[pefloresjr]

The numbers listed above showing 5th year players shows that there is not yet a notable problem.   There were only 4 in 2012 so a number at that level wouldn't be much evidence of a problem.  I don't think the pearl clutching fears or declarations of doom are justified by the evidence.  However, I would not be surprised if the new graduate transfer rules start to have an impact on 5th year seniors.  The ease of transferring for that final year has increased while the difficulty of getting into a Stanford graduate school has also probably increased (depending on the department).  I don't know if there is just more information available now, but I don't recall hearing as many reports that a potential 5th year player didn't get into Stanford grad school.  Shaw & Co. are clearly responding to the earlier signing time and lower than expected yield rates by making more offers and adjusting the timing on some of their recruiting efforts.  If we are truly going to start losing more 5th year players on a regular basis, Shaw will probably have to make more offers to ensure that we have full classes and are using all available scholarships.  Not worth panicking over but definitely worth watching.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

The numbers listed above showing 5th year players shows that there is not yet a notable problem.   There were only 4 in 2012 so a number at that level wouldn't be much evidence of a problem.  I don't think the pearl clutching fears or declarations of doom are justified by the evidence.  However, I would not be surprised if the new graduate transfer rules start to have an impact on 5th year seniors.  The ease of transferring for that final year has increased while the difficulty of getting into a Stanford graduate school has also probably increased (depending on the department).  I don't know if there is just more information available now, but I don't recall hearing as many reports that a potential 5th year player didn't get into Stanford grad school.  Shaw & Co. are clearly responding to the earlier signing time and lower than expected yield rates by making more offers and adjusting the timing on some of their recruiting efforts.  If we are truly going to start losing more 5th year players on a regular basis, Shaw will probably have to make more offers to ensure that we have full classes and are using all available scholarships.  Not worth panicking over but definitely worth watching.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[BostonCard]

Here were the 2011 academic seniors with eligibility left, and what happened to them:
Jonathan Martin: drafted to the NFL
Sam Schwartztein: returned for a fifth year
David DeCastro: drafted to the NFL
Andrew Luck: drafted to the NFL
Alex Debniak: returned for a fifth year
Chase Thomas: returned for a fifth year
Daniel Zychlinski: returned for a fifth year

So, a big part of the reason that we only had four redshirt seniors in 2012 is that we only had seven seniors with eligibility remaining in 2011.  And of those seven, the three that did not come back were drafted (Andrew Luck and David DeCastro in the first round, Jonathan Martin in the second).  I don't think anyone begrudges those three going to the NFL with eligibility left, given where they were drafted.  And of the four players who were not first or second round NFL picks, all four returned for their fifth year.

This year, we have ten seniors with eligibility remaining.  Only one of them is projected to be drafted by the NFL, probably in the mid rounds.  Of the remaining players, we know of several who would probably be offered a fifth year, but have declined, and there are several more rumored to be leaving but who have not yet announced.

It used to be rare for guys who weren't draftable but were still potential starters or significant contributors to elect not to come back.  Now, it is routine.  And it used to be that the bedrock of Stanford football was juniors, seniors, and fifth year seniors.  Going forward, it will probably be juniors and redshirt juniors, and I think that is a problem.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here were the 2011 academic seniors with eligibility left, and what happened to them:
Jonathan Martin: drafted to the NFL
Sam Schwartztein: returned for a fifth year
David DeCastro: drafted to the NFL
Andrew Luck: drafted to the NFL
Alex Debniak: returned for a fifth year
Chase Thomas: returned for a fifth year
Daniel Zychlinski: returned for a fifth year

So, a big part of the reason that we only had four redshirt seniors in 2012 is that we only had seven seniors with eligibility remaining in 2011.  And of those seven, the three that did not come back were drafted (Andrew Luck and David DeCastro in the first round, Jonathan Martin in the second).  I don't think anyone begrudges those three going to the NFL with eligibility left, given where they were drafted.  And of the four players who were not first or second round NFL picks, all four returned for their fifth year.

This year, we have ten seniors with eligibility remaining.  Only one of them is projected to be drafted by the NFL, probably in the mid rounds.  Of the remaining players, we know of several who would probably be offered a fifth year, but have declined, and there are several more rumored to be leaving but who have not yet announced.

It used to be rare for guys who weren't draftable but were still potential starters or significant contributors to elect not to come back.  Now, it is routine.  And it used to be that the bedrock of Stanford football was juniors, seniors, and fifth year seniors.  Going forward, it will probably be juniors and redshirt juniors, and I think that is a problem.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

I think people are whistling past the graveyard. Maybe I am being Chicken Little, but I see lots of chinks in the armor of Stanford football right now that I haven’t noticed since the pre-2006 days. Most of them have to do with changes in the college football industry that are happening in the environment Stanford Football lives in.

It’s like Stanford is a Polar Bear and the warming climate melting the ice pack is college football.

[OutsiderFan]

I think people are whistling past the graveyard. Maybe I am being Chicken Little, but I see lots of chinks in the armor of Stanford football right now that I haven’t noticed since the pre-2006 days. Most of them have to do with changes in the college football industry that are happening in the environment Stanford Football lives in.

It’s like Stanford is a Polar Bear and the warming climate melting the ice pack is college football.

[Phogge]

My answer to Martyup. A leader has to step up on his own. Doesn’t have to be a rah rah, especially at Stanford. Looking back I can think of Mike Simone, Tom Williams and Gordy Ceresino as the type of player who inspired others with his hard nose play. I agree that somebody has to step up but who?

[Phogge]

My answer to Martyup. A leader has to step up on his own. Doesn’t have to be a rah rah, especially at Stanford. Looking back I can think of Mike Simone, Tom Williams and Gordy Ceresino as the type of player who inspired others with his hard nose play. I agree that somebody has to step up but who?

[Goose]

My answer to Martyup. A leader has to step up on his own.

Sadly, you are correct. You can't appoint somebody as a leader and expect it to work. You either are or you aren't. Sometimes it takes stress to get a leader to emerge, but it may be that no one does, and then you have a problem. Kind of looks like where our OL has been for a while.

[Goose]

My answer to Martyup. A leader has to step up on his own.

Sadly, you are correct. You can't appoint somebody as a leader and expect it to work. You either are or you aren't. Sometimes it takes stress to get a leader to emerge, but it may be that no one does, and then you have a problem. Kind of looks like where our OL has been for a while.

[BostonCard]

I think people are whistling past the graveyard. Maybe I am being Chicken Little, but I see lots of chinks in the armor of Stanford football right now that I haven’t noticed since the pre-2006 days. Most of them have to do with changes in the college football industry that are happening in the environment Stanford Football lives in.

It’s like Stanford is a Polar Bear and the warming climate melting the ice pack is college football.

You are right that there are some big question marks going forward, which suggest that in the near future will likely not have been as successful as it has been for the last ten or so years.  And in the long run, I agree the demographic and social trends probably disfavor Stanford remaining a long-term football powerhouse.

However, it is really tough to look at our recent past and come to the conclusion that it has affected us very much at all.  I found this website helpful for finding the winning percentage of teams over time:

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/trends/...since_2007

Stanford's winning percentage since 2007, when John Harbaugh was hired, was 70.2% (13th in the country and 11th among P5 teams, 2nd in the Pac-12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2009, when our current bowl run started, was 76.1% (6th in the country, 5th among P5 teams, tops in the Pac-12; only Alabama, Ohio State, Boise State, Clemson, and Oklahoma have been better)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2011, when David Shaw took over for Harbaugh, was 75.9% (6th overall, 5th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2014, which eliminates the '08 and '09 classes that Harbaugh recruited and led us to four NY6 bowls (and some people consider the start of the Shaw-induced downfall), is still 71.6% (9th overall, 7th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2016, which is the most cherry picked data, is 70% (19th overall, 12th in P5, 3rd in P12).

Since 2016, the following teams have worse winning percentages than Stanford: USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Utah and everyone else except for Washington and Washington State in the Pac-12; Texas, Oklahoma State, TCU and all of the Big-12 save Oklahoma; Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia Tech, and all of the ACC save Clemson;  Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan State and much of the Big Ten (except Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin); Auburn, Florida, and the entire SEC except Alabama, LSU, and Georgia; Notre Dame.  I'm sure many of the teams on the list are teams you think have left Stanford in the dust and have revolutionary offensive schemes that make it look like Stanford is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I think there are reasons to be concerned going forward.  But I would not highlight historical data to make the point.  Because the results suggest that a lot of the teams you think are doing a better job in the new world of football... aren't winning more games.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think people are whistling past the graveyard. Maybe I am being Chicken Little, but I see lots of chinks in the armor of Stanford football right now that I haven’t noticed since the pre-2006 days. Most of them have to do with changes in the college football industry that are happening in the environment Stanford Football lives in.

It’s like Stanford is a Polar Bear and the warming climate melting the ice pack is college football.

You are right that there are some big question marks going forward, which suggest that in the near future will likely not have been as successful as it has been for the last ten or so years.  And in the long run, I agree the demographic and social trends probably disfavor Stanford remaining a long-term football powerhouse.

However, it is really tough to look at our recent past and come to the conclusion that it has affected us very much at all.  I found this website helpful for finding the winning percentage of teams over time:

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/trends/...since_2007

Stanford's winning percentage since 2007, when John Harbaugh was hired, was 70.2% (13th in the country and 11th among P5 teams, 2nd in the Pac-12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2009, when our current bowl run started, was 76.1% (6th in the country, 5th among P5 teams, tops in the Pac-12; only Alabama, Ohio State, Boise State, Clemson, and Oklahoma have been better)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2011, when David Shaw took over for Harbaugh, was 75.9% (6th overall, 5th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2014, which eliminates the '08 and '09 classes that Harbaugh recruited and led us to four NY6 bowls (and some people consider the start of the Shaw-induced downfall), is still 71.6% (9th overall, 7th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2016, which is the most cherry picked data, is 70% (19th overall, 12th in P5, 3rd in P12).

Since 2016, the following teams have worse winning percentages than Stanford: USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Utah and everyone else except for Washington and Washington State in the Pac-12; Texas, Oklahoma State, TCU and all of the Big-12 save Oklahoma; Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia Tech, and all of the ACC save Clemson;  Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan State and much of the Big Ten (except Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin); Auburn, Florida, and the entire SEC except Alabama, LSU, and Georgia; Notre Dame.  I'm sure many of the teams on the list are teams you think have left Stanford in the dust and have revolutionary offensive schemes that make it look like Stanford is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I think there are reasons to be concerned going forward.  But I would not highlight historical data to make the point.  Because the results suggest that a lot of the teams you think are doing a better job in the new world of football... aren't winning more games.

BC

[qwerty49]

I think people are whistling past the graveyard. Maybe I am being Chicken Little, but I see lots of chinks in the armor of Stanford football right now that I haven’t noticed since the pre-2006 days. Most of them have to do with changes in the college football industry that are happening in the environment Stanford Football lives in.

It’s like Stanford is a Polar Bear and the warming climate melting the ice pack is college football.

You are right that there are some big question marks going forward, which suggest that in the near future will likely not have been as successful as it has been for the last ten or so years.  And in the long run, I agree the demographic and social trends probably disfavor Stanford remaining a long-term football powerhouse.

However, it is really tough to look at our recent past and come to the conclusion that it has affected us very much at all.  I found this website helpful for finding the winning percentage of teams over time:

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/trends/...since_2007

Stanford's winning percentage since 2007, when John Harbaugh was hired, was 70.2% (13th in the country and 11th among P5 teams, 2nd in the Pac-12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2009, when our current bowl run started, was 76.1% (6th in the country, 5th among P5 teams, tops in the Pac-12; only Alabama, Ohio State, Boise State, Clemson, and Oklahoma have been better)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2011, when David Shaw took over for Harbaugh, was 75.9% (6th overall, 5th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2014, which eliminates the '08 and '09 classes that Harbaugh recruited and led us to four NY6 bowls (and some people consider the start of the Shaw-induced downfall), is still 71.6% (9th overall, 7th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2016, which is the most cherry picked data, is 70% (19th overall, 12th in P5, 3rd in P12).

Since 2016, the following teams have worse winning percentages than Stanford: USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Utah and everyone else except for Washington and Washington State in the Pac-12; Texas, Oklahoma State, TCU and all of the Big-12 save Oklahoma; Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia Tech, and all of the ACC save Clemson;  Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan State and much of the Big Ten (except Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin); Auburn, Florida, and the entire SEC except Alabama, LSU, and Georgia; Notre Dame.  I'm sure many of the teams on the list are teams you think have left Stanford in the dust and have revolutionary offensive schemes that make it look like Stanford is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I think there are reasons to be concerned going forward.  But I would not highlight historical data to make the point.  Because the results suggest that a lot of the teams you think are doing a better job in the new world of football... aren't winning more games.

BC

I'm one of those who has to slap myself and wonder why I feel let down after a 9-win season.  I think it's because, after 50 years, over the last decade I've finally seen what consistent high-level football is like, and can be like, at Stanford.  And I'm probably starting to appreciate what a fine line there can be between success and failure at that level, especially given that our recruiting is even more subject to cyclicality than other schools who have a much, much larger recruiting pool.

But yeah, I really wonder about next year, and about the foreseeable future.  Is it a knife to a gunfight, is it regression to the mean, or is it just a perfect storm that puts me in this position of dread?

1) How much of the injury bug can be linked to Turley's promotion to the next level?

2) Where did Intellectual Brutality go?  Or are our personnel on OL and DL just not that physical to begin with?  Where are the next big nasty guys on the roster?

3) Akina looked like he was recruiting and developing a dynasty in the secondary.  But our CB play was soft and our safeties can't tackle (or even take the right angles to attempt a tackle).  Adebo, who is all-Universe, is the only reliable returner, and he can go pro after next year.  

4) All of a sudden our QB pipeline looks really shaky

Lots of pearls to clutch this off season.  But at least we can relax somewhat and just hope things are better by August.  Shaw doesn't have that luxury.

[qwerty49]

I think people are whistling past the graveyard. Maybe I am being Chicken Little, but I see lots of chinks in the armor of Stanford football right now that I haven’t noticed since the pre-2006 days. Most of them have to do with changes in the college football industry that are happening in the environment Stanford Football lives in.

It’s like Stanford is a Polar Bear and the warming climate melting the ice pack is college football.

You are right that there are some big question marks going forward, which suggest that in the near future will likely not have been as successful as it has been for the last ten or so years.  And in the long run, I agree the demographic and social trends probably disfavor Stanford remaining a long-term football powerhouse.

However, it is really tough to look at our recent past and come to the conclusion that it has affected us very much at all.  I found this website helpful for finding the winning percentage of teams over time:

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/trends/...since_2007

Stanford's winning percentage since 2007, when John Harbaugh was hired, was 70.2% (13th in the country and 11th among P5 teams, 2nd in the Pac-12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2009, when our current bowl run started, was 76.1% (6th in the country, 5th among P5 teams, tops in the Pac-12; only Alabama, Ohio State, Boise State, Clemson, and Oklahoma have been better)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2011, when David Shaw took over for Harbaugh, was 75.9% (6th overall, 5th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2014, which eliminates the '08 and '09 classes that Harbaugh recruited and led us to four NY6 bowls (and some people consider the start of the Shaw-induced downfall), is still 71.6% (9th overall, 7th in P5, 1st in P12)
Stanford's winning percentage since 2016, which is the most cherry picked data, is 70% (19th overall, 12th in P5, 3rd in P12).

Since 2016, the following teams have worse winning percentages than Stanford: USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Utah and everyone else except for Washington and Washington State in the Pac-12; Texas, Oklahoma State, TCU and all of the Big-12 save Oklahoma; Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia Tech, and all of the ACC save Clemson;  Northwestern, Iowa, Michigan State and much of the Big Ten (except Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin); Auburn, Florida, and the entire SEC except Alabama, LSU, and Georgia; Notre Dame.  I'm sure many of the teams on the list are teams you think have left Stanford in the dust and have revolutionary offensive schemes that make it look like Stanford is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

I think there are reasons to be concerned going forward.  But I would not highlight historical data to make the point.  Because the results suggest that a lot of the teams you think are doing a better job in the new world of football... aren't winning more games.

BC

I'm one of those who has to slap myself and wonder why I feel let down after a 9-win season.  I think it's because, after 50 years, over the last decade I've finally seen what consistent high-level football is like, and can be like, at Stanford.  And I'm probably starting to appreciate what a fine line there can be between success and failure at that level, especially given that our recruiting is even more subject to cyclicality than other schools who have a much, much larger recruiting pool.

But yeah, I really wonder about next year, and about the foreseeable future.  Is it a knife to a gunfight, is it regression to the mean, or is it just a perfect storm that puts me in this position of dread?

1) How much of the injury bug can be linked to Turley's promotion to the next level?

2) Where did Intellectual Brutality go?  Or are our personnel on OL and DL just not that physical to begin with?  Where are the next big nasty guys on the roster?

3) Akina looked like he was recruiting and developing a dynasty in the secondary.  But our CB play was soft and our safeties can't tackle (or even take the right angles to attempt a tackle).  Adebo, who is all-Universe, is the only reliable returner, and he can go pro after next year.  

4) All of a sudden our QB pipeline looks really shaky

Lots of pearls to clutch this off season.  But at least we can relax somewhat and just hope things are better by August.  Shaw doesn't have that luxury.

[winflop]

1) How much of the injury bug can be linked to Turley's promotion to the next level?

I think it could also be linked to replacing the head football trainer with an intern. This is on Muir.

2) Where did Intellectual Brutality go?  Or are our personnel on OL and DL just not that physical to begin with?  Where are the next big nasty guys on the roster?

Dunno about this. Herbig was apparently pretty nasty but may not have been a leader like DeCastro was.

3) Akina looked like he was recruiting and developing a dynasty in the secondary.  But our CB play was soft and our safeties can't tackle (or even take the right angles to attempt a tackle).  Adebo, who is all-Universe, is the only reliable returner, and he can go pro after next year.

Holder battled injuries all year and was never close to 100%. He's a warrior. Adebo is the best CB I've seen in a Stanford uniform. Enjoy next season because it will likely be his last.

4) All of a sudden our QB pipeline looks really shaky

This is the direct result of not taking a scholarship QB in every single year. I continue to fail to understand why this happens, especially when you have an offense this complicated. Not only is there the higher risk of injury at the position, there is the risk that the player simply won't learn the offense well enough.

[winflop]

1) How much of the injury bug can be linked to Turley's promotion to the next level?

I think it could also be linked to replacing the head football trainer with an intern. This is on Muir.

2) Where did Intellectual Brutality go?  Or are our personnel on OL and DL just not that physical to begin with?  Where are the next big nasty guys on the roster?

Dunno about this. Herbig was apparently pretty nasty but may not have been a leader like DeCastro was.

3) Akina looked like he was recruiting and developing a dynasty in the secondary.  But our CB play was soft and our safeties can't tackle (or even take the right angles to attempt a tackle).  Adebo, who is all-Universe, is the only reliable returner, and he can go pro after next year.

Holder battled injuries all year and was never close to 100%. He's a warrior. Adebo is the best CB I've seen in a Stanford uniform. Enjoy next season because it will likely be his last.

4) All of a sudden our QB pipeline looks really shaky

This is the direct result of not taking a scholarship QB in every single year. I continue to fail to understand why this happens, especially when you have an offense this complicated. Not only is there the higher risk of injury at the position, there is the risk that the player simply won't learn the offense well enough.

[needle]

Might as well put the shrinking attendance on the list of Reasons for Doom, right between worsening air quality and 10 pm EDT kickoffs.

[needle]

Might as well put the shrinking attendance on the list of Reasons for Doom, right between worsening air quality and 10 pm EDT kickoffs.

[Goose]

Herbig was apparently pretty nasty but may not have been a leader like DeCastro was.

I never really saw this "nastiness". If anything, I saw the opposite. Herbig is a really big (and supposedly fast) guy who should have been able to dominate the guy he was blocking. I didn't see this happen. Two things stick in my mind. One, the OL coach screaming at Herbig (Freshman year) as he comes to the sideline "Its F****** Rice", and the Cal game where Herbig is supposed to block the linebacker. The Cal player falls down in front of Herbig. Herbig sort of pauses, as if thinking "What do I do now?", and then basically gently lays down on the Cal player. OK, that was his man, but Garnett would have ignored him (because he was not a threat anymore) and run to crush the safety. So I don't see a real "want to". there. Maybe I am being unfair. For sure I don't know the guy personally. But I haven't seen any highlight reels featuring him either. He seemed to have that potential, but it didn't materialize, IMHO.

[Goose]

Herbig was apparently pretty nasty but may not have been a leader like DeCastro was.

I never really saw this "nastiness". If anything, I saw the opposite. Herbig is a really big (and supposedly fast) guy who should have been able to dominate the guy he was blocking. I didn't see this happen. Two things stick in my mind. One, the OL coach screaming at Herbig (Freshman year) as he comes to the sideline "Its F****** Rice", and the Cal game where Herbig is supposed to block the linebacker. The Cal player falls down in front of Herbig. Herbig sort of pauses, as if thinking "What do I do now?", and then basically gently lays down on the Cal player. OK, that was his man, but Garnett would have ignored him (because he was not a threat anymore) and run to crush the safety. So I don't see a real "want to". there. Maybe I am being unfair. For sure I don't know the guy personally. But I haven't seen any highlight reels featuring him either. He seemed to have that potential, but it didn't materialize, IMHO.

[stupac2]

I think there are a couple things happening here. First, before the season we typically have a poll of what people expect to finish (I couldn't find one from this year, but we definitely have in the past) and the median result is usually 8-4 or 9-3. If you actually try to handicap probabilities of winning and guess our record (as some posters do, and predictors like Connelly do) then you usually end up right in that range. So, in some sense, a season like this one is what we typically expect given our schedule and various uncertainties associated with the season.

Then we actually play the games. Instead of a level-headed "well yeah winning in Seattle is hard, we'll probably lose" we see how we lose and say "we could've won if not for..." and feel like we should've won. Suddenly those pre-season predictions of 8-4 or 9-3 fade from memory and we all wonder why we're not going 12-0 every year. After all, if it weren't for this play and that play...

Of course, you never do that in the other direction, flip the various close wins to losses, so it just feels like we underperformed. But we didn't. We did basically as well as you would've expected before the season. And, frankly, if you had known before the season that we'd be a walking MASH unit the whole season you'd probably think finishing 9-4 would be a miracle. But, again, it's hard to feel that way knowing how close we were in several of those games.

[stupac2]

I think there are a couple things happening here. First, before the season we typically have a poll of what people expect to finish (I couldn't find one from this year, but we definitely have in the past) and the median result is usually 8-4 or 9-3. If you actually try to handicap probabilities of winning and guess our record (as some posters do, and predictors like Connelly do) then you usually end up right in that range. So, in some sense, a season like this one is what we typically expect given our schedule and various uncertainties associated with the season.

Then we actually play the games. Instead of a level-headed "well yeah winning in Seattle is hard, we'll probably lose" we see how we lose and say "we could've won if not for..." and feel like we should've won. Suddenly those pre-season predictions of 8-4 or 9-3 fade from memory and we all wonder why we're not going 12-0 every year. After all, if it weren't for this play and that play...

Of course, you never do that in the other direction, flip the various close wins to losses, so it just feels like we underperformed. But we didn't. We did basically as well as you would've expected before the season. And, frankly, if you had known before the season that we'd be a walking MASH unit the whole season you'd probably think finishing 9-4 would be a miracle. But, again, it's hard to feel that way knowing how close we were in several of those games.

[2006alum]

+1 Stupac. Given that the even years are our "hard" home/away years, 9-4 is pretty amazing. Honestly, we didn't lose to anyone we shouldn't have lost to, and we also didn't beat anyone that we had no business beating. The USC win, in retrospect, portended a very mediocre season for them, and the Oregon game should have been a toss-up, and was. We had two very close/lucky wins at Oregon and vs. Pitt, and two almost-coulda-shoulda losses at Washington and vs. WSU. Almost every other game was a blow out in one direction or the other. Probably the closest to bad loss was the loss to Utah at home, largely because of the margins.

[2006alum]

+1 Stupac. Given that the even years are our "hard" home/away years, 9-4 is pretty amazing. Honestly, we didn't lose to anyone we shouldn't have lost to, and we also didn't beat anyone that we had no business beating. The USC win, in retrospect, portended a very mediocre season for them, and the Oregon game should have been a toss-up, and was. We had two very close/lucky wins at Oregon and vs. Pitt, and two almost-coulda-shoulda losses at Washington and vs. WSU. Almost every other game was a blow out in one direction or the other. Probably the closest to bad loss was the loss to Utah at home, largely because of the margins.

[SamuelMcF]

Herbig was apparently pretty nasty but may not have been a leader like DeCastro was.

One, the OL coach screaming at Herbig (Freshman year) as he comes to the sideline "Its F****** Rice", and the Cal game where Herbig is supposed to block the linebacker. 

Shaw should've screamed at Bloomgren when he left for "F****** RICE". Would've been hilarious.

[SamuelMcF]

Herbig was apparently pretty nasty but may not have been a leader like DeCastro was.

One, the OL coach screaming at Herbig (Freshman year) as he comes to the sideline "Its F****** Rice", and the Cal game where Herbig is supposed to block the linebacker. 

Shaw should've screamed at Bloomgren when he left for "F****** RICE". Would've been hilarious.

[Hank 91]

I've wondering about this for the past four or five years, and I think what we're seeing is what happens when you recruit players who have options beyond football. Except for a handful of elite players, most of these kids arrive at Stanford with twin goals of playing football at a high level and obtaining a Stanford degree. This is a broad generalization, but I don't think too many kids head to Clemson or Alabama with that in mind. They want a college education, most of them, but they probably aren't drawn by the Clemson or Alabama academic brand.

So if you've got a kid who's already thinking that way, it shouldn't be surprising when he finishes his senior of college and begins to think about other things. It also shouldn't be surprising when those thoughts change. Two of my strongest memories from my senior year involve this. I arrived on campus in late September, and I was kind of heartbroken that it would be my last September. I couldn't imagine leaving the place that had given me the best three years of my life to that date, but in the spring I couldn't have been more ready to leave. It was shocking, really, how dramatically my feelings changed in such a short time. I was tired of the academic grind (even though those who knew me then would never have described me as a grinder), and I wasn't spending four to six hours a day on football. It never surprises me when players want to graduate and move on.

Also, and here's another generalization, these intelligent players surely have a deep understanding of the risks they take each time they pull on their helmets. I'm sure all football players understand this, but if you're a Stanford player who has gotten to the level where the NFL becomes a possibility, an early departure probably says more about appreciating the narrow window of that opportunity than anything else. Bryce Love was obviously the rare exception, but he didn't stay for his senior because he loved football, he stayed because he loved education. If we compare him to Christian McCaffrey and his decision to leave early, neither choice can be viewed as a surprise. Christian remains one of my favorite Stanford players ever, but I never saw or read anything that made me think he loved being a student. He was always headed to the NFL, so he was always going to leave after his junior year.

In short, this is just the way it is, and I wouldn't have it any different.

[Hank 91]

I've wondering about this for the past four or five years, and I think what we're seeing is what happens when you recruit players who have options beyond football. Except for a handful of elite players, most of these kids arrive at Stanford with twin goals of playing football at a high level and obtaining a Stanford degree. This is a broad generalization, but I don't think too many kids head to Clemson or Alabama with that in mind. They want a college education, most of them, but they probably aren't drawn by the Clemson or Alabama academic brand.

So if you've got a kid who's already thinking that way, it shouldn't be surprising when he finishes his senior of college and begins to think about other things. It also shouldn't be surprising when those thoughts change. Two of my strongest memories from my senior year involve this. I arrived on campus in late September, and I was kind of heartbroken that it would be my last September. I couldn't imagine leaving the place that had given me the best three years of my life to that date, but in the spring I couldn't have been more ready to leave. It was shocking, really, how dramatically my feelings changed in such a short time. I was tired of the academic grind (even though those who knew me then would never have described me as a grinder), and I wasn't spending four to six hours a day on football. It never surprises me when players want to graduate and move on.

Also, and here's another generalization, these intelligent players surely have a deep understanding of the risks they take each time they pull on their helmets. I'm sure all football players understand this, but if you're a Stanford player who has gotten to the level where the NFL becomes a possibility, an early departure probably says more about appreciating the narrow window of that opportunity than anything else. Bryce Love was obviously the rare exception, but he didn't stay for his senior because he loved football, he stayed because he loved education. If we compare him to Christian McCaffrey and his decision to leave early, neither choice can be viewed as a surprise. Christian remains one of my favorite Stanford players ever, but I never saw or read anything that made me think he loved being a student. He was always headed to the NFL, so he was always going to leave after his junior year.

In short, this is just the way it is, and I wouldn't have it any different.

[BostonCard]

I think there are a couple things happening here. First, before the season we typically have a poll of what people expect to finish (I couldn't find one from this year, but we definitely have in the past) and the median result is usually 8-4 or 9-3. If you actually try to handicap probabilities of winning and guess our record (as some posters do, and predictors like Connelly do) then you usually end up right in that range. So, in some sense, a season like this one is what we typically expect given our schedule and various uncertainties associated with the season.

Then we actually play the games. Instead of a level-headed "well yeah winning in Seattle is hard, we'll probably lose" we see how we lose and say "we could've won if not for..." and feel like we should've won. Suddenly those pre-season predictions of 8-4 or 9-3 fade from memory and we all wonder why we're not going 12-0 every year. After all, if it weren't for this play and that play...

Of course, you never do that in the other direction, flip the various close wins to losses, so it just feels like we underperformed. But we didn't. We did basically as well as you would've expected before the season. And, frankly, if you had known before the season that we'd be a walking MASH unit the whole season you'd probably think finishing 9-4 would be a miracle. But, again, it's hard to feel that way knowing how close we were in several of those games.

Good point Stupac.  You are right that we probably did about what we expected.  I think part of the disappointment is that the conference championship was there for the taking.  UW was a weaker Pac-12 champion than expected; it lost to friggin Cal, for goodness sakes.  We had WSU on the ropes at home, and we literally gave Utah the game away in the form of turnovers.  The issue, of course, is that other than Utah, we weren't really much better than any of those teams.  I mean we had a chance to win, which is frustrating, but we wouldn't have won a hypothetical majority of 1000 match-ups.  And then of course there are a couple of games that we had no business winning (Oregon, Pitt), and as I noted in the Sun Bowl takeaways thread, a mismatch between game flow (who is dominating on the field) and scores is a no-win situation.  If you win on the scoreboard, you lament at the poor quality of play.  If you outplay your opponent but are outscored, you lament the fact that you didn't get the win.

So, although numerically we had 9 wins which is good, in some ways it feels like a 7-6 season.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think there are a couple things happening here. First, before the season we typically have a poll of what people expect to finish (I couldn't find one from this year, but we definitely have in the past) and the median result is usually 8-4 or 9-3. If you actually try to handicap probabilities of winning and guess our record (as some posters do, and predictors like Connelly do) then you usually end up right in that range. So, in some sense, a season like this one is what we typically expect given our schedule and various uncertainties associated with the season.

Then we actually play the games. Instead of a level-headed "well yeah winning in Seattle is hard, we'll probably lose" we see how we lose and say "we could've won if not for..." and feel like we should've won. Suddenly those pre-season predictions of 8-4 or 9-3 fade from memory and we all wonder why we're not going 12-0 every year. After all, if it weren't for this play and that play...

Of course, you never do that in the other direction, flip the various close wins to losses, so it just feels like we underperformed. But we didn't. We did basically as well as you would've expected before the season. And, frankly, if you had known before the season that we'd be a walking MASH unit the whole season you'd probably think finishing 9-4 would be a miracle. But, again, it's hard to feel that way knowing how close we were in several of those games.

Good point Stupac.  You are right that we probably did about what we expected.  I think part of the disappointment is that the conference championship was there for the taking.  UW was a weaker Pac-12 champion than expected; it lost to friggin Cal, for goodness sakes.  We had WSU on the ropes at home, and we literally gave Utah the game away in the form of turnovers.  The issue, of course, is that other than Utah, we weren't really much better than any of those teams.  I mean we had a chance to win, which is frustrating, but we wouldn't have won a hypothetical majority of 1000 match-ups.  And then of course there are a couple of games that we had no business winning (Oregon, Pitt), and as I noted in the Sun Bowl takeaways thread, a mismatch between game flow (who is dominating on the field) and scores is a no-win situation.  If you win on the scoreboard, you lament at the poor quality of play.  If you outplay your opponent but are outscored, you lament the fact that you didn't get the win.

So, although numerically we had 9 wins which is good, in some ways it feels like a 7-6 season.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Well my prediction was 9-3, and that included a win against Utah, but the reality is Stanford should have lost to Utah and beat WSU to go 9-3. To me, and I think this is true for most of the pundits and media executives, Stanford getting blown out by Notre Dame (despite Shaw's ideas of how that game went) and Utah in consecutive weeks is really what took the starch out of Stanford's season and the idea Stanford was a Top 25 team.

You feel a lot better about a season you don't win as much as maybe you thought possible, when your team is competitive in its losses. But the reality is Stanford was pretty well dominated three weeks straight, even though they beat Oregon somehow.  The Oregon game felt a lot worse after seeing the Notre Dame and Utah debacles.

But what goes around comes around in sports. Utah was the beneficiary of absurd turnovers against Stanford, and was the victim of them against Northwestern in the Holiday Bowl.

[OutsiderFan]

Well my prediction was 9-3, and that included a win against Utah, but the reality is Stanford should have lost to Utah and beat WSU to go 9-3. To me, and I think this is true for most of the pundits and media executives, Stanford getting blown out by Notre Dame (despite Shaw's ideas of how that game went) and Utah in consecutive weeks is really what took the starch out of Stanford's season and the idea Stanford was a Top 25 team.

You feel a lot better about a season you don't win as much as maybe you thought possible, when your team is competitive in its losses. But the reality is Stanford was pretty well dominated three weeks straight, even though they beat Oregon somehow.  The Oregon game felt a lot worse after seeing the Notre Dame and Utah debacles.

But what goes around comes around in sports. Utah was the beneficiary of absurd turnovers against Stanford, and was the victim of them against Northwestern in the Holiday Bowl.

[Redrum]

For those of us who more and more frequently end up napping at random times,  what happened to Turley?  Promoted within?  Gone elsewhere?  Really replaced by student intern?  Really?

[Redrum]

For those of us who more and more frequently end up napping at random times,  what happened to Turley?  Promoted within?  Gone elsewhere?  Really replaced by student intern?  Really?

[SamuelMcF]

For those of us who more and more frequently end up napping at random times,  what happened to Turley?  Promoted within?  Gone elsewhere?  Really replaced by student intern?  Really?

Turley was promoted within to the Director of Strength and Conditioning. According to his bio, "On top of his day-to-day duties with the football team, Turley oversees the sports performance program implementation for each of Stanford's 36 varsity teams." 

The student intern was the "interim head athletic trainer", which is not the same thing (sports medicine/physical therapy), although I see why they could be mixed up. Still not a position a 26-year-old should ever be in unless s/he is Doogie Howser.

[SamuelMcF]

For those of us who more and more frequently end up napping at random times,  what happened to Turley?  Promoted within?  Gone elsewhere?  Really replaced by student intern?  Really?

Turley was promoted within to the Director of Strength and Conditioning. According to his bio, "On top of his day-to-day duties with the football team, Turley oversees the sports performance program implementation for each of Stanford's 36 varsity teams." 

The student intern was the "interim head athletic trainer", which is not the same thing (sports medicine/physical therapy), although I see why they could be mixed up. Still not a position a 26-year-old should ever be in unless s/he is Doogie Howser.

[BostonCard]

For those of us who more and more frequently end up napping at random times,  what happened to Turley?  Promoted within?  Gone elsewhere?  Really replaced by student intern?  Really?

Turley was promoted to become the Kissick Family Director of Sports Performance for the entire DAPER.

https://gostanford.com/coaches.aspx?rc=1106

He still works with the football team, despite protestations of many here...

On top of his day-to-day duties with the football team, Turley oversees the sports performance program implementation for each of Stanford's 36 varsity teams.

That being said, given his other duties, he has less time to devote to the football team, and there is no permanent sports performance coordinator for football.

BC

[BostonCard]

For those of us who more and more frequently end up napping at random times,  what happened to Turley?  Promoted within?  Gone elsewhere?  Really replaced by student intern?  Really?

Turley was promoted to become the Kissick Family Director of Sports Performance for the entire DAPER.

https://gostanford.com/coaches.aspx?rc=1106

He still works with the football team, despite protestations of many here...

On top of his day-to-day duties with the football team, Turley oversees the sports performance program implementation for each of Stanford's 36 varsity teams.

That being said, given his other duties, he has less time to devote to the football team, and there is no permanent sports performance coordinator for football.

BC

[BobK]

http://www.stanfordsportsperformance.com/staff/

Turley
Cullen
Reese

That's three for FB

[BobK]

http://www.stanfordsportsperformance.com/staff/

Turley
Cullen
Reese

That's three for FB