Posts: 10,234
Threads: 821
Joined: Sep 2011
Well, without copying and pasting anything from the Bloomgren story, here are some things that stood out to me and some thoughts on their implications.
There are two ways to maintain a great coaching staff. The first is to pay top dollar to make sure assistants stay. The second is to be a place that has an established track record of providing coaches upward mobility and in so doing, to attract the best and brightest up and coming coaches. To me, Stanford has firmly established itself as the latter. Look at the careers of Harbaugh, Shaw, Taggert, Hamilton, Tarver, just to name a few. All have advanced their careers by coaching at Stanford. Losing Crook probably isn't what Shaw wanted, but he took a promotion to go back to his home state, and the track record suggests Shaw will find a perfectly fine replacement.
When Bloomgren indicates guys like Hogan and Fleming are not the starters, that they have to earn their jobs... wow. You can't have guys bought in to the program more than by having this "competition rules" mentality ingrained in the program. Everyone, including walk-ons knows they have a chance to play if they prove themselves, so that makes everyone work that much harder and push everyone that much more.
It's cool how Stanford has created extra OL positions, to give more OL opportunities to play. Don't earn a starting spot at T, G, or C, you might be the starting Jumbo Wing as they call it, the position Bonnell played last year, that he has to win again, for example.
I don't know how much the pundits and voters pay attention to the internal dynamics of teams when assessing them. My guess is they look at things like returning starters, experience at QB, etc., but when Shaw says they have success because of their process, it may be as if not more important to consider this in your Stanford football ranking as any other factor.
Yes, some very good talent has been recruited, but how many programs are Top 5 in the country with the equivalent of two walk-ons at 2/3 starting DL positions? I know Gardner was a 2 star recruit, but he may as well have been a walk-on, and Parry was. This reality is a symptom of what makes Stanford football so good. Between the S&C program, the physicality the team plays with, and the culture of competition pervading the program, it almost doesn't matter who the guy is. When they say next man up, it really is. And that's because of how the players develop, how they are coached, and how it all keeps their team dynamic strong.
It seems very safe to say Stanford football is no longer just a few good teams. It is now a football program, with the foundation in place to be sort of the De La Salle of college football. It's not ever going to have the armada of elite athletes other top programs will put on the field, but the discipline, toughness, and competitiveness the team plays with will make up for most shortcomings on the athlete side of the ledger. It might not be too crazy to think about playing for a crystal football.
