Hey, coach, how's that "self selecting" been working out for you?
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
'21 recuiting (per 247Sports)
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
Hey, coach, how's that "self selecting" been working out for you?
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
If I were a high-profile football player who happens to be really smart but is just as/more serious about the game, I certainly wouldn't "self select" to a team that had just gone 4-8 and finished dead last in its division, had zero players drafted in the top 3 rounds, and just had the largest transfer portal cohort in the P5.
It would take some serious relationship-building and convincing. Not a strength of our approach.
That said, our ranking is so bad because we only have 7 commits that are worth points (and a punter), which at this stage for the "general field" is beyond low. You have to go all the way up to #45 WVU to find a school with a higher average recruit ranking. #42 Arizona has 22 commits, all of them 3* and 20 of whom are rated lower than our lowest (except our punter). Once the class fills out it won't look nearly as bad. That said, will it still be probably the worst recruiting class Shaw has had? Yep. And I think they know it. The early approach to '22 has been way different.
It would take some serious relationship-building and convincing. Not a strength of our approach.
That said, our ranking is so bad because we only have 7 commits that are worth points (and a punter), which at this stage for the "general field" is beyond low. You have to go all the way up to #45 WVU to find a school with a higher average recruit ranking. #42 Arizona has 22 commits, all of them 3* and 20 of whom are rated lower than our lowest (except our punter). Once the class fills out it won't look nearly as bad. That said, will it still be probably the worst recruiting class Shaw has had? Yep. And I think they know it. The early approach to '22 has been way different.
If I were a high-profile football player who happens to be really smart but is just as/more serious about the game, I certainly wouldn't "self select" to a team that had just gone 4-8 and finished dead last in its division, had zero players drafted in the top 3 rounds, and just had the largest transfer portal cohort in the P5.
It would take some serious relationship-building and convincing. Not a strength of our approach.
That said, our ranking is so bad because we only have 7 commits that are worth points (and a punter), which at this stage for the "general field" is beyond low. You have to go all the way up to #45 WVU to find a school with a higher average recruit ranking. #42 Arizona has 22 commits, all of them 3* and 20 of whom are rated lower than our lowest (except our punter). Once the class fills out it won't look nearly as bad. That said, will it still be probably the worst recruiting class Shaw has had? Yep. And I think they know it. The early approach to '22 has been way different.
It would take some serious relationship-building and convincing. Not a strength of our approach.
That said, our ranking is so bad because we only have 7 commits that are worth points (and a punter), which at this stage for the "general field" is beyond low. You have to go all the way up to #45 WVU to find a school with a higher average recruit ranking. #42 Arizona has 22 commits, all of them 3* and 20 of whom are rated lower than our lowest (except our punter). Once the class fills out it won't look nearly as bad. That said, will it still be probably the worst recruiting class Shaw has had? Yep. And I think they know it. The early approach to '22 has been way different.
08-28-2020, 11:42 AM
On break and SamuelMcF inspired me to look at Stanford's FB team ranking based on average recruit score, all the way back to 2002 (first year for the Rivals database):
Year: Team Rank, Average Score, Previous years record, Head coach (year completed while recruiting that class)
2002: 26, 3.06, 9-3, Willingham out (7th year completed), Teevens new
2003: 41, 2.77, 2-9, Teevens (1st year)
2004: 35, 2.58, 4-7, Teevens (2nd year)
2005: 29, 2.88, 4-7, Teevens out (3rd year), Harris new
2006: 56, 2.44, 5-6, Harris (1st year)
2007: 49, 2.63, 1-11, Harris out (2nd year), Harbaugh new
2008: 45, 2.71, 4-8, Harbaugh (1st year)
2009: 20, 3.27, 5-7, Harbaugh (2nd year)
2010: 28, 3.14, 8-5, Harbaugh (3rd year)
2011: 17, 3.32, 12-1, Harbaugh out (4th year), Shaw new
2012: 4, 3.73, 11-2, Shaw (1st year)
2013: 17, 3.33, 12-2, Shaw (2nd year)
2014: 14, 3.45, 11-3, Shaw (3rd year)
2015: 20, 3.27, 8-5, Shaw (4th year)
2016: 23, 3.16, 12-2, Shaw (5th year)
2017: 3, 3.93, 10-3, Shaw (6th year)
2018: 26, 3.2, 9-5, Shaw (7th year)
2019: 25, 3.25, 9-4, Shaw (8th year)
2020: 21, 3.35, 4-8, Shaw (9th year)
2021: 37, 3.0, 0-0, Shaw (10th year)*
*Am assuming the spring football season--if there is one--won't have started by the early February signing date.
We'll see what happens with the 2021 class. The recruit ratings will be skewed in favor of HS athletes who have a fall season, I'm sure, but since Stanford recruits nationally that could work in our favor if some of our higher 3-star players show marked improvement on the field. In any case, I don't subscribe to the theory that the sky is falling because of the debacle known as the Stanford 2019 football season. I think that the staff is still adjusting to the early singing period and the lack of visitors due to the ongoing public health crisis.
Year: Team Rank, Average Score, Previous years record, Head coach (year completed while recruiting that class)
2002: 26, 3.06, 9-3, Willingham out (7th year completed), Teevens new
2003: 41, 2.77, 2-9, Teevens (1st year)
2004: 35, 2.58, 4-7, Teevens (2nd year)
2005: 29, 2.88, 4-7, Teevens out (3rd year), Harris new
2006: 56, 2.44, 5-6, Harris (1st year)
2007: 49, 2.63, 1-11, Harris out (2nd year), Harbaugh new
2008: 45, 2.71, 4-8, Harbaugh (1st year)
2009: 20, 3.27, 5-7, Harbaugh (2nd year)
2010: 28, 3.14, 8-5, Harbaugh (3rd year)
2011: 17, 3.32, 12-1, Harbaugh out (4th year), Shaw new
2012: 4, 3.73, 11-2, Shaw (1st year)
2013: 17, 3.33, 12-2, Shaw (2nd year)
2014: 14, 3.45, 11-3, Shaw (3rd year)
2015: 20, 3.27, 8-5, Shaw (4th year)
2016: 23, 3.16, 12-2, Shaw (5th year)
2017: 3, 3.93, 10-3, Shaw (6th year)
2018: 26, 3.2, 9-5, Shaw (7th year)
2019: 25, 3.25, 9-4, Shaw (8th year)
2020: 21, 3.35, 4-8, Shaw (9th year)
2021: 37, 3.0, 0-0, Shaw (10th year)*
*Am assuming the spring football season--if there is one--won't have started by the early February signing date.
We'll see what happens with the 2021 class. The recruit ratings will be skewed in favor of HS athletes who have a fall season, I'm sure, but since Stanford recruits nationally that could work in our favor if some of our higher 3-star players show marked improvement on the field. In any case, I don't subscribe to the theory that the sky is falling because of the debacle known as the Stanford 2019 football season. I think that the staff is still adjusting to the early singing period and the lack of visitors due to the ongoing public health crisis.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
On break and SamuelMcF inspired me to look at Stanford's FB team ranking based on average recruit score, all the way back to 2002 (first year for the Rivals database):
Year: Team Rank, Average Score, Previous years record, Head coach (year completed while recruiting that class)
2002: 26, 3.06, 9-3, Willingham out (7th year completed), Teevens new
2003: 41, 2.77, 2-9, Teevens (1st year)
2004: 35, 2.58, 4-7, Teevens (2nd year)
2005: 29, 2.88, 4-7, Teevens out (3rd year), Harris new
2006: 56, 2.44, 5-6, Harris (1st year)
2007: 49, 2.63, 1-11, Harris out (2nd year), Harbaugh new
2008: 45, 2.71, 4-8, Harbaugh (1st year)
2009: 20, 3.27, 5-7, Harbaugh (2nd year)
2010: 28, 3.14, 8-5, Harbaugh (3rd year)
2011: 17, 3.32, 12-1, Harbaugh out (4th year), Shaw new
2012: 4, 3.73, 11-2, Shaw (1st year)
2013: 17, 3.33, 12-2, Shaw (2nd year)
2014: 14, 3.45, 11-3, Shaw (3rd year)
2015: 20, 3.27, 8-5, Shaw (4th year)
2016: 23, 3.16, 12-2, Shaw (5th year)
2017: 3, 3.93, 10-3, Shaw (6th year)
2018: 26, 3.2, 9-5, Shaw (7th year)
2019: 25, 3.25, 9-4, Shaw (8th year)
2020: 21, 3.35, 4-8, Shaw (9th year)
2021: 37, 3.0, 0-0, Shaw (10th year)*
*Am assuming the spring football season--if there is one--won't have started by the early February signing date.
We'll see what happens with the 2021 class. The recruit ratings will be skewed in favor of HS athletes who have a fall season, I'm sure, but since Stanford recruits nationally that could work in our favor if some of our higher 3-star players show marked improvement on the field. In any case, I don't subscribe to the theory that the sky is falling because of the debacle known as the Stanford 2019 football season. I think that the staff is still adjusting to the early singing period and the lack of visitors due to the ongoing public health crisis.
Year: Team Rank, Average Score, Previous years record, Head coach (year completed while recruiting that class)
2002: 26, 3.06, 9-3, Willingham out (7th year completed), Teevens new
2003: 41, 2.77, 2-9, Teevens (1st year)
2004: 35, 2.58, 4-7, Teevens (2nd year)
2005: 29, 2.88, 4-7, Teevens out (3rd year), Harris new
2006: 56, 2.44, 5-6, Harris (1st year)
2007: 49, 2.63, 1-11, Harris out (2nd year), Harbaugh new
2008: 45, 2.71, 4-8, Harbaugh (1st year)
2009: 20, 3.27, 5-7, Harbaugh (2nd year)
2010: 28, 3.14, 8-5, Harbaugh (3rd year)
2011: 17, 3.32, 12-1, Harbaugh out (4th year), Shaw new
2012: 4, 3.73, 11-2, Shaw (1st year)
2013: 17, 3.33, 12-2, Shaw (2nd year)
2014: 14, 3.45, 11-3, Shaw (3rd year)
2015: 20, 3.27, 8-5, Shaw (4th year)
2016: 23, 3.16, 12-2, Shaw (5th year)
2017: 3, 3.93, 10-3, Shaw (6th year)
2018: 26, 3.2, 9-5, Shaw (7th year)
2019: 25, 3.25, 9-4, Shaw (8th year)
2020: 21, 3.35, 4-8, Shaw (9th year)
2021: 37, 3.0, 0-0, Shaw (10th year)*
*Am assuming the spring football season--if there is one--won't have started by the early February signing date.
We'll see what happens with the 2021 class. The recruit ratings will be skewed in favor of HS athletes who have a fall season, I'm sure, but since Stanford recruits nationally that could work in our favor if some of our higher 3-star players show marked improvement on the field. In any case, I don't subscribe to the theory that the sky is falling because of the debacle known as the Stanford 2019 football season. I think that the staff is still adjusting to the early singing period and the lack of visitors due to the ongoing public health crisis.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
08-28-2020, 11:43 AM
(08-28-2020, 08:58 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: If I were a high-profile football player who happens to be really smart but is just as/more serious about the game, I certainly wouldn't "self select" to a team that had just gone 4-8 and finished dead last in its division, had zero players drafted in the top 3 rounds, and just had the largest transfer portal cohort in the P5.
You make it sound like that's a bad thing...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(08-28-2020, 08:58 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: If I were a high-profile football player who happens to be really smart but is just as/more serious about the game, I certainly wouldn't "self select" to a team that had just gone 4-8 and finished dead last in its division, had zero players drafted in the top 3 rounds, and just had the largest transfer portal cohort in the P5.
You make it sound like that's a bad thing...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(08-28-2020, 11:42 AM)Papa John Wrote: On break and SamuelMcF inspired me to look at Stanford's FB team ranking based on average recruit score, all the way back to 2002 (first year for the Rivals database):
Year: Team Rank, Average Score, Previous years record, Head coach (year completed while recruiting that class)
2002: 26, 3.06, 9-3, Willingham out (7th year completed), Teevens new
2003: 41, 2.77, 2-9, Teevens (1st year)
2004: 35, 2.58, 4-7, Teevens (2nd year)
2005: 29, 2.88, 4-7, Teevens out (3rd year), Harris new
2006: 56, 2.44, 5-6, Harris (1st year)
2007: 49, 2.63, 1-11, Harris out (2nd year), Harbaugh new
2008: 45, 2.71, 4-8, Harbaugh (1st year)
2009: 20, 3.27, 5-7, Harbaugh (2nd year)
2010: 28, 3.14, 8-5, Harbaugh (3rd year)
2011: 17, 3.32, 12-1, Harbaugh out (4th year), Shaw new
2012: 4, 3.73, 11-2, Shaw (1st year)
2013: 17, 3.33, 12-2, Shaw (2nd year)
2014: 14, 3.45, 11-3, Shaw (3rd year)
2015: 20, 3.27, 8-5, Shaw (4th year)
2016: 23, 3.16, 12-2, Shaw (5th year)
2017: 3, 3.93, 10-3, Shaw (6th year)
2018: 26, 3.2, 9-5, Shaw (7th year)
2019: 25, 3.25, 9-4, Shaw (8th year)
2020: 21, 3.35, 4-8, Shaw (9th year)
2021: 37, 3.0, 0-0, Shaw (10th year)*
*Am assuming the spring football season--if there is one--won't have started by the early February signing date.
We'll see what happens with the 2021 class. The recruit ratings will be skewed in favor of HS athletes who have a fall season, I'm sure, but since Stanford recruits nationally that could work in our favor if some of our higher 3-star players show marked improvement on the field. In any case, I don't subscribe to the theory that the sky is falling because of the debacle known as the Stanford 2019 football season. I think that the staff is still adjusting to the early singing period and the lack of visitors due to the ongoing public health crisis.
First, thanks for putting together the numbers. Very interesting.
Let's see . . .
Harbaugh went 8-5 with recruiting classes that ranked, on average per recruit, about 43rd (for the previous 5 years).
Shaw went 9-4 with recruiting classes that ranked, on average per recruit, about 15th (for the previous 5 years).
Shaw went 9-5 with recruiting classes that ranked, on average per recruit, about 16th (for the previous 5 years). And most recently,
Shaw went 4-8 with recruiting classes that ranked, on average per recruit, about 17th (for the previous 5 years).
Now, if you consider that the next time Stanford plays football will be the fall of 2022, then Shaw will have recruiting classes that ranked, on average per recruit, about 22nd (for the previous 5 years) - i.e., worse than the talent level that he coached to 4-8* - that gets a bit scary. Only the talent will actually be significantly worse than the rankings indicate because Adebo, Little (and I believe Mills), at least, will be gonzo. And those guys were the highest-ranked players in that 2017 class, IIRC.
So yeah, I think there are very strong reasons to be concerned about on-field results (and that doesn't even address other program issues that plague Stanford - namely, all the empties that show up as fans on game day).
The numbers you compile also support what my eyes tell me: that Shaw can only win with superior players. Stanford does not have an in-game sideline advantage . . . against anyone, as far as I can tell.
* In fairness, injuries were brutal last season, but still . . .
(08-28-2020, 11:42 AM)Papa John Wrote: On break and SamuelMcF inspired me to look at Stanford's FB team ranking based on average recruit score, all the way back to 2002 (first year for the Rivals database):
Year: Team Rank, Average Score, Previous years record, Head coach (year completed while recruiting that class)
2002: 26, 3.06, 9-3, Willingham out (7th year completed), Teevens new
2003: 41, 2.77, 2-9, Teevens (1st year)
2004: 35, 2.58, 4-7, Teevens (2nd year)
2005: 29, 2.88, 4-7, Teevens out (3rd year), Harris new
2006: 56, 2.44, 5-6, Harris (1st year)
2007: 49, 2.63, 1-11, Harris out (2nd year), Harbaugh new
2008: 45, 2.71, 4-8, Harbaugh (1st year)
2009: 20, 3.27, 5-7, Harbaugh (2nd year)
2010: 28, 3.14, 8-5, Harbaugh (3rd year)
2011: 17, 3.32, 12-1, Harbaugh out (4th year), Shaw new
2012: 4, 3.73, 11-2, Shaw (1st year)
2013: 17, 3.33, 12-2, Shaw (2nd year)
2014: 14, 3.45, 11-3, Shaw (3rd year)
2015: 20, 3.27, 8-5, Shaw (4th year)
2016: 23, 3.16, 12-2, Shaw (5th year)
2017: 3, 3.93, 10-3, Shaw (6th year)
2018: 26, 3.2, 9-5, Shaw (7th year)
2019: 25, 3.25, 9-4, Shaw (8th year)
2020: 21, 3.35, 4-8, Shaw (9th year)
2021: 37, 3.0, 0-0, Shaw (10th year)*
*Am assuming the spring football season--if there is one--won't have started by the early February signing date.
We'll see what happens with the 2021 class. The recruit ratings will be skewed in favor of HS athletes who have a fall season, I'm sure, but since Stanford recruits nationally that could work in our favor if some of our higher 3-star players show marked improvement on the field. In any case, I don't subscribe to the theory that the sky is falling because of the debacle known as the Stanford 2019 football season. I think that the staff is still adjusting to the early singing period and the lack of visitors due to the ongoing public health crisis.
First, thanks for putting together the numbers. Very interesting.
Let's see . . .
Harbaugh went 8-5 with recruiting classes that ranked, on average per recruit, about 43rd (for the previous 5 years).
Shaw went 9-4 with recruiting classes that ranked, on average per recruit, about 15th (for the previous 5 years).
Shaw went 9-5 with recruiting classes that ranked, on average per recruit, about 16th (for the previous 5 years). And most recently,
Shaw went 4-8 with recruiting classes that ranked, on average per recruit, about 17th (for the previous 5 years).
Now, if you consider that the next time Stanford plays football will be the fall of 2022, then Shaw will have recruiting classes that ranked, on average per recruit, about 22nd (for the previous 5 years) - i.e., worse than the talent level that he coached to 4-8* - that gets a bit scary. Only the talent will actually be significantly worse than the rankings indicate because Adebo, Little (and I believe Mills), at least, will be gonzo. And those guys were the highest-ranked players in that 2017 class, IIRC.
So yeah, I think there are very strong reasons to be concerned about on-field results (and that doesn't even address other program issues that plague Stanford - namely, all the empties that show up as fans on game day).
The numbers you compile also support what my eyes tell me: that Shaw can only win with superior players. Stanford does not have an in-game sideline advantage . . . against anyone, as far as I can tell.
* In fairness, injuries were brutal last season, but still . . .
08-28-2020, 01:51 PM
teejers1, we agree more than we disagree. Harbaugh's resurrection of Stanford football--of which David Shaw was an important part--was, by any measure, a testament to what a great coach he was for us. I wish he had stayed at Stanford, but he's been gone for over 9 years.
As for Shaw, going 9-5 or 9-4 with top 15 or 16 talent is OK with me. But that wasn't top 15 talent on the field in 2019. We lost our starting QB and left tackle in the first game, and it went downhill from there.
At the end of August, the 2021 recruiting class is shaping up to be the worst of the Shaw era, but not nearly the worst in the past 20 years. Let's see where things end up and--more importantly--see how Shaw's new approach works out for the 2022 class.
Over the past 50 years, I would place David Shaw above Christianen, Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham, Teevens and Harris. I can't place Shaw above Walsh because, well, I can't. Only Ralston and Harbaugh--who both led Stanford's rise from the ashes, Ralston a slow rise, Harbaugh meteoric--would rank convincingly above Shaw, IMO.
As for Shaw, going 9-5 or 9-4 with top 15 or 16 talent is OK with me. But that wasn't top 15 talent on the field in 2019. We lost our starting QB and left tackle in the first game, and it went downhill from there.
At the end of August, the 2021 recruiting class is shaping up to be the worst of the Shaw era, but not nearly the worst in the past 20 years. Let's see where things end up and--more importantly--see how Shaw's new approach works out for the 2022 class.
Over the past 50 years, I would place David Shaw above Christianen, Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham, Teevens and Harris. I can't place Shaw above Walsh because, well, I can't. Only Ralston and Harbaugh--who both led Stanford's rise from the ashes, Ralston a slow rise, Harbaugh meteoric--would rank convincingly above Shaw, IMO.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
teejers1, we agree more than we disagree. Harbaugh's resurrection of Stanford football--of which David Shaw was an important part--was, by any measure, a testament to what a great coach he was for us. I wish he had stayed at Stanford, but he's been gone for over 9 years.
As for Shaw, going 9-5 or 9-4 with top 15 or 16 talent is OK with me. But that wasn't top 15 talent on the field in 2019. We lost our starting QB and left tackle in the first game, and it went downhill from there.
At the end of August, the 2021 recruiting class is shaping up to be the worst of the Shaw era, but not nearly the worst in the past 20 years. Let's see where things end up and--more importantly--see how Shaw's new approach works out for the 2022 class.
Over the past 50 years, I would place David Shaw above Christianen, Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham, Teevens and Harris. I can't place Shaw above Walsh because, well, I can't. Only Ralston and Harbaugh--who both led Stanford's rise from the ashes, Ralston a slow rise, Harbaugh meteoric--would rank convincingly above Shaw, IMO.
As for Shaw, going 9-5 or 9-4 with top 15 or 16 talent is OK with me. But that wasn't top 15 talent on the field in 2019. We lost our starting QB and left tackle in the first game, and it went downhill from there.
At the end of August, the 2021 recruiting class is shaping up to be the worst of the Shaw era, but not nearly the worst in the past 20 years. Let's see where things end up and--more importantly--see how Shaw's new approach works out for the 2022 class.
Over the past 50 years, I would place David Shaw above Christianen, Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham, Teevens and Harris. I can't place Shaw above Walsh because, well, I can't. Only Ralston and Harbaugh--who both led Stanford's rise from the ashes, Ralston a slow rise, Harbaugh meteoric--would rank convincingly above Shaw, IMO.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
08-28-2020, 03:55 PM
(08-28-2020, 01:51 PM)Papa John Wrote: teejers1, we agree more than we disagree. Harbaugh's resurrection of Stanford football--of which David Shaw was an important part--was, by any measure, a testament to what a great coach he was for us. I wish he had stayed at Stanford, but he's been gone for over 9 years.
As for Shaw, going 9-5 or 9-4 with top 15 or 16 talent is OK with me. But that wasn't top 15 talent on the field in 2019. We lost our starting QB and left tackle in the first game, and it went downhill from there.
At the end of August, the 2021 recruiting class is shaping up to be the worst of the Shaw era, but not nearly the worst in the past 20 years. Let's see where things end up and--more importantly--see how Shaw's new approach works out for the 2022 class.
Over the past 50 years, I would place David Shaw above Christianen, Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham, Teevens and Harris. I can't place Shaw above Walsh because, well, I can't. Only Ralston and Harbaugh--who both led Stanford's rise from the ashes, Ralston a slow rise, Harbaugh meteoric--would rank convincingly above Shaw, IMO.
I disagree with that "acceptance," even while acknowledging that 9-4 or 9-5 is good by Stanford standards. If you get Top 15 talent (per recruit), I'd like to think that group can be "coached up" to 10 wins and some Big Bowls.
But it may all be moot anyway, as Stanford is losing kids to schools that we used to mop the floor with on the recruiting trail, including Cal. (I think that's directly related to the luster coming off the program and the increasing belief among the college football world that a significant chunk of Shaw's success at Stanford is attributable to being handed the keys to a Ferrari.). Whatever the cause, the "average" recruiting class that Stanford can realistically aspire to over a 5 year period now may begin with a "2." And I don't think Shaw can get to 8 (let alone 9) Ws with that talent level.
P.S. I agree that Harbaugh was a blessing for the Stanford football program, but I was fine seeing him move on - talk about high maintenance! Plus, his values did not necessarily align with the university's (just my suspicion), and it was ultimately not going to end well. So probably best that he moved on when he did.
P.P.S. I'd put Denny (n/w/s personal foibles) over Shaw on a football coaching ladder . . . and maybe Willingham, too. The latter was a great leader of young men who was not afraid to delegate (which is one of Shaw's greatest failings - and particularly his unwillingness to delegate on O). Shaw definitely better than the others on your list. Ralston is a tough one. Yes, he led Stanford to back-to-back Rose Bowls (and maybe had the best team prior to the first RB); however, he benefited from the ability to recruit JCs . . . something that has been long gone. Still, given what Ralston built over the years, he is likely ahead of Shaw.
(08-28-2020, 01:51 PM)Papa John Wrote: teejers1, we agree more than we disagree. Harbaugh's resurrection of Stanford football--of which David Shaw was an important part--was, by any measure, a testament to what a great coach he was for us. I wish he had stayed at Stanford, but he's been gone for over 9 years.
As for Shaw, going 9-5 or 9-4 with top 15 or 16 talent is OK with me. But that wasn't top 15 talent on the field in 2019. We lost our starting QB and left tackle in the first game, and it went downhill from there.
At the end of August, the 2021 recruiting class is shaping up to be the worst of the Shaw era, but not nearly the worst in the past 20 years. Let's see where things end up and--more importantly--see how Shaw's new approach works out for the 2022 class.
Over the past 50 years, I would place David Shaw above Christianen, Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham, Teevens and Harris. I can't place Shaw above Walsh because, well, I can't. Only Ralston and Harbaugh--who both led Stanford's rise from the ashes, Ralston a slow rise, Harbaugh meteoric--would rank convincingly above Shaw, IMO.
I disagree with that "acceptance," even while acknowledging that 9-4 or 9-5 is good by Stanford standards. If you get Top 15 talent (per recruit), I'd like to think that group can be "coached up" to 10 wins and some Big Bowls.
But it may all be moot anyway, as Stanford is losing kids to schools that we used to mop the floor with on the recruiting trail, including Cal. (I think that's directly related to the luster coming off the program and the increasing belief among the college football world that a significant chunk of Shaw's success at Stanford is attributable to being handed the keys to a Ferrari.). Whatever the cause, the "average" recruiting class that Stanford can realistically aspire to over a 5 year period now may begin with a "2." And I don't think Shaw can get to 8 (let alone 9) Ws with that talent level.
P.S. I agree that Harbaugh was a blessing for the Stanford football program, but I was fine seeing him move on - talk about high maintenance! Plus, his values did not necessarily align with the university's (just my suspicion), and it was ultimately not going to end well. So probably best that he moved on when he did.
P.P.S. I'd put Denny (n/w/s personal foibles) over Shaw on a football coaching ladder . . . and maybe Willingham, too. The latter was a great leader of young men who was not afraid to delegate (which is one of Shaw's greatest failings - and particularly his unwillingness to delegate on O). Shaw definitely better than the others on your list. Ralston is a tough one. Yes, he led Stanford to back-to-back Rose Bowls (and maybe had the best team prior to the first RB); however, he benefited from the ability to recruit JCs . . . something that has been long gone. Still, given what Ralston built over the years, he is likely ahead of Shaw.
08-28-2020, 08:43 PM
Over the last five years, I think we will see that the two biggest issues that Shaw has had to deal with (and arguable did not adequately address) are the departures of Turley and the head athletic trainer. Probably the latter more so than Turley since some on this board have been high on Turley's protege as a replacement, but all those injuries and the departure of the head athletic trainer being replaced with someone reportedly inexperienced? Gee, I wonder about all those injuries lately.
A close third is going to be his inability to get more player development out of his assistant (position) coaches, particularly the QB position. That 2017 class sure didn't stop Stanford from having terrible seasons recently.
A close third is going to be his inability to get more player development out of his assistant (position) coaches, particularly the QB position. That 2017 class sure didn't stop Stanford from having terrible seasons recently.
Over the last five years, I think we will see that the two biggest issues that Shaw has had to deal with (and arguable did not adequately address) are the departures of Turley and the head athletic trainer. Probably the latter more so than Turley since some on this board have been high on Turley's protege as a replacement, but all those injuries and the departure of the head athletic trainer being replaced with someone reportedly inexperienced? Gee, I wonder about all those injuries lately.
A close third is going to be his inability to get more player development out of his assistant (position) coaches, particularly the QB position. That 2017 class sure didn't stop Stanford from having terrible seasons recently.
A close third is going to be his inability to get more player development out of his assistant (position) coaches, particularly the QB position. That 2017 class sure didn't stop Stanford from having terrible seasons recently.
08-28-2020, 09:25 PM
Last year, there was a new head football athletic trainer and a new director of athletic trainer. Both seem to have a lot of football experience including head football AT at App State, University of Florida, Texas Tech and UT-Austin.
http://www.stanfordsportsmedicine.com/at...than-peck/
http://www.stanfordsportsmedicine.com/at...hony-pass/
http://www.stanfordsportsmedicine.com/at...than-peck/
http://www.stanfordsportsmedicine.com/at...hony-pass/
Last year, there was a new head football athletic trainer and a new director of athletic trainer. Both seem to have a lot of football experience including head football AT at App State, University of Florida, Texas Tech and UT-Austin.
http://www.stanfordsportsmedicine.com/at...than-peck/
http://www.stanfordsportsmedicine.com/at...hony-pass/
http://www.stanfordsportsmedicine.com/at...than-peck/
http://www.stanfordsportsmedicine.com/at...hony-pass/
08-28-2020, 10:45 PM
I question the audacity of the offense. Last drive vs Cal... third and one they run. Fourth and one they run. They lose. Every year a bunch of delays of game and blown timeouts. Time to simplify the O.
(08-28-2020, 10:45 PM)Phogge Wrote: I question the audacity of the offense. Last drive vs Cal... third and one they run. Fourth and one they run. They lose. Every year a bunch of delays of game and blown timeouts. Time to simplify the O.
"Time to simplify the O" ? More like time for David Shaw to be subjected to an intervention. I vote for the latter.
Facts are facts: circumstances have changed in the past decade, he has not. Pay attention to what he does (or doesn't do, e.g., delegate, hire, grow, recruit with competitive aggression, etc.) NOT what he says (which is always the same blather after every loss). Everyone points to the plague of injuries of 2019. I say those injuries are another Shaw failure, this one in S&C, as much as bad luck. With thinner ranks, the effect of in-game instincts and game management were predictably magnified. We saw what happened. Next year promises more of the same to an uglier degree. Unfortunately, there will be no "intervention". Neither will there be anymore big-time bowls. Just the stoic Shaw on the sidelines, his hapless underlings in the press box, and his many apologists who glorify his fading legacy. Get used to it. It will require regime change. Which ain't gonna happen either. BTW, I say if Denny Green had stayed for the long haul, we would have seen our share Rose Bowls and more.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(08-28-2020, 10:45 PM)Phogge Wrote: I question the audacity of the offense. Last drive vs Cal... third and one they run. Fourth and one they run. They lose. Every year a bunch of delays of game and blown timeouts. Time to simplify the O.
"Time to simplify the O" ? More like time for David Shaw to be subjected to an intervention. I vote for the latter.
Facts are facts: circumstances have changed in the past decade, he has not. Pay attention to what he does (or doesn't do, e.g., delegate, hire, grow, recruit with competitive aggression, etc.) NOT what he says (which is always the same blather after every loss). Everyone points to the plague of injuries of 2019. I say those injuries are another Shaw failure, this one in S&C, as much as bad luck. With thinner ranks, the effect of in-game instincts and game management were predictably magnified. We saw what happened. Next year promises more of the same to an uglier degree. Unfortunately, there will be no "intervention". Neither will there be anymore big-time bowls. Just the stoic Shaw on the sidelines, his hapless underlings in the press box, and his many apologists who glorify his fading legacy. Get used to it. It will require regime change. Which ain't gonna happen either. BTW, I say if Denny Green had stayed for the long haul, we would have seen our share Rose Bowls and more.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
08-29-2020, 08:21 AM
(08-28-2020, 03:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I agree that Harbaugh was a blessing for the Stanford football program, but I was fine seeing him move on - talk about high maintenance! Plus, his values did not necessarily align with the university's (just my suspicion), and it was ultimately not going to end well. So probably best that he moved on when he did.
I've had a few ex-employees like that. I used to think high-output, high-maintenance people were admirable, employable, useful. My CEO ran across one of my former employees from a prior firm the other day and asked if I would be interested in hiring her for my current firm. My response "Yes, I know her very well. I would avoid her at all costs. Happy to explain further if necessary." It wasn't necessary.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(08-28-2020, 03:55 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I agree that Harbaugh was a blessing for the Stanford football program, but I was fine seeing him move on - talk about high maintenance! Plus, his values did not necessarily align with the university's (just my suspicion), and it was ultimately not going to end well. So probably best that he moved on when he did.
I've had a few ex-employees like that. I used to think high-output, high-maintenance people were admirable, employable, useful. My CEO ran across one of my former employees from a prior firm the other day and asked if I would be interested in hiring her for my current firm. My response "Yes, I know her very well. I would avoid her at all costs. Happy to explain further if necessary." It wasn't necessary.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
08-29-2020, 10:38 AM
(08-29-2020, 08:21 AM)gailtate Wrote:(08-28-2020, 10:45 PM)Phogge Wrote: I question the audacity of the offense. Last drive vs Cal... third and one they run. Fourth and one they run. They lose. Every year a bunch of delays of game and blown timeouts. Time to simplify the O.
"Time to simplify the O" ? More like time for David Shaw to be subjected to an intervention. I vote for the latter.
Facts are facts: circumstances have changed in the past decade, he has not. Pay attention to what he does (or doesn't do, e.g., delegate, hire, grow, recruit with competitive aggression, etc.) NOT what he says (which is always the same blather after every loss). Everyone points to the plague of injuries of 2019. I say those injuries are another Shaw failure, this one in S&C, as much as bad luck. With thinner ranks, the effect of in-game instincts and game management were predictably magnified. We saw what happened. Next year promises more of the same to an uglier degree. Unfortunately, there will be no "intervention". Neither will there be anymore big-time bowls. Just the stoic Shaw on the sidelines, his hapless underlings in the press box, and his many apologists who glorify his fading legacy. Get used to it. It will require regime change. Which ain't gonna happen either. BTW, I say if Denny Green had stayed for the long haul, we would have seen our share Rose Bowls and more.
Unfortunately, I have to agree 100%. Things are likely only to get worse from here on out. I've predicted for a few years that, down the road, Jerod Haase will be remembered as a better coach than David Shaw. It's still early, but I'll stand by that prediction.
(08-29-2020, 08:21 AM)gailtate Wrote:(08-28-2020, 10:45 PM)Phogge Wrote: I question the audacity of the offense. Last drive vs Cal... third and one they run. Fourth and one they run. They lose. Every year a bunch of delays of game and blown timeouts. Time to simplify the O.
"Time to simplify the O" ? More like time for David Shaw to be subjected to an intervention. I vote for the latter.
Facts are facts: circumstances have changed in the past decade, he has not. Pay attention to what he does (or doesn't do, e.g., delegate, hire, grow, recruit with competitive aggression, etc.) NOT what he says (which is always the same blather after every loss). Everyone points to the plague of injuries of 2019. I say those injuries are another Shaw failure, this one in S&C, as much as bad luck. With thinner ranks, the effect of in-game instincts and game management were predictably magnified. We saw what happened. Next year promises more of the same to an uglier degree. Unfortunately, there will be no "intervention". Neither will there be anymore big-time bowls. Just the stoic Shaw on the sidelines, his hapless underlings in the press box, and his many apologists who glorify his fading legacy. Get used to it. It will require regime change. Which ain't gonna happen either. BTW, I say if Denny Green had stayed for the long haul, we would have seen our share Rose Bowls and more.
Unfortunately, I have to agree 100%. Things are likely only to get worse from here on out. I've predicted for a few years that, down the road, Jerod Haase will be remembered as a better coach than David Shaw. It's still early, but I'll stand by that prediction.
08-29-2020, 12:52 PM
(08-28-2020, 08:43 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Over the last five years, I think we will see that the two biggest issues that Shaw has had to deal with (and arguable did not adequately address) are the departures of Turley and the head athletic trainer. Probably the latter more so than Turley since some on this board have been high on Turley's protege as a replacement, but all those injuries and the departure of the head athletic trainer being replaced with someone reportedly inexperienced? Gee, I wonder about all those injuries lately.
A close third is going to be his inability to get more player development out of his assistant (position) coaches, particularly the QB position. That 2017 class sure didn't stop Stanford from having terrible seasons recently.
You say terrible seasons. Other than 2019, which ones are you referring to?
(08-28-2020, 08:43 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Over the last five years, I think we will see that the two biggest issues that Shaw has had to deal with (and arguable did not adequately address) are the departures of Turley and the head athletic trainer. Probably the latter more so than Turley since some on this board have been high on Turley's protege as a replacement, but all those injuries and the departure of the head athletic trainer being replaced with someone reportedly inexperienced? Gee, I wonder about all those injuries lately.
A close third is going to be his inability to get more player development out of his assistant (position) coaches, particularly the QB position. That 2017 class sure didn't stop Stanford from having terrible seasons recently.
You say terrible seasons. Other than 2019, which ones are you referring to?
08-29-2020, 01:54 PM
I think every Stanford fan should be more concerned about the other side of the ball. The Stanford defense has been on a steady decline and has dropped from average to below average over the past 5 years. Last season the defense looked completely overmatched against multiple opponents (USC, UCF, WSU, Notre Dame) and failed to hold a 4th quarter lead against others (Colorado, Cal). There is little reason to expect much more than mediocrity either going forward. Stanford signed only one 4* defender for the class of 2020 but it was Ayden Hector who will never play for the Cardinal. There are no commits for 2021 from the front 7 at all yet. Even in 2022, I count 24 offers on offense, 10 on defense. Of those 10, none are defensive linemen.
Defensive yards per play (rank)
2012 - 4.7 (15th)
2013 - 4.9 (18th)
2014 - 4.2 (2nd)
2015 - 5.6 (70th)
2016 - 5.4 (48th)
2017 - 6.0 (93rd)
2018 - 5.7 (71st)
2019 - 6.3 (109th)
One notable change during this time - Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season.
Defensive yards per play (rank)
2012 - 4.7 (15th)
2013 - 4.9 (18th)
2014 - 4.2 (2nd)
2015 - 5.6 (70th)
2016 - 5.4 (48th)
2017 - 6.0 (93rd)
2018 - 5.7 (71st)
2019 - 6.3 (109th)
One notable change during this time - Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
I think every Stanford fan should be more concerned about the other side of the ball. The Stanford defense has been on a steady decline and has dropped from average to below average over the past 5 years. Last season the defense looked completely overmatched against multiple opponents (USC, UCF, WSU, Notre Dame) and failed to hold a 4th quarter lead against others (Colorado, Cal). There is little reason to expect much more than mediocrity either going forward. Stanford signed only one 4* defender for the class of 2020 but it was Ayden Hector who will never play for the Cardinal. There are no commits for 2021 from the front 7 at all yet. Even in 2022, I count 24 offers on offense, 10 on defense. Of those 10, none are defensive linemen.
Defensive yards per play (rank)
2012 - 4.7 (15th)
2013 - 4.9 (18th)
2014 - 4.2 (2nd)
2015 - 5.6 (70th)
2016 - 5.4 (48th)
2017 - 6.0 (93rd)
2018 - 5.7 (71st)
2019 - 6.3 (109th)
One notable change during this time - Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season.
Defensive yards per play (rank)
2012 - 4.7 (15th)
2013 - 4.9 (18th)
2014 - 4.2 (2nd)
2015 - 5.6 (70th)
2016 - 5.4 (48th)
2017 - 6.0 (93rd)
2018 - 5.7 (71st)
2019 - 6.3 (109th)
One notable change during this time - Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(08-29-2020, 01:54 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I think every Stanford fan should be more concerned about the other side of the ball. The Stanford defense has been on a steady decline and has dropped from average to below average over the past 5 years. Last season the defense looked completely overmatched against multiple opponents (USC, UCF, WSU, Notre Dame) and failed to hold a 4th quarter lead against others (Colorado, Cal). There is little reason to expect much more than mediocrity either going forward. Stanford signed only one 4* defender for the class of 2020 but it was Ayden Hector who will never play for the Cardinal. There are no commits for 2021 from the front 7 at all yet. Even in 2022, I count 24 offers on offense, 10 on defense. Of those 10, none are defensive linemen.
Defensive yards per play (rank)
2012 - 4.7 (15th)
2013 - 4.9 (18th)
2014 - 4.2 (2nd)
2015 - 5.6 (70th)
2016 - 5.4 (48th)
2017 - 6.0 (93rd)
2018 - 5.7 (71st)
2019 - 6.3 (109th)
One notable change during this time - Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season.
+1000. People are continually banging the wrong drum here. The defense has fallen off a cliff WAY worse. It was sub-100th in the country in almost every meaningful category this past season. You want under-performance to talent level? Try a bunch of mid-to-high 3*s (on average) performing like a bottom-of-the-barrel G5 defense.
Quick note on 2022: there are 40 offers. 247, where I assume you're getting these numbers from, is missing a few. The ratio is still skewed as you mention, but the exact numbers are 27 O, 13 D. Offers for D are 2 DL, 6 LBs, and 5 DBs. We technically have a 4* LB commit in baseball commit Robby Snelling who also has a FB offer. And S Scotty Edwards returns from his LDS mission in this class.
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2020, 02:14 PM by SamuelMcF.)
(08-29-2020, 01:54 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I think every Stanford fan should be more concerned about the other side of the ball. The Stanford defense has been on a steady decline and has dropped from average to below average over the past 5 years. Last season the defense looked completely overmatched against multiple opponents (USC, UCF, WSU, Notre Dame) and failed to hold a 4th quarter lead against others (Colorado, Cal). There is little reason to expect much more than mediocrity either going forward. Stanford signed only one 4* defender for the class of 2020 but it was Ayden Hector who will never play for the Cardinal. There are no commits for 2021 from the front 7 at all yet. Even in 2022, I count 24 offers on offense, 10 on defense. Of those 10, none are defensive linemen.
Defensive yards per play (rank)
2012 - 4.7 (15th)
2013 - 4.9 (18th)
2014 - 4.2 (2nd)
2015 - 5.6 (70th)
2016 - 5.4 (48th)
2017 - 6.0 (93rd)
2018 - 5.7 (71st)
2019 - 6.3 (109th)
One notable change during this time - Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season.
+1000. People are continually banging the wrong drum here. The defense has fallen off a cliff WAY worse. It was sub-100th in the country in almost every meaningful category this past season. You want under-performance to talent level? Try a bunch of mid-to-high 3*s (on average) performing like a bottom-of-the-barrel G5 defense.
Quick note on 2022: there are 40 offers. 247, where I assume you're getting these numbers from, is missing a few. The ratio is still skewed as you mention, but the exact numbers are 27 O, 13 D. Offers for D are 2 DL, 6 LBs, and 5 DBs. We technically have a 4* LB commit in baseball commit Robby Snelling who also has a FB offer. And S Scotty Edwards returns from his LDS mission in this class.
08-29-2020, 03:50 PM
(08-29-2020, 02:11 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: The defense has fallen off a cliff WAY worse. It was sub-100th in the country in almost every meaningful category this past season. You want under-performance to talent level? Try a bunch of mid-to-high 3*s (on average) performing like a bottom-of-the-barrel G5 defense.
Quick note on 2022: there are 40 offers. 247, where I assume you're getting these numbers from, is missing a few. The ratio is still skewed as you mention, but the exact numbers are 27 O, 13 D. Offers for D are 2 DL, 6 LBs, and 5 DBs. We technically have a 4* LB commit in baseball commit Robby Snelling who also has a FB offer. And S Scotty Edwards returns from his LDS mission in this class.
The defense has fallen off a cliff and yet there seems to be no urgency in the football office to address the situation. Most of Coach Shaw's public comments are always about the offense, defending the criticism he gets about offensive creativity, play calling, adapting to the talent, etc. I cannot recall him responding to critiques about the defense. And of course, he has never made a defensive coaching change that was not forced on him by a coach leaving the program through retirement or going somewhere else. I certainly don't know what happens in the offices and private meetings. But to an outside observer (me), this seems like an attitude of complacency. Kind of the same attitude you see among the fans.
Thanks for the additional info about 2022 offers. Yes, I was getting my numbers from 247sports. Glad to see the attention on LBs. Desperately needed.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(08-29-2020, 02:11 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: The defense has fallen off a cliff WAY worse. It was sub-100th in the country in almost every meaningful category this past season. You want under-performance to talent level? Try a bunch of mid-to-high 3*s (on average) performing like a bottom-of-the-barrel G5 defense.
Quick note on 2022: there are 40 offers. 247, where I assume you're getting these numbers from, is missing a few. The ratio is still skewed as you mention, but the exact numbers are 27 O, 13 D. Offers for D are 2 DL, 6 LBs, and 5 DBs. We technically have a 4* LB commit in baseball commit Robby Snelling who also has a FB offer. And S Scotty Edwards returns from his LDS mission in this class.
The defense has fallen off a cliff and yet there seems to be no urgency in the football office to address the situation. Most of Coach Shaw's public comments are always about the offense, defending the criticism he gets about offensive creativity, play calling, adapting to the talent, etc. I cannot recall him responding to critiques about the defense. And of course, he has never made a defensive coaching change that was not forced on him by a coach leaving the program through retirement or going somewhere else. I certainly don't know what happens in the offices and private meetings. But to an outside observer (me), this seems like an attitude of complacency. Kind of the same attitude you see among the fans.
Thanks for the additional info about 2022 offers. Yes, I was getting my numbers from 247sports. Glad to see the attention on LBs. Desperately needed.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
08-29-2020, 04:11 PM
(08-29-2020, 01:54 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I think every Stanford fan should be more concerned about the other side of the ball. The Stanford defense has been on a steady decline and has dropped from average to below average over the past 5 years. Last season the defense looked completely overmatched against multiple opponents (USC, UCF, WSU, Notre Dame) and failed to hold a 4th quarter lead against others (Colorado, Cal). There is little reason to expect much more than mediocrity either going forward. Stanford signed only one 4* defender for the class of 2020 but it was Ayden Hector who will never play for the Cardinal. There are no commits for 2021 from the front 7 at all yet. Even in 2022, I count 24 offers on offense, 10 on defense. Of those 10, none are defensive linemen.
Defensive yards per play (rank)
2012 - 4.7 (15th)
2013 - 4.9 (18th)
2014 - 4.2 (2nd)
2015 - 5.6 (70th)
2016 - 5.4 (48th)
2017 - 6.0 (93rd)
2018 - 5.7 (71st)
2019 - 6.3 (109th)
One notable change during this time - Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season.
Completely agreed. With a competent defense we could have been a bowl team last year, but all anyone ever wants to complain about is the offense (which was not good, at 5.59 yards per play, but wasn't 109th in the nation).
BC
(08-29-2020, 01:54 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I think every Stanford fan should be more concerned about the other side of the ball. The Stanford defense has been on a steady decline and has dropped from average to below average over the past 5 years. Last season the defense looked completely overmatched against multiple opponents (USC, UCF, WSU, Notre Dame) and failed to hold a 4th quarter lead against others (Colorado, Cal). There is little reason to expect much more than mediocrity either going forward. Stanford signed only one 4* defender for the class of 2020 but it was Ayden Hector who will never play for the Cardinal. There are no commits for 2021 from the front 7 at all yet. Even in 2022, I count 24 offers on offense, 10 on defense. Of those 10, none are defensive linemen.
Defensive yards per play (rank)
2012 - 4.7 (15th)
2013 - 4.9 (18th)
2014 - 4.2 (2nd)
2015 - 5.6 (70th)
2016 - 5.4 (48th)
2017 - 6.0 (93rd)
2018 - 5.7 (71st)
2019 - 6.3 (109th)
One notable change during this time - Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season.
Completely agreed. With a competent defense we could have been a bowl team last year, but all anyone ever wants to complain about is the offense (which was not good, at 5.59 yards per play, but wasn't 109th in the nation).
BC
08-29-2020, 07:21 PM
(08-29-2020, 04:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(08-29-2020, 01:54 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I think every Stanford fan should be more concerned about the other side of the ball. The Stanford defense has been on a steady decline and has dropped from average to below average over the past 5 years. Last season the defense looked completely overmatched against multiple opponents (USC, UCF, WSU, Notre Dame) and failed to hold a 4th quarter lead against others (Colorado, Cal). There is little reason to expect much more than mediocrity either going forward. Stanford signed only one 4* defender for the class of 2020 but it was Ayden Hector who will never play for the Cardinal. There are no commits for 2021 from the front 7 at all yet. Even in 2022, I count 24 offers on offense, 10 on defense. Of those 10, none are defensive linemen.
Defensive yards per play (rank)
2012 - 4.7 (15th)
2013 - 4.9 (18th)
2014 - 4.2 (2nd)
2015 - 5.6 (70th)
2016 - 5.4 (48th)
2017 - 6.0 (93rd)
2018 - 5.7 (71st)
2019 - 6.3 (109th)
One notable change during this time - Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season.
Completely agreed. With a competent defense we could have been a bowl team last year, but all anyone ever wants to complain about is the offense (which was not good, at 5.59 yards per play, but wasn't 109th in the nation).
BC
And whose fault is it that the D has "fallen off?"
When your HC is so vested in the O side of the ball, it's no surprise that he focuses on that and the other side suffers. It shouldn't be that way, but it's completely understandable (especially if you don't have the security/confidence to hire an egocentric, kick-ass-and-take-names DC like Fangio. But as we've all learned, ambiance - in the locker room and in the coaches' room - is paramount).
(08-29-2020, 04:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(08-29-2020, 01:54 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I think every Stanford fan should be more concerned about the other side of the ball. The Stanford defense has been on a steady decline and has dropped from average to below average over the past 5 years. Last season the defense looked completely overmatched against multiple opponents (USC, UCF, WSU, Notre Dame) and failed to hold a 4th quarter lead against others (Colorado, Cal). There is little reason to expect much more than mediocrity either going forward. Stanford signed only one 4* defender for the class of 2020 but it was Ayden Hector who will never play for the Cardinal. There are no commits for 2021 from the front 7 at all yet. Even in 2022, I count 24 offers on offense, 10 on defense. Of those 10, none are defensive linemen.
Defensive yards per play (rank)
2012 - 4.7 (15th)
2013 - 4.9 (18th)
2014 - 4.2 (2nd)
2015 - 5.6 (70th)
2016 - 5.4 (48th)
2017 - 6.0 (93rd)
2018 - 5.7 (71st)
2019 - 6.3 (109th)
One notable change during this time - Randy Hart retired after the 2015 season.
Completely agreed. With a competent defense we could have been a bowl team last year, but all anyone ever wants to complain about is the offense (which was not good, at 5.59 yards per play, but wasn't 109th in the nation).
BC
And whose fault is it that the D has "fallen off?"
When your HC is so vested in the O side of the ball, it's no surprise that he focuses on that and the other side suffers. It shouldn't be that way, but it's completely understandable (especially if you don't have the security/confidence to hire an egocentric, kick-ass-and-take-names DC like Fangio. But as we've all learned, ambiance - in the locker room and in the coaches' room - is paramount).
08-29-2020, 10:19 PM
I mean the buck stops on Shaw’s desk, so I’m not disagreeing with you there. But I think an accurate diagnosis is the first step to improvement, and if Shaw had focused on offensive play-calling, my guess is that we would be no better.
BC
BC
I mean the buck stops on Shaw’s desk, so I’m not disagreeing with you there. But I think an accurate diagnosis is the first step to improvement, and if Shaw had focused on offensive play-calling, my guess is that we would be no better.
BC
BC
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »