAA Football home page and accessible even though it is on ESPN Insider so it may be posted as a teaser to get people to subscribe to read about other teams. They like what they see and have heard. It sounds like the interviews took place during the Spring and don't include the incoming freshmen much.

[Griffins78]

ESPN Insider teamed with Blue Ribbon College Football Yearbook to provide a comprehensive look at 120 FBS teams and posted this one on Stanford (Link to article) It is currently on the ESPN NCAA Football home page and accessible even though it is on ESPN Insider so it may be posted as a teaser to get people to subscribe to read about other teams. They like what they see and have heard. It sounds like the interviews took place during the Spring and don't include the incoming freshmen much.

[Redrum]

Bowlsby says Shaw was a "perfect fit".    In a shoe,  a "perfect fit"  is one which is comfortable.  Gotta hope that "comfortable" is the same as successful.  My completely uninformed guess is that Bowlsby took more of a risk with Harbaugh and maybe didn't think "perfect fit"  when he hired JH.

And in promoting from the present staff, the Blue Ribbon says Shaw  "was smart enough to promote from within, making Derek Mason associate head coach and co-defensive coordinator and Pep Hamilton offensive coordinator."    Guess we'll see.  I wonder if comfort was a factor here, too.

But regardless of fits and comfort,  the proof is out there on the field  this season and in successive seasons.  It might actually  be a nice experience  to be wringing our hands five years from now hoping, hoping that Shaw was serious when he said his 2011 Stanford interview " my last coaching interview -- ever".

[Redrum]

Bowlsby says Shaw was a "perfect fit".    In a shoe,  a "perfect fit"  is one which is comfortable.  Gotta hope that "comfortable" is the same as successful.  My completely uninformed guess is that Bowlsby took more of a risk with Harbaugh and maybe didn't think "perfect fit"  when he hired JH.

And in promoting from the present staff, the Blue Ribbon says Shaw  "was smart enough to promote from within, making Derek Mason associate head coach and co-defensive coordinator and Pep Hamilton offensive coordinator."    Guess we'll see.  I wonder if comfort was a factor here, too.

But regardless of fits and comfort,  the proof is out there on the field  this season and in successive seasons.  It might actually  be a nice experience  to be wringing our hands five years from now hoping, hoping that Shaw was serious when he said his 2011 Stanford interview " my last coaching interview -- ever".

[Mick]

...I've been following Stanford football since the early 1970s.  It seems to me that Stanford does exceedingly well when it is populated by NFL-level hires (Fangio, Roman, Walsh, Green), pretty well when it hires up-and-comers (HRU) and not so well when they hire NCAA retreads (Buddy, Idiotface).  My completely unfair conclusion is that coaches, particularly ex-coordinators who have reasonably substantial NFL experience can take smart players who may not be quite as athletically gifted as the top 10 recruiting classes, but if they have a good to very good QB and skill players, they can do very, very well at the NCAA level.

With respect to the current team, I thought that if we kept both Roman and Fangio, we would repeat a 12-1 season and possibly contend for the BCS championship.  If we lost either of them, I thought we were headed for 10-3.  Without both of them, with a 38 year old head coach and the staff he chose, my mental over/under is 8, probably an 8-5 season.  Without Luck, we'll go sub-.500, I suspect.  I just think it is too important to have incredible X's and O's knowledge...too important to the kind of player that Stanford attracts.

Separately...I don't foresee success for Harbaugh with the Niners.  He replaced a pretty good DC with a defensive coordinator who started out strong (#8 in the NFL his first year as DC, then got steadily worse until his last year when his defense was at or near the bottom of the NFL).  His OC was no great shakes at the NFL level.  I don't see the Niners getting past the .500 mark with those three.  I hope they do, believe me, I just don't see it.

[Mick]

...I've been following Stanford football since the early 1970s.  It seems to me that Stanford does exceedingly well when it is populated by NFL-level hires (Fangio, Roman, Walsh, Green), pretty well when it hires up-and-comers (HRU) and not so well when they hire NCAA retreads (Buddy, Idiotface).  My completely unfair conclusion is that coaches, particularly ex-coordinators who have reasonably substantial NFL experience can take smart players who may not be quite as athletically gifted as the top 10 recruiting classes, but if they have a good to very good QB and skill players, they can do very, very well at the NCAA level.

With respect to the current team, I thought that if we kept both Roman and Fangio, we would repeat a 12-1 season and possibly contend for the BCS championship.  If we lost either of them, I thought we were headed for 10-3.  Without both of them, with a 38 year old head coach and the staff he chose, my mental over/under is 8, probably an 8-5 season.  Without Luck, we'll go sub-.500, I suspect.  I just think it is too important to have incredible X's and O's knowledge...too important to the kind of player that Stanford attracts.

Separately...I don't foresee success for Harbaugh with the Niners.  He replaced a pretty good DC with a defensive coordinator who started out strong (#8 in the NFL his first year as DC, then got steadily worse until his last year when his defense was at or near the bottom of the NFL).  His OC was no great shakes at the NFL level.  I don't see the Niners getting past the .500 mark with those three.  I hope they do, believe me, I just don't see it.

[Farm93]

One preseason magazine has Stanford at #4 - Nationally!!!
Another has Stanford at #8
Almost all the preseason magazines predict Stanford to finish second or better in the Pac-12 North.
Those magazine teams all understood that Stanford had a new coach.  The real wild card would be Oregon, because those preseason magazines probably had no idea that Oregon would begin imploding under potential NCAA sanctions in July.
Ted Miller at ESPN has ranked all of the offensive positions at this point, and it is clear that Stanford is just crazy deep at so many positions.  Best of all the schedule includes playing host to the Pac-12's most challenging opponent, and that opponent almost certainly will have bigger worries by the time November comes along.
In most places in the USA, the hype and excitement on a board like this would be out of control.  There would be open discussion about and extensive planning regarding the possible/probable role as the host site of the first Pac-12 Championship game (December 3rd - BTW).  There would be open discussion about playing on Jan 2nd in the Rose Bowl or Jan 9th at the BCS.
And despite all of that, worries emerge of a 5 loss season.  Wow!

But perhaps a different perspective is in order.
Luck will almost certainly become the #1 Draft pick next year.  He will go to a terrible NFL team that will likely have a new HC, a new staff and a new playbook.  And despite all of that the fans of that franchise will openly dream about going to the Super Bowl in two or three years because of Luck.  Yet the best Luck can do in 2011 with a similar playbook, familiar outstanding teammates and a similar set of opponents is a 5 loss season? A season loss total that would matches his loss total over his first two seasons at Stanford.

I could start to embrace the post-Luck worry, but with a healthy Luck 5 losses seems like a lot.

[Farm93]

One preseason magazine has Stanford at #4 - Nationally!!!
Another has Stanford at #8
Almost all the preseason magazines predict Stanford to finish second or better in the Pac-12 North.
Those magazine teams all understood that Stanford had a new coach.  The real wild card would be Oregon, because those preseason magazines probably had no idea that Oregon would begin imploding under potential NCAA sanctions in July.
Ted Miller at ESPN has ranked all of the offensive positions at this point, and it is clear that Stanford is just crazy deep at so many positions.  Best of all the schedule includes playing host to the Pac-12's most challenging opponent, and that opponent almost certainly will have bigger worries by the time November comes along.
In most places in the USA, the hype and excitement on a board like this would be out of control.  There would be open discussion about and extensive planning regarding the possible/probable role as the host site of the first Pac-12 Championship game (December 3rd - BTW).  There would be open discussion about playing on Jan 2nd in the Rose Bowl or Jan 9th at the BCS.
And despite all of that, worries emerge of a 5 loss season.  Wow!

But perhaps a different perspective is in order.
Luck will almost certainly become the #1 Draft pick next year.  He will go to a terrible NFL team that will likely have a new HC, a new staff and a new playbook.  And despite all of that the fans of that franchise will openly dream about going to the Super Bowl in two or three years because of Luck.  Yet the best Luck can do in 2011 with a similar playbook, familiar outstanding teammates and a similar set of opponents is a 5 loss season? A season loss total that would matches his loss total over his first two seasons at Stanford.

I could start to embrace the post-Luck worry, but with a healthy Luck 5 losses seems like a lot.

[Griffins78]

I'm puzzled too.

The two coordinators that you feel were the primary difference between 1 loss and 5 losses - Roman and Fangio - are the same coordinators that you feel are weak links for the 49ers and will lose over half their games.

The staff Shaw has put together has several key coaches with NFL experience - Shaw, Mason, Tarver, Hamilton, Bloomgren - with Eagles, Raiders, Ravens, Vikings, 49ers, B.ears, and Jets. Others have experience with Big-10 and the University of South Bend.

I think the important thing to consider is what Farm93 said, the PLAYERS.

I too have followed Stanford Football since 1974. Stanford has always had a small handful of great players. But it has been a rare team that we've had lots of great players and even rarer that we had great depth. We have often played well initially only to get beaten down over time or with injuries. I think the current teams have been some of the strongest TEAMs we have ever had.

The key that I think a lof of those NFL coaches brought to Stanford was an ability to RECRUIT top players. We have a great core group of players returning and Shaw and his staff has done a great job of retaining or recruiting the incoming class and are off the a great start for next year.

I also think that CONSISTENCY/CONTINUITY is critical to maintaining a top program. Kids are there only 4 or 5 years and major changes in the coaching staff, playbook, processes, etc. can wreck havoc in such a short time. So there is great value in the consistency that Shaw and much of the staff bring. And as others have said, Luck is a of extremely large proportions part of that consistency/continuity too. Remember, Shaw was with Harbaugh at San Diego too before Stanford at the beginning of Harbaugh figuring out and refining his approach to being a head coach.

Fame93 makes a great point about the difference that just Luck will create in expectations (and possibly performance) for probably the worst NFL team in his first year. And he is spending his 4th year at Stanford with many of the same coaches, the same playbook, the same program, many of the same players. That consistency makes a big difference.

[Griffins78]

I'm puzzled too.

The two coordinators that you feel were the primary difference between 1 loss and 5 losses - Roman and Fangio - are the same coordinators that you feel are weak links for the 49ers and will lose over half their games.

The staff Shaw has put together has several key coaches with NFL experience - Shaw, Mason, Tarver, Hamilton, Bloomgren - with Eagles, Raiders, Ravens, Vikings, 49ers, B.ears, and Jets. Others have experience with Big-10 and the University of South Bend.

I think the important thing to consider is what Farm93 said, the PLAYERS.

I too have followed Stanford Football since 1974. Stanford has always had a small handful of great players. But it has been a rare team that we've had lots of great players and even rarer that we had great depth. We have often played well initially only to get beaten down over time or with injuries. I think the current teams have been some of the strongest TEAMs we have ever had.

The key that I think a lof of those NFL coaches brought to Stanford was an ability to RECRUIT top players. We have a great core group of players returning and Shaw and his staff has done a great job of retaining or recruiting the incoming class and are off the a great start for next year.

I also think that CONSISTENCY/CONTINUITY is critical to maintaining a top program. Kids are there only 4 or 5 years and major changes in the coaching staff, playbook, processes, etc. can wreck havoc in such a short time. So there is great value in the consistency that Shaw and much of the staff bring. And as others have said, Luck is a of extremely large proportions part of that consistency/continuity too. Remember, Shaw was with Harbaugh at San Diego too before Stanford at the beginning of Harbaugh figuring out and refining his approach to being a head coach.

Fame93 makes a great point about the difference that just Luck will create in expectations (and possibly performance) for probably the worst NFL team in his first year. And he is spending his 4th year at Stanford with many of the same coaches, the same playbook, the same program, many of the same players. That consistency makes a big difference.