[cardcrimson]

I think some of you are under misapprehension that Shaw is on THE draft coverage. He's not on ESPN or ABC, he's on the NFL Network, the #3 feed for the draft. One has to be a bit quirky and actively watching a tertiary option to see Shaw's draft coverage. Maybe some Stanford self-selectors will tune in to see Shaw specifically. Most prospects will be watching Kiper and McShay on the mainstream networks. It's not all that many eyeballs who see Shaw's draft coverage (a million less than watch us get stomped by Notre Dame, for instance) and what's more, he is one of a handful of talking heads so if you're flipping between channels you're liable to miss him and, in any case, he probably talks less than a half hour total. One has to really want to see what Shaw has to say to see much of him on the draft coverage.

I also wonder if folks may be under the misapprehension that this is just a tv appearance that takes up a half day of his time. As he has said and as is obvious there are several weeks of film review of non-Stanford and non-Stanford opponent tape that goes into his preparation for this. And it's a type of film review homing in on individual prospects rather than a broader review of scheme or homing in on individual high school prospect film of somebody we might offer or something else that might be useful for his job as Stanford's coach.

Shaw and a third rate program. The parallels are eerie. . . .

[cardcrimson]

I think some of you are under misapprehension that Shaw is on THE draft coverage. He's not on ESPN or ABC, he's on the NFL Network, the #3 feed for the draft. One has to be a bit quirky and actively watching a tertiary option to see Shaw's draft coverage. Maybe some Stanford self-selectors will tune in to see Shaw specifically. Most prospects will be watching Kiper and McShay on the mainstream networks. It's not all that many eyeballs who see Shaw's draft coverage (a million less than watch us get stomped by Notre Dame, for instance) and what's more, he is one of a handful of talking heads so if you're flipping between channels you're liable to miss him and, in any case, he probably talks less than a half hour total. One has to really want to see what Shaw has to say to see much of him on the draft coverage.

I also wonder if folks may be under the misapprehension that this is just a tv appearance that takes up a half day of his time. As he has said and as is obvious there are several weeks of film review of non-Stanford and non-Stanford opponent tape that goes into his preparation for this. And it's a type of film review homing in on individual prospects rather than a broader review of scheme or homing in on individual high school prospect film of somebody we might offer or something else that might be useful for his job as Stanford's coach.

Shaw and a third rate program. The parallels are eerie. . . .

[Phogge]

Posty Crimson!

[Phogge]

Posty Crimson!

[teejers1]

I also wonder if folks may be under the misapprehension that this is just a tv appearance that takes up a half day of his time. As he has said and as is obvious there are several weeks of film review of non-Stanford and non-Stanford opponent tape that goes into his preparation for this. And it's a type of film review homing in on individual prospects rather than a broader review of scheme or homing in on individual high school prospect film of somebody we might offer or something else that might be useful for his job as Stanford's coach.

You mean like signing a DL transfer from Harvard, who just enlisted with . . . Notre Dame? 
(They flipped him from Minnesota per a poster on TOS)?

[teejers1]

I also wonder if folks may be under the misapprehension that this is just a tv appearance that takes up a half day of his time. As he has said and as is obvious there are several weeks of film review of non-Stanford and non-Stanford opponent tape that goes into his preparation for this. And it's a type of film review homing in on individual prospects rather than a broader review of scheme or homing in on individual high school prospect film of somebody we might offer or something else that might be useful for his job as Stanford's coach.

You mean like signing a DL transfer from Harvard, who just enlisted with . . . Notre Dame? 
(They flipped him from Minnesota per a poster on TOS)?

[McKenwood]

I also wonder if folks may be under the misapprehension that this is just a tv appearance that takes up a half day of his time. As he has said and as is obvious there are several weeks of film review of non-Stanford and non-Stanford opponent tape that goes into his preparation for this. And it's a type of film review homing in on individual prospects rather than a broader review of scheme or homing in on individual high school prospect film of somebody we might offer or something else that might be useful for his job as Stanford's coach.

You mean like signing a DL transfer from Harvard, who just enlisted with . . . Notre Dame? 
(They flipped him from Minnesota per a poster on TOS)?

Also missed out on the DL transfer from Harvard to UCLA. Two all-Ivy players go to Stanford competitors. Did Stanford recruit these guys out of high school? Remember Stanford has no upper class Dlineman with the departure of Josh Pakola.

---

Good post, Matt. I agree that given the current circumstances, the opportunity costs of him spending time on preparation for the draft analysis exceeds the benefit in terms of exposure.  Early in his career, having him associated with the NFL was a good thing, but at this point he is a well-known entity and focusing on recruiting or an offensive or defensive revamp, etc., makes much more sense.

On attending his kid’s high school football game, I am hardly going to fault him for that.  The man is not going to reflect on his deathbed and think, “man, I should have spent more time recruiting and less time with my kids.”  For that matter, none of us are going to look back and say that our lives would have been so much more fulfilling had Stanford gone 8-4 instead of 4-8.

BC

Misguided response on recruiting and attending high school games to scout/recruit. What if all 10 of Stanford's coaches took Shaw's approach i.e. family over obvious recruiting opportunities? We'd say they should find another line of work that allows them more flexibility with regard to family time. The heading coaching job at Paly High is open and doesn't involve much travel if any of them are interested. Shaw has probably earned enough that he could consider this position and have much more in the way of family time.

[McKenwood]

I also wonder if folks may be under the misapprehension that this is just a tv appearance that takes up a half day of his time. As he has said and as is obvious there are several weeks of film review of non-Stanford and non-Stanford opponent tape that goes into his preparation for this. And it's a type of film review homing in on individual prospects rather than a broader review of scheme or homing in on individual high school prospect film of somebody we might offer or something else that might be useful for his job as Stanford's coach.

You mean like signing a DL transfer from Harvard, who just enlisted with . . . Notre Dame? 
(They flipped him from Minnesota per a poster on TOS)?

Also missed out on the DL transfer from Harvard to UCLA. Two all-Ivy players go to Stanford competitors. Did Stanford recruit these guys out of high school? Remember Stanford has no upper class Dlineman with the departure of Josh Pakola.

---

Good post, Matt. I agree that given the current circumstances, the opportunity costs of him spending time on preparation for the draft analysis exceeds the benefit in terms of exposure.  Early in his career, having him associated with the NFL was a good thing, but at this point he is a well-known entity and focusing on recruiting or an offensive or defensive revamp, etc., makes much more sense.

On attending his kid’s high school football game, I am hardly going to fault him for that.  The man is not going to reflect on his deathbed and think, “man, I should have spent more time recruiting and less time with my kids.”  For that matter, none of us are going to look back and say that our lives would have been so much more fulfilling had Stanford gone 8-4 instead of 4-8.

BC

Misguided response on recruiting and attending high school games to scout/recruit. What if all 10 of Stanford's coaches took Shaw's approach i.e. family over obvious recruiting opportunities? We'd say they should find another line of work that allows them more flexibility with regard to family time. The heading coaching job at Paly High is open and doesn't involve much travel if any of them are interested. Shaw has probably earned enough that he could consider this position and have much more in the way of family time.

[SamuelMcF]

Also missed out on the DL transfer from Harvard to UCLA. Two all-Ivy players go to Stanford competitors. Did Stanford recruit these guys out of high school? Remember Stanford has no upper class Dlineman with the departure of Josh Pakola.

Tobin Phillips is a junior.

Neither of these guys were recruited by ANYONE notable out of high school, hence why they played at Harvard and not a P5 school in the first place.

[SamuelMcF]

Also missed out on the DL transfer from Harvard to UCLA. Two all-Ivy players go to Stanford competitors. Did Stanford recruit these guys out of high school? Remember Stanford has no upper class Dlineman with the departure of Josh Pakola.

Tobin Phillips is a junior.

Neither of these guys were recruited by ANYONE notable out of high school, hence why they played at Harvard and not a P5 school in the first place.

[McKenwood]

Also missed out on the DL transfer from Harvard to UCLA. Two all-Ivy players go to Stanford competitors. Did Stanford recruit these guys out of high school? Remember Stanford has no upper class Dlineman with the departure of Josh Pakola.

Tobin Phillips is a junior.

Neither of these guys were recruited by ANYONE notable out of high school, hence why they played at Harvard and not a P5 school in the first place.

Jacob Sykes (now at UCLA) was offered by Northwestern and most of the Ivy League.

You are correct Tobin Phillips will be a junior next year. One (or even two) upperclassman on DL is the sign of epic recruiting misses,

[McKenwood]

Also missed out on the DL transfer from Harvard to UCLA. Two all-Ivy players go to Stanford competitors. Did Stanford recruit these guys out of high school? Remember Stanford has no upper class Dlineman with the departure of Josh Pakola.

Tobin Phillips is a junior.

Neither of these guys were recruited by ANYONE notable out of high school, hence why they played at Harvard and not a P5 school in the first place.

Jacob Sykes (now at UCLA) was offered by Northwestern and most of the Ivy League.

You are correct Tobin Phillips will be a junior next year. One (or even two) upperclassman on DL is the sign of epic recruiting misses,

[Phogge]

I would say to Sam's point that while Stanford is in an acknowledged P5 conference they are in no way a P5 team presently. More like a really good D2 team.

[Phogge]

I would say to Sam's point that while Stanford is in an acknowledged P5 conference they are in no way a P5 team presently. More like a really good D2 team.

[fullmetal]

Well, this isn't something hidden from Muir.  If Shaw's boss thinks the NFL draft work is acceptable given the circumstances, then Shaw's boss will have a word with Shaw.

I won't secondguess Shaw going to watch his kid's game.  My parents never showed up for a single race of mine and never supported my participation in athletics, outside of room/board.

[fullmetal]

Well, this isn't something hidden from Muir.  If Shaw's boss thinks the NFL draft work is acceptable given the circumstances, then Shaw's boss will have a word with Shaw.

I won't secondguess Shaw going to watch his kid's game.  My parents never showed up for a single race of mine and never supported my participation in athletics, outside of room/board.

[cardcrimson]

My parents never showed up for a single race of mine and never supported my participation in athletics, outside of room/board.

Truly, my heart goes out to you for that, that had to be tough. . . .

[cardcrimson]

My parents never showed up for a single race of mine and never supported my participation in athletics, outside of room/board.

Truly, my heart goes out to you for that, that had to be tough. . . .

[BostonCard]

Also missed out on the DL transfer from Harvard to UCLA. Two all-Ivy players go to Stanford competitors. Did Stanford recruit these guys out of high school? Remember Stanford has no upper class Dlineman with the departure of Josh Pakola.

Tobin Phillips is a junior.

Neither of these guys were recruited by ANYONE notable out of high school, hence why they played at Harvard and not a P5 school in the first place.

Jacob Sykes (now at UCLA) was offered by Northwestern and most of the Ivy League.

You are correct Tobin Phillips will be a junior next year. One (or even two) upperclassman on DL is the sign of epic recruiting misses,

Don’t take people’s correction of your factual inaccuracies to necessarily mean they disagree with your opinion.  Sam has banged the drum for exploring the transfer portal hard in the past.

It is worth noting that after Pekola’s departure we are at 87 scholarships. I not entirely sure how that will work, but we do have to find a way to get two scholarships off the books before the season starts. Anyone we took off the waiver wire (I mean transfer portal) would have to be offset by another departure somewhere.

None of that is to say that we aren’t in a bad way with regards to interior defensive linemen, even allowing for the inevitable move of some DE’s to the DT position.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also missed out on the DL transfer from Harvard to UCLA. Two all-Ivy players go to Stanford competitors. Did Stanford recruit these guys out of high school? Remember Stanford has no upper class Dlineman with the departure of Josh Pakola.

Tobin Phillips is a junior.

Neither of these guys were recruited by ANYONE notable out of high school, hence why they played at Harvard and not a P5 school in the first place.

Jacob Sykes (now at UCLA) was offered by Northwestern and most of the Ivy League.

You are correct Tobin Phillips will be a junior next year. One (or even two) upperclassman on DL is the sign of epic recruiting misses,

Don’t take people’s correction of your factual inaccuracies to necessarily mean they disagree with your opinion.  Sam has banged the drum for exploring the transfer portal hard in the past.

It is worth noting that after Pekola’s departure we are at 87 scholarships. I not entirely sure how that will work, but we do have to find a way to get two scholarships off the books before the season starts. Anyone we took off the waiver wire (I mean transfer portal) would have to be offset by another departure somewhere.

None of that is to say that we aren’t in a bad way with regards to interior defensive linemen, even allowing for the inevitable move of some DE’s to the DT position.

BC

[old spanish trail]

Happened to catch Shaw on 680 in the Bay Area this eve. Scott Reiss was the host (don't know if he's a new host or fill in) and asked Shaw about the draft gig. Shaw said he thinks it raises the interest in Stanford, and he also thinks he learns alot by watching film of guys and teams he might not otherwise study. He sees plays and packages that might suit Stanford, e.g.

When I joined he was addressing the DL issues but I was just at the end. He was talking abour Harry Anderson, Josh Mauro and Solomon Thomas.
 
He expects McKee to have a breakout year and be one of the top QBs in the country. As usual the wr's are "banged up" but that has allowed McKee to make the subs better. He says they have held Tremayne out of contact, but he looks to have all the moves, speed and hands he did pre injury, and he should have a big year. (This would be a total surprise to me, but I hope it's true)

Re the OL, with the winter training they are bigger, stronger faster, etc. Most interesting was they have "tweaked" the OL schemes to fit the strengths of the players rather than making the players fit the schemes. Anybody have any ideas re what that might entail?

The db's, including the OK transfer are "banged up" but he expects Kelly to be one of top db's in the country. We recruited the OK transfer but he wanted to enter early. Applied and accepted to Grad School and then called Shaw and said he would like to play with or without a ship.

RE watching the draft, when I've watched, I tuned in the NFLFB channel. One of the 15 percent. It's far more watchable than espn.

[old spanish trail]

Happened to catch Shaw on 680 in the Bay Area this eve. Scott Reiss was the host (don't know if he's a new host or fill in) and asked Shaw about the draft gig. Shaw said he thinks it raises the interest in Stanford, and he also thinks he learns alot by watching film of guys and teams he might not otherwise study. He sees plays and packages that might suit Stanford, e.g.

When I joined he was addressing the DL issues but I was just at the end. He was talking abour Harry Anderson, Josh Mauro and Solomon Thomas.
 
He expects McKee to have a breakout year and be one of the top QBs in the country. As usual the wr's are "banged up" but that has allowed McKee to make the subs better. He says they have held Tremayne out of contact, but he looks to have all the moves, speed and hands he did pre injury, and he should have a big year. (This would be a total surprise to me, but I hope it's true)

Re the OL, with the winter training they are bigger, stronger faster, etc. Most interesting was they have "tweaked" the OL schemes to fit the strengths of the players rather than making the players fit the schemes. Anybody have any ideas re what that might entail?

The db's, including the OK transfer are "banged up" but he expects Kelly to be one of top db's in the country. We recruited the OK transfer but he wanted to enter early. Applied and accepted to Grad School and then called Shaw and said he would like to play with or without a ship.

RE watching the draft, when I've watched, I tuned in the NFLFB channel. One of the 15 percent. It's far more watchable than espn.

[jacket3ree]

It's great to see Mr. Squeri again, since I am not on TOS and left the collapsed Bootleg long ago.  By the way, Matt, that high school kid in the SI baseball pullover you met at the place in Georgetown (?) now lives across the river in Alexandria. He's a Marine Captain with three deployments under his belt now teaching at the IOC in Quantico. He and his fiancé are looking to buy near Fredericksburg. We "had him" stationed at Pendleton for three years, living in San Clemente, but he was overseas for most of it, it seemed. I did stow his truck up here while he was on the other side of the world and was able to be there for a couple of sendoffs and returns. One of the latter was in conjunction with a Navy-ND game in San Diego and he and his gathered Sprint Football teammates somehow convinced his mother to do a keg stand. Never thought I'd see that day. Hoping to see him this year when he's out at Twentynine Palms for that part of the cycle. He's getting married on the banks of the Chesapeake next summer. She was a college volleyball player now coaching high school.

I thought of him because while I wasn't a P5 coach on a bye weekend watching my kid play football (and I never missed his football games until he was in Annapolis), I was stuck in my office in Santa Clara one late afternoon finishing some urgent assignment from a long-forgotten client on a long-forgotten project while said SI baseball pitcher was throwing six shutout innings in long relief against the Lancers barely 20 minutes away in Mountain View. Never saw it. Heard all about it though, mostly from St. Francis parents we knew from youth baseball. He basically went out of body with 'the filthiest stuff I've ever had. Where were you Dad?'  Being an idiot. And I don't make 6 to 9 million per annum, but that project was eight figures, so it wasn't trivial.  It would have been there the next morning, however.

I share your concern that Shaw has somehow let go of the rope. It seems mostly recruiting to me. But if he can't carve out time to do this type of gig while the machine hums along, he has problems with the machine.  I also assume he has a phone with him, even at HS football games. Grinding 24/7 makes people weird, and kids don't want to play for weird people. I remember Cal fans pointing to Tedford's office cot as a sign that Rose Bowls and more would be raining from the sky.  I thought he'd burn himself out doing that stuff and sure enough, he did.

Old Spanish Trail is right that exposure to other systems, players he's overlooked, and getting off the Farm for some football could be helpful, if only marginally. I don't think it is the eyeballs or recruits exposure to his TV time as much as his exposure to better football elsewhere. I think "marginal" is the key adjective.  I don't know that any of this, or having him running on two hours of sleep all year long, is going to help, but maybe he missed the next Andrew Luck watching his kid play. Honestly, how often does he even get to watch his kid play?

P.S. I am the last person to opine about work-life balance. The young staff insist on it, and what a seller's market for talent right now, which means I have none. I do have first hand knowledge of that Silicon Valley ethos. It's a little nutty, and honestly not very productive or efficient. But hey, lots of Zoom Zoom and everyone either trying to sound important or sleeping "on mute".

P.P.S.  Still in the DC area?

[jacket3ree]

It's great to see Mr. Squeri again, since I am not on TOS and left the collapsed Bootleg long ago.  By the way, Matt, that high school kid in the SI baseball pullover you met at the place in Georgetown (?) now lives across the river in Alexandria. He's a Marine Captain with three deployments under his belt now teaching at the IOC in Quantico. He and his fiancé are looking to buy near Fredericksburg. We "had him" stationed at Pendleton for three years, living in San Clemente, but he was overseas for most of it, it seemed. I did stow his truck up here while he was on the other side of the world and was able to be there for a couple of sendoffs and returns. One of the latter was in conjunction with a Navy-ND game in San Diego and he and his gathered Sprint Football teammates somehow convinced his mother to do a keg stand. Never thought I'd see that day. Hoping to see him this year when he's out at Twentynine Palms for that part of the cycle. He's getting married on the banks of the Chesapeake next summer. She was a college volleyball player now coaching high school.

I thought of him because while I wasn't a P5 coach on a bye weekend watching my kid play football (and I never missed his football games until he was in Annapolis), I was stuck in my office in Santa Clara one late afternoon finishing some urgent assignment from a long-forgotten client on a long-forgotten project while said SI baseball pitcher was throwing six shutout innings in long relief against the Lancers barely 20 minutes away in Mountain View. Never saw it. Heard all about it though, mostly from St. Francis parents we knew from youth baseball. He basically went out of body with 'the filthiest stuff I've ever had. Where were you Dad?'  Being an idiot. And I don't make 6 to 9 million per annum, but that project was eight figures, so it wasn't trivial.  It would have been there the next morning, however.

I share your concern that Shaw has somehow let go of the rope. It seems mostly recruiting to me. But if he can't carve out time to do this type of gig while the machine hums along, he has problems with the machine.  I also assume he has a phone with him, even at HS football games. Grinding 24/7 makes people weird, and kids don't want to play for weird people. I remember Cal fans pointing to Tedford's office cot as a sign that Rose Bowls and more would be raining from the sky.  I thought he'd burn himself out doing that stuff and sure enough, he did.

Old Spanish Trail is right that exposure to other systems, players he's overlooked, and getting off the Farm for some football could be helpful, if only marginally. I don't think it is the eyeballs or recruits exposure to his TV time as much as his exposure to better football elsewhere. I think "marginal" is the key adjective.  I don't know that any of this, or having him running on two hours of sleep all year long, is going to help, but maybe he missed the next Andrew Luck watching his kid play. Honestly, how often does he even get to watch his kid play?

P.S. I am the last person to opine about work-life balance. The young staff insist on it, and what a seller's market for talent right now, which means I have none. I do have first hand knowledge of that Silicon Valley ethos. It's a little nutty, and honestly not very productive or efficient. But hey, lots of Zoom Zoom and everyone either trying to sound important or sleeping "on mute".

P.P.S.  Still in the DC area?

[OutsiderFan]

Everyone is bigger, stronger, and faster!

The problem is every team on the planet believes that and it's all relative.

From the outside looking in, the only reason Stanford might be better in 2022 than 2021 is Tanner McKee improving as result of more experience. Given how much winning football games is tied to QB play, this could be a significant factor.

For me personally, please, for the love of all things holy, take the goddamned knee brace off McKee and let him feel like an athlete!  One of the reasons I was so high on Mckee as a recruit was that though not blazing fast, he was a very capable runner. That has all but disappeared since he's been at Stanford. Davis Mills didn't even wear a knee brace as an NFL rookie, and he had knee injuries McKee hasn't had, so why the knee brace? It's just flat out stupid. If knee braces were good for QBs to wear, they'd all wear them at all levels. They don't. Only at Stanford when they haven't had one injuries.

[OutsiderFan]

Everyone is bigger, stronger, and faster!

The problem is every team on the planet believes that and it's all relative.

From the outside looking in, the only reason Stanford might be better in 2022 than 2021 is Tanner McKee improving as result of more experience. Given how much winning football games is tied to QB play, this could be a significant factor.

For me personally, please, for the love of all things holy, take the goddamned knee brace off McKee and let him feel like an athlete!  One of the reasons I was so high on Mckee as a recruit was that though not blazing fast, he was a very capable runner. That has all but disappeared since he's been at Stanford. Davis Mills didn't even wear a knee brace as an NFL rookie, and he had knee injuries McKee hasn't had, so why the knee brace? It's just flat out stupid. If knee braces were good for QBs to wear, they'd all wear them at all levels. They don't. Only at Stanford when they haven't had one injuries.

[SamuelMcF]

Everyone is bigger, stronger, and faster!

The problem is every team on the planet believes that and it's all relative.

From the outside looking in, the only reason Stanford might be better in 2022 than 2021 is Tanner McKee improving as result of more experience. Given how much winning football games is tied to QB play, this could be a significant factor.

For me personally, please, for the love of all things holy, take the goddamned knee brace off McKee and let him feel like an athlete!  One of the reasons I was so high on Mckee as a recruit was that though not blazing fast, he was a very capable runner. That has all but disappeared since he's been at Stanford. Davis Mills didn't even wear a knee brace as an NFL rookie, and he had knee injuries McKee hasn't had, so why the knee brace? It's just flat out stupid. If knee braces were good for QBs to wear, they'd all wear them at all levels. They don't. Only at Stanford when they haven't had one injuries.

McKee was hurt last year, though I don’t blame you for blocking the Utah game without him out of your memory.

He couldn’t run because the OL couldn’t block. But he also had 4 rushing TDs, hilariously and sadly more than Austin Jones.

[SamuelMcF]

Everyone is bigger, stronger, and faster!

The problem is every team on the planet believes that and it's all relative.

From the outside looking in, the only reason Stanford might be better in 2022 than 2021 is Tanner McKee improving as result of more experience. Given how much winning football games is tied to QB play, this could be a significant factor.

For me personally, please, for the love of all things holy, take the goddamned knee brace off McKee and let him feel like an athlete!  One of the reasons I was so high on Mckee as a recruit was that though not blazing fast, he was a very capable runner. That has all but disappeared since he's been at Stanford. Davis Mills didn't even wear a knee brace as an NFL rookie, and he had knee injuries McKee hasn't had, so why the knee brace? It's just flat out stupid. If knee braces were good for QBs to wear, they'd all wear them at all levels. They don't. Only at Stanford when they haven't had one injuries.

McKee was hurt last year, though I don’t blame you for blocking the Utah game without him out of your memory.

He couldn’t run because the OL couldn’t block. But he also had 4 rushing TDs, hilariously and sadly more than Austin Jones.

[msqueri]

It's great to see Mr. Squeri again, since I am not on TOS and left the collapsed Bootleg long ago.  By the way, Matt, that high school kid in the SI baseball pullover you met at the place in Georgetown (?) now lives across the river in Alexandria. He's a Marine Captain with three deployments under his belt now teaching at the IOC in Quantico. He and his fiancé are looking to buy near Fredericksburg. We "had him" stationed at Pendleton for three years, living in San Clemente, but he was overseas for most of it, it seemed. I did stow his truck up here while he was on the other side of the world and was able to be there for a couple of sendoffs and returns. One of the latter was in conjunction with a Navy-ND game in San Diego and he and his gathered Sprint Football teammates somehow convinced his mother to do a keg stand. Never thought I'd see that day. Hoping to see him this year when he's out at Twentynine Palms for that part of the cycle. He's getting married on the banks of the Chesapeake next summer. She was a college volleyball player now coaching high school.

I thought of him because while I wasn't a P5 coach on a bye weekend watching my kid play football (and I never missed his football games until he was in Annapolis), I was stuck in my office in Santa Clara one late afternoon finishing some urgent assignment from a long-forgotten client on a long-forgotten project while said SI baseball pitcher was throwing six shutout innings in long relief against the Lancers barely 20 minutes away in Mountain View. Never saw it. Heard all about it though, mostly from St. Francis parents we knew from youth baseball. He basically went out of body with 'the filthiest stuff I've ever had. Where were you Dad?'  Being an idiot. And I don't make 6 to 9 million per annum, but that project was eight figures, so it wasn't trivial.  It would have been there the next morning, however.

I share your concern that Shaw has somehow let go of the rope. It seems mostly recruiting to me. But if he can't carve out time to do this type of gig while the machine hums along, he has problems with the machine.  I also assume he has a phone with him, even at HS football games. Grinding 24/7 makes people weird, and kids don't want to play for weird people. I remember Cal fans pointing to Tedford's office cot as a sign that Rose Bowls and more would be raining from the sky.  I thought he'd burn himself out doing that stuff and sure enough, he did.

Old Spanish Trail is right that exposure to other systems, players he's overlooked, and getting off the Farm for some football could be helpful, if only marginally. I don't think it is the eyeballs or recruits exposure to his TV time as much as his exposure to better football elsewhere. I think "marginal" is the key adjective.  I don't know that any of this, or having him running on two hours of sleep all year long, is going to help, but maybe he missed the next Andrew Luck watching his kid play. Honestly, how often does he even get to watch his kid play?

P.S. I am the last person to opine about work-life balance. The young staff insist on it, and what a seller's market for talent right now, which means I have none. I do have first hand knowledge of that Silicon Valley ethos. It's a little nutty, and honestly not very productive or efficient. But hey, lots of Zoom Zoom and everyone either trying to sound important or sleeping "on mute".

P.P.S.  Still in the DC area?

Posty! Great insights plus it's great to reconnect virtually after all these years. Tickled to hear about the kid and all the great life events, although it does make me feel old.

Yes, still in DC. Never left. I went from the Pentagon to a Senate office and then another Senate office and am now running the China Commission. My affection for DC ebbs and flows somewhat depending on how fulfilling I'm finding it at a given moment and, if I'm being honest, the weather. In both respects I made it through a dreary snap this winter and am optimistic for the months ahead. Nonetheless, sometimes I feel like I get too rooted to DC and am hoping to get some travel on the books for the rest of the year, as there hasn't been much of that the last few years.

All the best to the family!

[msqueri]

It's great to see Mr. Squeri again, since I am not on TOS and left the collapsed Bootleg long ago.  By the way, Matt, that high school kid in the SI baseball pullover you met at the place in Georgetown (?) now lives across the river in Alexandria. He's a Marine Captain with three deployments under his belt now teaching at the IOC in Quantico. He and his fiancé are looking to buy near Fredericksburg. We "had him" stationed at Pendleton for three years, living in San Clemente, but he was overseas for most of it, it seemed. I did stow his truck up here while he was on the other side of the world and was able to be there for a couple of sendoffs and returns. One of the latter was in conjunction with a Navy-ND game in San Diego and he and his gathered Sprint Football teammates somehow convinced his mother to do a keg stand. Never thought I'd see that day. Hoping to see him this year when he's out at Twentynine Palms for that part of the cycle. He's getting married on the banks of the Chesapeake next summer. She was a college volleyball player now coaching high school.

I thought of him because while I wasn't a P5 coach on a bye weekend watching my kid play football (and I never missed his football games until he was in Annapolis), I was stuck in my office in Santa Clara one late afternoon finishing some urgent assignment from a long-forgotten client on a long-forgotten project while said SI baseball pitcher was throwing six shutout innings in long relief against the Lancers barely 20 minutes away in Mountain View. Never saw it. Heard all about it though, mostly from St. Francis parents we knew from youth baseball. He basically went out of body with 'the filthiest stuff I've ever had. Where were you Dad?'  Being an idiot. And I don't make 6 to 9 million per annum, but that project was eight figures, so it wasn't trivial.  It would have been there the next morning, however.

I share your concern that Shaw has somehow let go of the rope. It seems mostly recruiting to me. But if he can't carve out time to do this type of gig while the machine hums along, he has problems with the machine.  I also assume he has a phone with him, even at HS football games. Grinding 24/7 makes people weird, and kids don't want to play for weird people. I remember Cal fans pointing to Tedford's office cot as a sign that Rose Bowls and more would be raining from the sky.  I thought he'd burn himself out doing that stuff and sure enough, he did.

Old Spanish Trail is right that exposure to other systems, players he's overlooked, and getting off the Farm for some football could be helpful, if only marginally. I don't think it is the eyeballs or recruits exposure to his TV time as much as his exposure to better football elsewhere. I think "marginal" is the key adjective.  I don't know that any of this, or having him running on two hours of sleep all year long, is going to help, but maybe he missed the next Andrew Luck watching his kid play. Honestly, how often does he even get to watch his kid play?

P.S. I am the last person to opine about work-life balance. The young staff insist on it, and what a seller's market for talent right now, which means I have none. I do have first hand knowledge of that Silicon Valley ethos. It's a little nutty, and honestly not very productive or efficient. But hey, lots of Zoom Zoom and everyone either trying to sound important or sleeping "on mute".

P.P.S.  Still in the DC area?

Posty! Great insights plus it's great to reconnect virtually after all these years. Tickled to hear about the kid and all the great life events, although it does make me feel old.

Yes, still in DC. Never left. I went from the Pentagon to a Senate office and then another Senate office and am now running the China Commission. My affection for DC ebbs and flows somewhat depending on how fulfilling I'm finding it at a given moment and, if I'm being honest, the weather. In both respects I made it through a dreary snap this winter and am optimistic for the months ahead. Nonetheless, sometimes I feel like I get too rooted to DC and am hoping to get some travel on the books for the rest of the year, as there hasn't been much of that the last few years.

All the best to the family!

[msqueri]

Everyone is bigger, stronger, and faster!



The problem is every team on the planet believes that and it's all relative.



From the outside looking in, the only reason Stanford might be better in 2022 than 2021 is Tanner McKee improving as result of more experience. Given how much winning football games is tied to QB play, this could be a significant factor.

Absolutely right and an important insight that every team feels they get bigger/stronger/faster because that's the nature of freshmen becoming sophomores and sophomores becoming juniors and so forth. As you say, it's all relative. The pertinent question is how we look relative to our competition.



Regarding reasons for optimism that 2022 could be better than 2021, I am bearish on the team and don't expect a bowl appearance but I did put together a stab a few months ago on what the case for optimism would be. I'll reprint that here in case folks are interested:



I'd love to be optimistic. I tend toward optimism generally in life and think most would attest that over the last 20 years on these message boards that's been true for my discussion of Stanford football as well. But more core to me than that emotional inclination is a commitment to intellectual honesty. I don't know how one can look at Stanford football as it's currently being operated and be optimistic, certainly not to the point of predicting seven wins next year.



Nonetheless, as a thought experiment and because I agree with you that it is unsatisfying to continually beat a dead horse, I'll try to muster my version of optimism:



* Shawfense has been proven to be capable of being good when enough things align personnel-wise. The offensive talent we have coming back (assuming no further attrition, which is an assumption Realistic Matt thinks may be aggressive but Optimistic Matt will make for the purpose of this post) looks to be on the good end of the spectrum for Shawfense. Good Shawfense (think 2017 and 2020) squeezes into the top 20 nationally by advanced metrics and top 50-ish by more traditional metrics. That's not amazing but it's been good enough to have a very good 2017 team and a winning 2020 team (putting aside Realistic Matt didn't actually think that team was good).



* The most important determinants for good Shawfense are a good quarterback and a veteran offensive line. At quarterback, among Pac-12 quarterbacks Tanner McKee as a freshman was #6 in Total QBR, #6 in passer rating, and #2 in yards per game. Year-to-year improvement could put him near the top of the conference. [Realistic Matt is more measured as there is scant evidence McKee is as good a college QB as Dorian Thompson-Robinson and Cameron Rising, to say nothing of Caleb Williams.] Significantly, McKee's chances to play with his primary weapons were highly attenuated in 2021. Among Yurosek, Tremayne, Wilson, and Higgins, McKee got to play with at least three of them only four times (Kansas State, USC, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame) and all of them zero times. The Notre Dame game, the only game in the second half of the season in which he had weapons, was his second highest PFF grade of the year (the USC game, another with weapons, was his highest), though QBR hated that game (in traditional passer rating it was in essentially a tie for his fifth/sixth best game). The USC game was his best game no matter how you look at it. In sum, having weapons matters.....a lot. On paper McKee should have excellent weapons in 2022.



* At offensive line, we finally have the veteran offensive line (again, assuming no attrition) we've lacked for half a decade. There is a strong argument that this alone makes the 2022 offense more comparable to the 2017 offense than anything we've seen since. [Of course Realistic Matt would note there's no chance in hell Stanford will have a 2100 yard runner in 2022] Beyond that, we have a position coach who will have been in the position for a year and a half rather than for half a year, a massive difference in continuity and pedagogy compared to last year. On a more granular level, the offensive line has three players who are on college star trajectories and this could/should be their time to shine.



* On defense, the pass defense was good in 2021 before breaking down late season and the defensive backfield returns potentially all the key components (Optimistic Matt ignores the radio silence on Williamson) plus an honorable mention Big-12 incoming transfer and on-paper-solid incoming freshmen. The primary onus for the defense is on finding a solution to run defense and there we saw a willingness late season to kill some sacred cows with regard to the scheme/style Stanford played, particularly our approach to the defensive front. This had mixed results, but an argument can be made that an entire off-season of coaching and scheming to a new personality (if not a new scheme entirely) will create run defense lanes/easier run fits for our linebackers and other run defenders that unlocks a level of play we haven't seen in the defense for years.



* The thing the defense has most sorely lacked in recent years has been impact talent outside of a single cover corner in scattered years. Kelly and Fields are relatively big names set to play for Stanford in 2022. Optimistic Lance (Matt can't bring himself there) would argue that a year of growing pains and the improved approach to finding lanes/fits for linebackers will unlock the performance in Ricky Miezan and Jacob Mangum-Farrar the coaches have been talking about for years. The youngsters on the roster (Bailey, Cooper, Tafiti, Armitage, Aybar....) should provide a stark qualitative improvement in our defensive talent and that will show up on the field. [Realistic Matt would note that what we add in linebacker on-paper talent we lose in defensive line on-paper talent and those defensive linemen did not play up to their recruiting rankings to put it mildly, whereas the one front seven player who performed is now in the transfer portal]



* On special teams, we are due for a dominant year rather than just a good year. In Special Teams FEI we've been top 40-ish almost perennially but it's been five years since we've been top 8, which is something Alamar has done four times in his career. Time for this again to be a massive advantage for Stanford week in and week out.



* Sometimes you get addition by subtraction. We had a 2017 recruiting class that was very talented on paper but had trouble staying healthy and even more trouble staying at Stanford, not showing much we instead of me mentality. The 2018 class sucked on paper. Cycling those classes out makes room for new blood that may be better for the locker room and/or field. [Realistic Matt notes that the same coaching staff identified and recruited all of those classes and it's a logical leap to think the 2019-2022 will suddenly be more committed or set up for success, not to mention that the 2021 class sucked]



I've tried to maintain intellectual honesty with all of this optimistic read and can't bring myself to pretend that injuries or schedule, notwithstanding propaganda we might hear from some, are actually legitimate reasons to think the tide will turn for Stanford football. If anything, injuries could be worse and the schedule makes it very hard to count to 7 (or 6 or even arguably 5). I also have trouble putting any stock into arguments that amount to expecting the leopard to change his spots. The above represents my optimistic take, such as it is. I would not be totally shocked by this team scraping out a bowl appearance but even my optimistic version of myself would be quite surprised.

[msqueri]

Everyone is bigger, stronger, and faster!



The problem is every team on the planet believes that and it's all relative.



From the outside looking in, the only reason Stanford might be better in 2022 than 2021 is Tanner McKee improving as result of more experience. Given how much winning football games is tied to QB play, this could be a significant factor.

Absolutely right and an important insight that every team feels they get bigger/stronger/faster because that's the nature of freshmen becoming sophomores and sophomores becoming juniors and so forth. As you say, it's all relative. The pertinent question is how we look relative to our competition.



Regarding reasons for optimism that 2022 could be better than 2021, I am bearish on the team and don't expect a bowl appearance but I did put together a stab a few months ago on what the case for optimism would be. I'll reprint that here in case folks are interested:



I'd love to be optimistic. I tend toward optimism generally in life and think most would attest that over the last 20 years on these message boards that's been true for my discussion of Stanford football as well. But more core to me than that emotional inclination is a commitment to intellectual honesty. I don't know how one can look at Stanford football as it's currently being operated and be optimistic, certainly not to the point of predicting seven wins next year.



Nonetheless, as a thought experiment and because I agree with you that it is unsatisfying to continually beat a dead horse, I'll try to muster my version of optimism:



* Shawfense has been proven to be capable of being good when enough things align personnel-wise. The offensive talent we have coming back (assuming no further attrition, which is an assumption Realistic Matt thinks may be aggressive but Optimistic Matt will make for the purpose of this post) looks to be on the good end of the spectrum for Shawfense. Good Shawfense (think 2017 and 2020) squeezes into the top 20 nationally by advanced metrics and top 50-ish by more traditional metrics. That's not amazing but it's been good enough to have a very good 2017 team and a winning 2020 team (putting aside Realistic Matt didn't actually think that team was good).



* The most important determinants for good Shawfense are a good quarterback and a veteran offensive line. At quarterback, among Pac-12 quarterbacks Tanner McKee as a freshman was #6 in Total QBR, #6 in passer rating, and #2 in yards per game. Year-to-year improvement could put him near the top of the conference. [Realistic Matt is more measured as there is scant evidence McKee is as good a college QB as Dorian Thompson-Robinson and Cameron Rising, to say nothing of Caleb Williams.] Significantly, McKee's chances to play with his primary weapons were highly attenuated in 2021. Among Yurosek, Tremayne, Wilson, and Higgins, McKee got to play with at least three of them only four times (Kansas State, USC, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame) and all of them zero times. The Notre Dame game, the only game in the second half of the season in which he had weapons, was his second highest PFF grade of the year (the USC game, another with weapons, was his highest), though QBR hated that game (in traditional passer rating it was in essentially a tie for his fifth/sixth best game). The USC game was his best game no matter how you look at it. In sum, having weapons matters.....a lot. On paper McKee should have excellent weapons in 2022.



* At offensive line, we finally have the veteran offensive line (again, assuming no attrition) we've lacked for half a decade. There is a strong argument that this alone makes the 2022 offense more comparable to the 2017 offense than anything we've seen since. [Of course Realistic Matt would note there's no chance in hell Stanford will have a 2100 yard runner in 2022] Beyond that, we have a position coach who will have been in the position for a year and a half rather than for half a year, a massive difference in continuity and pedagogy compared to last year. On a more granular level, the offensive line has three players who are on college star trajectories and this could/should be their time to shine.



* On defense, the pass defense was good in 2021 before breaking down late season and the defensive backfield returns potentially all the key components (Optimistic Matt ignores the radio silence on Williamson) plus an honorable mention Big-12 incoming transfer and on-paper-solid incoming freshmen. The primary onus for the defense is on finding a solution to run defense and there we saw a willingness late season to kill some sacred cows with regard to the scheme/style Stanford played, particularly our approach to the defensive front. This had mixed results, but an argument can be made that an entire off-season of coaching and scheming to a new personality (if not a new scheme entirely) will create run defense lanes/easier run fits for our linebackers and other run defenders that unlocks a level of play we haven't seen in the defense for years.



* The thing the defense has most sorely lacked in recent years has been impact talent outside of a single cover corner in scattered years. Kelly and Fields are relatively big names set to play for Stanford in 2022. Optimistic Lance (Matt can't bring himself there) would argue that a year of growing pains and the improved approach to finding lanes/fits for linebackers will unlock the performance in Ricky Miezan and Jacob Mangum-Farrar the coaches have been talking about for years. The youngsters on the roster (Bailey, Cooper, Tafiti, Armitage, Aybar....) should provide a stark qualitative improvement in our defensive talent and that will show up on the field. [Realistic Matt would note that what we add in linebacker on-paper talent we lose in defensive line on-paper talent and those defensive linemen did not play up to their recruiting rankings to put it mildly, whereas the one front seven player who performed is now in the transfer portal]



* On special teams, we are due for a dominant year rather than just a good year. In Special Teams FEI we've been top 40-ish almost perennially but it's been five years since we've been top 8, which is something Alamar has done four times in his career. Time for this again to be a massive advantage for Stanford week in and week out.



* Sometimes you get addition by subtraction. We had a 2017 recruiting class that was very talented on paper but had trouble staying healthy and even more trouble staying at Stanford, not showing much we instead of me mentality. The 2018 class sucked on paper. Cycling those classes out makes room for new blood that may be better for the locker room and/or field. [Realistic Matt notes that the same coaching staff identified and recruited all of those classes and it's a logical leap to think the 2019-2022 will suddenly be more committed or set up for success, not to mention that the 2021 class sucked]



I've tried to maintain intellectual honesty with all of this optimistic read and can't bring myself to pretend that injuries or schedule, notwithstanding propaganda we might hear from some, are actually legitimate reasons to think the tide will turn for Stanford football. If anything, injuries could be worse and the schedule makes it very hard to count to 7 (or 6 or even arguably 5). I also have trouble putting any stock into arguments that amount to expecting the leopard to change his spots. The above represents my optimistic take, such as it is. I would not be totally shocked by this team scraping out a bowl appearance but even my optimistic version of myself would be quite surprised.

[BostonCard]

Awesome post Jacketree.  Glad the Navy grad is doing well.

BC

---

Really appreciate the analysis.

On offense, I can see the case that optimistic Matt makes.  We do have a veteran OL, receiving threats and a QB with a season under his belt.  I’d feel better about the offense if at least one of our veteran running backs were coming back.  There is potential in the younger guys who will have to step up (and maybe more potential there than in the departed veterans), but injuries.  The case for optimistic Matt’s assessment on the Shawfence largely rests on its ability to stay healthy.  Depending on how much of a causal association you assign to the relationship between injuries and the presence of Shannon Turley (fun fact, one of the VP’s at my company is named Shannon Turley, which is weird, because she is female), you either believe that it is a fool’s errand to expect that there should be any reason to improve on the injury front, or feel that maybe this year we will finally be a bit luckier.

On defense, I find it hard to see optimistic Matt’s case.  Our backfield should be in decent shape, as optimistic Matt maintained. However, i have a hard time believing that the front seven will approach last year’s putrid output and I genuinely worry that we may give up double digit yards per carry.  Miezan and Magnum-Farrar were in their fourth years in the program last year, and though they were oft injured and didn’t have a ton of game experience, if it hadn’t clicked by last year, it probably never will.  The d-line is a disaster, and we bring back exactly one interior defensive lineman.  Add to that the fact that we are making over our system and it will probably be 2024 (when our incoming freshmen are juniors) when we will finally have depth and experience on that d-line, assuming we don’t take a couple of years off from recruiting again.  And of course, the same coaches who failed to develop our last batch of front seven players will be coaching these guys.  The future is not bright. I’m hopelessly optimistic, but I don’t see how you can be good with a decent offense and defensive backfield but a front seven that can be charitably spoken of as being in disarray.  I think we are in the “assume the worst until proven otherwise” part of the cycle.

BC

[BostonCard]

Awesome post Jacketree.  Glad the Navy grad is doing well.

BC

---

Really appreciate the analysis.

On offense, I can see the case that optimistic Matt makes.  We do have a veteran OL, receiving threats and a QB with a season under his belt.  I’d feel better about the offense if at least one of our veteran running backs were coming back.  There is potential in the younger guys who will have to step up (and maybe more potential there than in the departed veterans), but injuries.  The case for optimistic Matt’s assessment on the Shawfence largely rests on its ability to stay healthy.  Depending on how much of a causal association you assign to the relationship between injuries and the presence of Shannon Turley (fun fact, one of the VP’s at my company is named Shannon Turley, which is weird, because she is female), you either believe that it is a fool’s errand to expect that there should be any reason to improve on the injury front, or feel that maybe this year we will finally be a bit luckier.

On defense, I find it hard to see optimistic Matt’s case.  Our backfield should be in decent shape, as optimistic Matt maintained. However, i have a hard time believing that the front seven will approach last year’s putrid output and I genuinely worry that we may give up double digit yards per carry.  Miezan and Magnum-Farrar were in their fourth years in the program last year, and though they were oft injured and didn’t have a ton of game experience, if it hadn’t clicked by last year, it probably never will.  The d-line is a disaster, and we bring back exactly one interior defensive lineman.  Add to that the fact that we are making over our system and it will probably be 2024 (when our incoming freshmen are juniors) when we will finally have depth and experience on that d-line, assuming we don’t take a couple of years off from recruiting again.  And of course, the same coaches who failed to develop our last batch of front seven players will be coaching these guys.  The future is not bright. I’m hopelessly optimistic, but I don’t see how you can be good with a decent offense and defensive backfield but a front seven that can be charitably spoken of as being in disarray.  I think we are in the “assume the worst until proven otherwise” part of the cycle.

BC