[Austroturf]

K

If McKee flips the staff should be fired.

I’m thinking that’s unlikely.



BC

This must be McKee in his room in Brazil (where he is currently doing missionary work for his church).  Guess he has to improvise a bit.  I saw a video on McKee in which he explained that he has lost something like 15 pounds since being on this church mission.  Let's hope he gets the muscle back.  Clearly, he is trying.  

My priorities are:
A: Other: revamp the coaching staff.  Any hopes of future banner seasons will depend on this.  I care less about this particular season and more about the trend, which has been sharply pointing down since the end of the 2015 season. All that said, 
B: Beat Cal.  The result of Big Game used to make or break a Stanford season.  We are there again.  Let's not allow this streak to end, as well.  And connected to this.
C: Make a bowl game and keep that streak going, as well.  

Of course, I only want B and C if A happens after this season (I don't assume Shaw will make any changes during the season).  If B and C delude Shaw into believing that all is happy in happy valley, then I prefer to lose to Cal and not make a bowl game.  Upgrading the coaching staff is my first and only priority.  And I would like to note that I want Shaw to do the upgrading, not Muir, which means I still support Shaw, but only if he can read the writing on the wall and get some top-flight assistants to help restore the program to its former glory. 

A question to Cardboard members: apart from Pete Alamar, is there a single member of Shaw's coaching staff that would realistically have a shot at a bigger job elsewhere?  And a second question: could any member of Shaw's staff replace Shaw (the way he replaced Harbaugh)?  I say no and no to both questions, but would be interested in your collective views.  The answer to both questions in a truly excellent program would be yes and yes.

[Austroturf]

K

If McKee flips the staff should be fired.

I’m thinking that’s unlikely.



BC

This must be McKee in his room in Brazil (where he is currently doing missionary work for his church).  Guess he has to improvise a bit.  I saw a video on McKee in which he explained that he has lost something like 15 pounds since being on this church mission.  Let's hope he gets the muscle back.  Clearly, he is trying.  

My priorities are:
A: Other: revamp the coaching staff.  Any hopes of future banner seasons will depend on this.  I care less about this particular season and more about the trend, which has been sharply pointing down since the end of the 2015 season. All that said, 
B: Beat Cal.  The result of Big Game used to make or break a Stanford season.  We are there again.  Let's not allow this streak to end, as well.  And connected to this.
C: Make a bowl game and keep that streak going, as well.  

Of course, I only want B and C if A happens after this season (I don't assume Shaw will make any changes during the season).  If B and C delude Shaw into believing that all is happy in happy valley, then I prefer to lose to Cal and not make a bowl game.  Upgrading the coaching staff is my first and only priority.  And I would like to note that I want Shaw to do the upgrading, not Muir, which means I still support Shaw, but only if he can read the writing on the wall and get some top-flight assistants to help restore the program to its former glory. 

A question to Cardboard members: apart from Pete Alamar, is there a single member of Shaw's coaching staff that would realistically have a shot at a bigger job elsewhere?  And a second question: could any member of Shaw's staff replace Shaw (the way he replaced Harbaugh)?  I say no and no to both questions, but would be interested in your collective views.  The answer to both questions in a truly excellent program would be yes and yes.

[Goose]

A question to Cardboard members: apart from Pete Alamar, is there a single member of Shaw's coaching staff that would realistically have a shot at a bigger job elsewhere?  And a second question: could any member of Shaw's staff replace Shaw (the way he replaced Harbaugh)?  I say no and no to both questions, but would be interested in your collective views.  The answer to both questions in a truly excellent program would be yes and yes.

This is an interesting question, IMHO, and a bit tricky to answer. Bloomgren was certainly able to "move up" to a head coaching job. Yet, he also gets lots of the blame on this board for failing to recruit anybody his last year and doing poorly the year before. I think Akina is well respected, and could probably get a head coaching job somewhere if he really wanted it. However, like may coaches, his strengths (and career goals probably) do not translate to that. Mason worked three years for Shaw before going to Vanderbilt. Ron Gould, who was head coach at UC Davis, is our running backs coach. He probably is a potential candidate somewhere in a year or so. Anderson also might be a candidate for a head coaching job, but he probably isn't high profile enough.
The positions from which head coaching candidates emerge are usually OC ad DC. Our DC is a "possibly but not likely". Our OC is for sure a "not yet". In reality, I have no idea what other coaches and administrators think about our assistant coaches. When head coach hires are not retreads, my reaction to the hire is often "Who?"

[Goose]

A question to Cardboard members: apart from Pete Alamar, is there a single member of Shaw's coaching staff that would realistically have a shot at a bigger job elsewhere?  And a second question: could any member of Shaw's staff replace Shaw (the way he replaced Harbaugh)?  I say no and no to both questions, but would be interested in your collective views.  The answer to both questions in a truly excellent program would be yes and yes.

This is an interesting question, IMHO, and a bit tricky to answer. Bloomgren was certainly able to "move up" to a head coaching job. Yet, he also gets lots of the blame on this board for failing to recruit anybody his last year and doing poorly the year before. I think Akina is well respected, and could probably get a head coaching job somewhere if he really wanted it. However, like may coaches, his strengths (and career goals probably) do not translate to that. Mason worked three years for Shaw before going to Vanderbilt. Ron Gould, who was head coach at UC Davis, is our running backs coach. He probably is a potential candidate somewhere in a year or so. Anderson also might be a candidate for a head coaching job, but he probably isn't high profile enough.
The positions from which head coaching candidates emerge are usually OC ad DC. Our DC is a "possibly but not likely". Our OC is for sure a "not yet". In reality, I have no idea what other coaches and administrators think about our assistant coaches. When head coach hires are not retreads, my reaction to the hire is often "Who?"

[Austroturf]

A question to Cardboard members: apart from Pete Alamar, is there a single member of Shaw's coaching staff that would realistically have a shot at a bigger job elsewhere?  And a second question: could any member of Shaw's staff replace Shaw (the way he replaced Harbaugh)?  I say no and no to both questions, but would be interested in your collective views.  The answer to both questions in a truly excellent program would be yes and yes.

This is an interesting question, IMHO, and a bit tricky to answer. Bloomgren was certainly able to "move up" to a head coaching job. Yet, he also gets lots of the blame on this board for failing to recruit anybody his last year and doing poorly the year before. I think Akina is well respected, and could probably get a head coaching job somewhere if he really wanted it. However, like may coaches, his strengths (and career goals probably) do not translate to that. Mason worked three years for Shaw before going to Vanderbilt. Ron Gould, who was head coach at UC Davis, is our running backs coach. He probably is a potential candidate somewhere in a year or so. Anderson also might be a candidate for a head coaching job, but he probably isn't high profile enough.
The positions from which head coaching candidates emerge are usually OC ad DC. Our DC is a "possibly but not likely". Our OC is for sure a "not yet". In reality, I have no idea what other coaches and administrators think about our assistant coaches. When head coach hires are not retreads, my reaction to the hire is often "Who?"

It's definitely not an easy question to ask, hence my appeal to the collective wisdom on this board.  

Yes, Gould was a head coach, but that didn't work out.  He might get another shot, but it's hard to say.  Mason, as a successful DC, was clearly a great candidate for a head-coaching job, but he was hired by Harbaugh, not Shaw.  I think Alamar has done a great job and might get a bigger role elsewhere.  Anderson? Not convinced.  Pritchard?  Certainly not now, if ever.  Bloomgren was a Shaw hire, but is now gone, so regardless of what we think of his tenure as OC/OL coach, that ship has sailed.  

One of the principles of great management is that you should always have a couple of possible successors in your team and always hire people who challenge you and who may be, at least in some areas, better than you are.   I don't see that in the current staff.  And it's most egregious in the coordinator positions.

[Austroturf]

A question to Cardboard members: apart from Pete Alamar, is there a single member of Shaw's coaching staff that would realistically have a shot at a bigger job elsewhere?  And a second question: could any member of Shaw's staff replace Shaw (the way he replaced Harbaugh)?  I say no and no to both questions, but would be interested in your collective views.  The answer to both questions in a truly excellent program would be yes and yes.

This is an interesting question, IMHO, and a bit tricky to answer. Bloomgren was certainly able to "move up" to a head coaching job. Yet, he also gets lots of the blame on this board for failing to recruit anybody his last year and doing poorly the year before. I think Akina is well respected, and could probably get a head coaching job somewhere if he really wanted it. However, like may coaches, his strengths (and career goals probably) do not translate to that. Mason worked three years for Shaw before going to Vanderbilt. Ron Gould, who was head coach at UC Davis, is our running backs coach. He probably is a potential candidate somewhere in a year or so. Anderson also might be a candidate for a head coaching job, but he probably isn't high profile enough.
The positions from which head coaching candidates emerge are usually OC ad DC. Our DC is a "possibly but not likely". Our OC is for sure a "not yet". In reality, I have no idea what other coaches and administrators think about our assistant coaches. When head coach hires are not retreads, my reaction to the hire is often "Who?"

It's definitely not an easy question to ask, hence my appeal to the collective wisdom on this board.  

Yes, Gould was a head coach, but that didn't work out.  He might get another shot, but it's hard to say.  Mason, as a successful DC, was clearly a great candidate for a head-coaching job, but he was hired by Harbaugh, not Shaw.  I think Alamar has done a great job and might get a bigger role elsewhere.  Anderson? Not convinced.  Pritchard?  Certainly not now, if ever.  Bloomgren was a Shaw hire, but is now gone, so regardless of what we think of his tenure as OC/OL coach, that ship has sailed.  

One of the principles of great management is that you should always have a couple of possible successors in your team and always hire people who challenge you and who may be, at least in some areas, better than you are.   I don't see that in the current staff.  And it's most egregious in the coordinator positions.

[JJJ]

I think Akina could get a similar or higher level job at a respected program if he wanted (as already pointed out). But I hear he’s happy with the current position  (at least as of prior to this season).

[JJJ]

I think Akina could get a similar or higher level job at a respected program if he wanted (as already pointed out). But I hear he’s happy with the current position  (at least as of prior to this season).

[BostonCard]

A question to Cardboard members: apart from Pete Alamar, is there a single member of Shaw's coaching staff that would realistically have a shot at a bigger job elsewhere?  And a second question: could any member of Shaw's staff replace Shaw (the way he replaced Harbaugh)?  I say no and no to both questions, but would be interested in your collective views.  The answer to both questions in a truly excellent program would be yes and yes.

Don't laugh, but Tavita Pritchard is probably considered the most likely head coaching candidate currently in the staff.  If your criteria is "successful coordinator", you are correct that he clearly wouldn't be up to snuff now and may never be.  But if your criteria is someone who connects with his players and will be great with recruiting and would run a college football team well (the CEO description), from everything I've heard Pritchard is the best coach currently on the staff.

BC

[BostonCard]

A question to Cardboard members: apart from Pete Alamar, is there a single member of Shaw's coaching staff that would realistically have a shot at a bigger job elsewhere?  And a second question: could any member of Shaw's staff replace Shaw (the way he replaced Harbaugh)?  I say no and no to both questions, but would be interested in your collective views.  The answer to both questions in a truly excellent program would be yes and yes.

Don't laugh, but Tavita Pritchard is probably considered the most likely head coaching candidate currently in the staff.  If your criteria is "successful coordinator", you are correct that he clearly wouldn't be up to snuff now and may never be.  But if your criteria is someone who connects with his players and will be great with recruiting and would run a college football team well (the CEO description), from everything I've heard Pritchard is the best coach currently on the staff.

BC

[Goose]

Don't laugh, but Tavita Pritchard is probably considered the most likely head coaching candidate currently in the staff.  If your criteria is "successful coordinator", you are correct that he clearly wouldn't be up to snuff now and may never be.

BC, I am interested in your comment because I have certainly also heard the first part of it. Regarding the second part of it, how are we sure he isn't a good OC. My impression is that he could be doing a great job, and it wouldn't show up because Shaw is so active in the offense that it isn't visible. I know all of Tavita's guys defend him, but that isn't really a measure. I really wonder if it was Tavita that persuaded Shaw to go to the pass two years ago, and it may be Tavita who has pressed recruiting better, faster receivers. I don't know it is so, but I also don't know it is not. It may be just a lack of visibility, or it may be he is just a "yes man". I don't know. Maybe you can shed some light on this.

[Goose]

Don't laugh, but Tavita Pritchard is probably considered the most likely head coaching candidate currently in the staff.  If your criteria is "successful coordinator", you are correct that he clearly wouldn't be up to snuff now and may never be.

BC, I am interested in your comment because I have certainly also heard the first part of it. Regarding the second part of it, how are we sure he isn't a good OC. My impression is that he could be doing a great job, and it wouldn't show up because Shaw is so active in the offense that it isn't visible. I know all of Tavita's guys defend him, but that isn't really a measure. I really wonder if it was Tavita that persuaded Shaw to go to the pass two years ago, and it may be Tavita who has pressed recruiting better, faster receivers. I don't know it is so, but I also don't know it is not. It may be just a lack of visibility, or it may be he is just a "yes man". I don't know. Maybe you can shed some light on this.

[Phogge]

If you are correct BC then heaven help the program going forward.

[Phogge]

If you are correct BC then heaven help the program going forward.

[Goose]

One of the principles of great management is that you should always have a couple of possible successors in your team and always hire people who challenge you and who may be, at least in some areas, better than you are.

I am going to challenge this statement, at least as written. It may apply to larger hierarchical organizations above a certain level, but IMHO it doesn't apply well to organization like football teams and organizations with less than about 200 participants. These organization are small enough that everybody knows the "leader". There are many different styles of leadership, but the leader has to lead. That takes a special kind of guy that can get people to follow them. There is no place to hide, and you aren't a name on an email.

The subordinates to the leader need to fill the gaps in the leader's capabilities. These subordinates will be working closely with the leader and must "fit" into the organization. Thus, if you are a "CEO" type coach (Herm Edwards), you need strong Xs and Os guys at both the OC and DC positions. Those guys may not be head coaching material, now or ever. That is OK, the HC doesn't care. The AD might, but in this case he doesn't get a vote. If, OTOH, the HC is an "offensive guy" (David Shaw) or a "defensive guy" (Justin Wilcox), you can live with a guy that is more of a "people person" as the coordinator in the area where the HC is involved. This guy may also be recruiting coordinator and manage other things the HC doesn't want to do or can't do. The HC should choose the guy on that basis. He then needs a great Xs and Os guy in the other position.  The HC needs to hire the best guys he can to do the coordinator job as the HC defines it. Shaw for instance is never going to hire an Air Raid guy as his OC, no matter how smart or how good he may be. The clash of styles just would never ever work, and Shaw is the leader. He does need to hire somebody who is capable of independent thinking and articulate enough to sell his ideas to Shaw. AFAIK, Tavita might be just that. Wilcox might hire an Air Raid guy, and may have to any minute now.

Some guys are "pointy end" guys. Some are "organization guys". Both types can work, but the people they hire need to compliment their strengths, not duplicate them. Chip Kelly is a "pointy end" guy, who hates recruiting and alumni relations. He needs an OC who is good at both.

The analogy is that good platoon leaders often don't make good company commanders, and that good company commanders often don't make good field grade officers. They are different skill sets. Hopefully, some of those at each level can rise to the next, but it is job performance in the job they have, not their potential, that is paramount. It is great if the subordinates have other skills, but the ones the leader wants are paramount.

[Goose]

One of the principles of great management is that you should always have a couple of possible successors in your team and always hire people who challenge you and who may be, at least in some areas, better than you are.

I am going to challenge this statement, at least as written. It may apply to larger hierarchical organizations above a certain level, but IMHO it doesn't apply well to organization like football teams and organizations with less than about 200 participants. These organization are small enough that everybody knows the "leader". There are many different styles of leadership, but the leader has to lead. That takes a special kind of guy that can get people to follow them. There is no place to hide, and you aren't a name on an email.

The subordinates to the leader need to fill the gaps in the leader's capabilities. These subordinates will be working closely with the leader and must "fit" into the organization. Thus, if you are a "CEO" type coach (Herm Edwards), you need strong Xs and Os guys at both the OC and DC positions. Those guys may not be head coaching material, now or ever. That is OK, the HC doesn't care. The AD might, but in this case he doesn't get a vote. If, OTOH, the HC is an "offensive guy" (David Shaw) or a "defensive guy" (Justin Wilcox), you can live with a guy that is more of a "people person" as the coordinator in the area where the HC is involved. This guy may also be recruiting coordinator and manage other things the HC doesn't want to do or can't do. The HC should choose the guy on that basis. He then needs a great Xs and Os guy in the other position.  The HC needs to hire the best guys he can to do the coordinator job as the HC defines it. Shaw for instance is never going to hire an Air Raid guy as his OC, no matter how smart or how good he may be. The clash of styles just would never ever work, and Shaw is the leader. He does need to hire somebody who is capable of independent thinking and articulate enough to sell his ideas to Shaw. AFAIK, Tavita might be just that. Wilcox might hire an Air Raid guy, and may have to any minute now.

Some guys are "pointy end" guys. Some are "organization guys". Both types can work, but the people they hire need to compliment their strengths, not duplicate them. Chip Kelly is a "pointy end" guy, who hates recruiting and alumni relations. He needs an OC who is good at both.

The analogy is that good platoon leaders often don't make good company commanders, and that good company commanders often don't make good field grade officers. They are different skill sets. Hopefully, some of those at each level can rise to the next, but it is job performance in the job they have, not their potential, that is paramount. It is great if the subordinates have other skills, but the ones the leader wants are paramount.

[winflop]

A question to Cardboard members: apart from Pete Alamar, is there a single member of Shaw's coaching staff that would realistically have a shot at a bigger job elsewhere?  And a second question: could any member of Shaw's staff replace Shaw (the way he replaced Harbaugh)?  I say no and no to both questions, but would be interested in your collective views.  The answer to both questions in a truly excellent program would be yes and yes.

Allegedly Arrilaga opened up his checkbook a couple years ago to keep Anderson. Akina could absolutely make a lateral move anywhere he wants and probably get a DC job if he wanted it (not clear he does). Carberry was an NFL OL coach, similarly Gould had a position coach job in the NFL.

So yeah there are a number of guys on the staff who could either move up or move to a similar role in the NFL. However, none of them is named Pritchard, Turner, or Hansen who oversee three of the most problematic position groups.

[winflop]

A question to Cardboard members: apart from Pete Alamar, is there a single member of Shaw's coaching staff that would realistically have a shot at a bigger job elsewhere?  And a second question: could any member of Shaw's staff replace Shaw (the way he replaced Harbaugh)?  I say no and no to both questions, but would be interested in your collective views.  The answer to both questions in a truly excellent program would be yes and yes.

Allegedly Arrilaga opened up his checkbook a couple years ago to keep Anderson. Akina could absolutely make a lateral move anywhere he wants and probably get a DC job if he wanted it (not clear he does). Carberry was an NFL OL coach, similarly Gould had a position coach job in the NFL.

So yeah there are a number of guys on the staff who could either move up or move to a similar role in the NFL. However, none of them is named Pritchard, Turner, or Hansen who oversee three of the most problematic position groups.

[Spiny_Norman]

Allegedly Arrilaga opened up his checkbook a couple years ago to keep Anderson. Akina could absolutely make a lateral move anywhere he wants and probably get a DC job if he wanted it (not clear he does). Carberry was an NFL OL coach, similarly Gould had a position coach job in the NFL.


So yeah there are a number of guys on the staff who could either move up or move to a similar role in the NFL. However, none of them is named Pritchard, Turner, or Hansen who oversee three of the most problematic position groups.

Turner?!? He coaches tight ends. Is that a problem position in your eyes?

[Spiny_Norman]

Allegedly Arrilaga opened up his checkbook a couple years ago to keep Anderson. Akina could absolutely make a lateral move anywhere he wants and probably get a DC job if he wanted it (not clear he does). Carberry was an NFL OL coach, similarly Gould had a position coach job in the NFL.


So yeah there are a number of guys on the staff who could either move up or move to a similar role in the NFL. However, none of them is named Pritchard, Turner, or Hansen who oversee three of the most problematic position groups.

Turner?!? He coaches tight ends. Is that a problem position in your eyes?

[BostonCard]

Maybe he meant Bobby Kennedy?  The wide receivers have not lived up to their billing so far.

On the other hand, it is not like Parkinson has been stellar either.

BC

[BostonCard]

Maybe he meant Bobby Kennedy?  The wide receivers have not lived up to their billing so far.

On the other hand, it is not like Parkinson has been stellar either.

BC

[Goose]

Maybe he meant Bobby Kennedy?  The wide receivers have not lived up to their billing so far.

+1. We had great expectations that largely haven't happened. One always wonder how much is the coach trying to be optimistic in public while being realistic in private, or were they just wrong?

On the other hand, it is not like Parkinson has been stellar either.

BC

Also true. Since he doesn't get much help from the other receivers, he is double covered a lot. That can't help.

[Goose]

Maybe he meant Bobby Kennedy?  The wide receivers have not lived up to their billing so far.

+1. We had great expectations that largely haven't happened. One always wonder how much is the coach trying to be optimistic in public while being realistic in private, or were they just wrong?

On the other hand, it is not like Parkinson has been stellar either.

BC

Also true. Since he doesn't get much help from the other receivers, he is double covered a lot. That can't help.

[winflop]

Maybe he meant Bobby Kennedy?  The wide receivers have not lived up to their billing so far.

On the other hand, it is not like Parkinson has been stellar either.

BC

Kennedy, like Carberry, has worked at the same position in the NFL. So I think he could be hired elsewhere.

I was referring to Turner as TE coach, although I was thinking only of this season. Based on his past, yes he could get hired into the NFL but not clear what credibility he would have to be promoted to college OC. Don't know enough to say one way or the other.

[winflop]

Maybe he meant Bobby Kennedy?  The wide receivers have not lived up to their billing so far.

On the other hand, it is not like Parkinson has been stellar either.

BC

Kennedy, like Carberry, has worked at the same position in the NFL. So I think he could be hired elsewhere.

I was referring to Turner as TE coach, although I was thinking only of this season. Based on his past, yes he could get hired into the NFL but not clear what credibility he would have to be promoted to college OC. Don't know enough to say one way or the other.

[martyup]

Parkinson has suffered this season because Costello and Mills tried to go to him too much.  Defenses double him up, or at least scheme around him.  For Colby to be more effective, we need to get other receivers involved more in the offense.  Weddington is a very good receiver, and he runs well after the catch.  If we could get the ball in his hands on shorter routes, we would move the ball and take pressure off Colby.  And, now that Fehoko is catching the ball we can use him to catch corners cheating up to stop the short passes to Colby and Weddington.  If the O line cannot pass block, short passes are the answer.

BTW, UCLA knew when we were running screen passes.  We must have a big fat tell.  That tell needs to be eliminated, or used as a decoy.

[martyup]

Parkinson has suffered this season because Costello and Mills tried to go to him too much.  Defenses double him up, or at least scheme around him.  For Colby to be more effective, we need to get other receivers involved more in the offense.  Weddington is a very good receiver, and he runs well after the catch.  If we could get the ball in his hands on shorter routes, we would move the ball and take pressure off Colby.  And, now that Fehoko is catching the ball we can use him to catch corners cheating up to stop the short passes to Colby and Weddington.  If the O line cannot pass block, short passes are the answer.

BTW, UCLA knew when we were running screen passes.  We must have a big fat tell.  That tell needs to be eliminated, or used as a decoy.

[Spiny_Norman]

BTW, UCLA knew when we were running screen passes.  We must have a big fat tell.  That tell needs to be eliminated, or used as a decoy.

Marty, every play we run seems to be a big fat tell. Even casual fans like me who never played football can often predict the play from the personnel and formation. An assistant coach at San Diego State told a sports writer acquaintance of mine after the 2017 SDSU victory that Stanford's offense was easy to prepare for. Stanford did nothing unexpected. Coach Shaw can talk about how complex the offense is, but it often does not confuse the opponent or create the mismatches that he wants to exploit.

[Spiny_Norman]

BTW, UCLA knew when we were running screen passes.  We must have a big fat tell.  That tell needs to be eliminated, or used as a decoy.

Marty, every play we run seems to be a big fat tell. Even casual fans like me who never played football can often predict the play from the personnel and formation. An assistant coach at San Diego State told a sports writer acquaintance of mine after the 2017 SDSU victory that Stanford's offense was easy to prepare for. Stanford did nothing unexpected. Coach Shaw can talk about how complex the offense is, but it often does not confuse the opponent or create the mismatches that he wants to exploit.

[Goose]

If the O line cannot pass block, short passes are the answer.

That might help if the defense is not playing press man, which UCLA did basically all night. If you try to throw a quick slant or a quick out, it will get picked much of the time. Furthermore, the QB has probably been taught not to throw the ball if the receiver is tightly covered and to look somewhere else (for which he needs some time, which he didn't have). If we had receivers that were fast enough that our opponents simply couldn't risk playing press man, quick passes would be a possible help for lack of pass blocking. However, we don't have such receivers. We tried to substitute bubble screens, which gives the receiver  theoretically a little cushion because he is behind the line of scrimmage. In most cases, we got tackled quickly, but it did work a few times. One can't build a pass offense on this however.

[Goose]

If the O line cannot pass block, short passes are the answer.

That might help if the defense is not playing press man, which UCLA did basically all night. If you try to throw a quick slant or a quick out, it will get picked much of the time. Furthermore, the QB has probably been taught not to throw the ball if the receiver is tightly covered and to look somewhere else (for which he needs some time, which he didn't have). If we had receivers that were fast enough that our opponents simply couldn't risk playing press man, quick passes would be a possible help for lack of pass blocking. However, we don't have such receivers. We tried to substitute bubble screens, which gives the receiver  theoretically a little cushion because he is behind the line of scrimmage. In most cases, we got tackled quickly, but it did work a few times. One can't build a pass offense on this however.

[Austroturf]

One of the principles of great management is that you should always have a couple of possible successors in your team and always hire people who challenge you and who may be, at least in some areas, better than you are.

I am going to challenge this statement, at least as written. It may apply to larger hierarchical organizations above a certain level, but IMHO it doesn't apply well to organization like football teams and organizations with less than about 200 participants. These organization are small enough that everybody knows the "leader". There are many different styles of leadership, but the leader has to lead. That takes a special kind of guy that can get people to follow them. There is no place to hide, and you aren't a name on an email.

The subordinates to the leader need to fill the gaps in the leader's capabilities. These subordinates will be working closely with the leader and must "fit" into the organization. Thus, if you are a "CEO" type coach (Herm Edwards), you need strong Xs and Os guys at both the OC and DC positions. Those guys may not be head coaching material, now or ever. That is OK, the HC doesn't care. The AD might, but in this case he doesn't get a vote. If, OTOH, the HC is an "offensive guy" (David Shaw) or a "defensive guy" (Justin Wilcox), you can live with a guy that is more of a "people person" as the coordinator in the area where the HC is involved. This guy may also be recruiting coordinator and manage other things the HC doesn't want to do or can't do. The HC should choose the guy on that basis. He then needs a great Xs and Os guy in the other position.  The HC needs to hire the best guys he can to do the coordinator job as the HC defines it. Shaw for instance is never going to hire an Air Raid guy as his OC, no matter how smart or how good he may be. The clash of styles just would never ever work, and Shaw is the leader. He does need to hire somebody who is capable of independent thinking and articulate enough to sell his ideas to Shaw. AFAIK, Tavita might be just that. Wilcox might hire an Air Raid guy, and may have to any minute now.

Some guys are "pointy end" guys. Some are "organization guys". Both types can work, but the people they hire need to compliment their strengths, not duplicate them. Chip Kelly is a "pointy end" guy, who hates recruiting and alumni relations. He needs an OC who is good at both.

The analogy is that good platoon leaders often don't make good company commanders, and that good company commanders often don't make good field grade officers. They are different skill sets. Hopefully, some of those at each level can rise to the next, but it is job performance in the job they have, not their potential, that is paramount. It is great if the subordinates have other skills, but the ones the leader wants are paramount.

Certainly football is different from a large corporation with many layers of management.  My point is that Shaw should surround himself with coaches who have their sights set high and possess the requisite ambition.  During one season, Harbaugh had Taggart, Fangio, Shaw, Mason and Hamilton on his staff.  All of these individuals brought something different to the table; but they shared one trait: they all ultimately became head coaches.  That's a pretty strong staff with some individuals who moved on to bigger challenges.  Shaw needs similar people around him: he should hire a younger version of himself, or a younger version of Harbaugh or Fangio, -- coaches that have the potential and ambition to win big in the sport.  

I agree that each head coach will have a different portfolio of abilities; and the staff he hires needs to complement those abilities.  After some bad luck with OCs, Gus Malzahn of Auburn is back to calling the plays himself again.  Clearly, he needs to compensate for his lack of defensive acumen by having a top flight DC.  I don't think we have a different view here.  What I miss in Shaw's coaching staff right now is the sense that they all have their sights aimed higher.  Taggart was the running backs coach at Stanford and left for the HC job at Western Kentucky after the 2009 season; after a season at Oregon, he is now HC at Florida State back in his native Florida.  Fangio was DC at Stanford and left with Harbaugh to be DC at the Niners and then again left after Harbaugh's departure to Michigan to take on the DC role at the Chicago Bears.  Now he is HC at the Broncos.  Shaw replaced Harbaugh at Stanford.  Mason took over the DC role, then departed as HC of Vanderbilt after the 2013 season.  Finally, Hamilton was OC at Stanford and left after the 2012 season to join Luck at the Colts.  He is now HC of the DC Defenders of the XFL.  

Having read through some of the comments here on the Cardboard concerning Shaw's current staff and their potential for roles elsewhere, here is a summary:
1) Alamar could probably get a better or similar position elsewhere.  
2) Akina is highly respected and might have the potential to go up one level
3) Anderson might have the skills, but maybe doesn't have the ambition
4) Gould has been running backs coach at Cal and HC at UC Davis; he could probably get a similar job somewhere else.  
5) Pritchard seems to have potential, but not enough experience
6) Carberry and Kennedy are seen to have the ability to get a similar job somewhere else
7) Hansen, Reynolds and Turner got no ringing endorsements from this board.  

But Alamar is already pushing 60.  Time might be running out on his career.  Gould is mid-fifties and has already dropped down from the head-coaching ranks.  Where is he going?  Anderson is two years younger than Shaw, so he is probably still on the upswing of his career; but does he have the ambition and the skills?  Pritchard might have great potential, but he is very, very green and one-dimensional. Akina is in his early sixties: Stanford might be his last station.  Carberry and Kennedy might have the ability to move laterally, but could they move up one level?  The jury is out on these two.  

This is quite a different staff from the one that led Stanford into its golden years back in 2009; and I doubt we will see similar career trajectories for Shaw's lieutenants.  And, yes, I think this is a major problem.  Shaw should surround himself with the same caliber of coaches that he worked with back in those days as a member of Harbaugh's staff -- individuals who have their sights set high and are burning to win and prove themselves and take the next step.

[Austroturf]

One of the principles of great management is that you should always have a couple of possible successors in your team and always hire people who challenge you and who may be, at least in some areas, better than you are.

I am going to challenge this statement, at least as written. It may apply to larger hierarchical organizations above a certain level, but IMHO it doesn't apply well to organization like football teams and organizations with less than about 200 participants. These organization are small enough that everybody knows the "leader". There are many different styles of leadership, but the leader has to lead. That takes a special kind of guy that can get people to follow them. There is no place to hide, and you aren't a name on an email.

The subordinates to the leader need to fill the gaps in the leader's capabilities. These subordinates will be working closely with the leader and must "fit" into the organization. Thus, if you are a "CEO" type coach (Herm Edwards), you need strong Xs and Os guys at both the OC and DC positions. Those guys may not be head coaching material, now or ever. That is OK, the HC doesn't care. The AD might, but in this case he doesn't get a vote. If, OTOH, the HC is an "offensive guy" (David Shaw) or a "defensive guy" (Justin Wilcox), you can live with a guy that is more of a "people person" as the coordinator in the area where the HC is involved. This guy may also be recruiting coordinator and manage other things the HC doesn't want to do or can't do. The HC should choose the guy on that basis. He then needs a great Xs and Os guy in the other position.  The HC needs to hire the best guys he can to do the coordinator job as the HC defines it. Shaw for instance is never going to hire an Air Raid guy as his OC, no matter how smart or how good he may be. The clash of styles just would never ever work, and Shaw is the leader. He does need to hire somebody who is capable of independent thinking and articulate enough to sell his ideas to Shaw. AFAIK, Tavita might be just that. Wilcox might hire an Air Raid guy, and may have to any minute now.

Some guys are "pointy end" guys. Some are "organization guys". Both types can work, but the people they hire need to compliment their strengths, not duplicate them. Chip Kelly is a "pointy end" guy, who hates recruiting and alumni relations. He needs an OC who is good at both.

The analogy is that good platoon leaders often don't make good company commanders, and that good company commanders often don't make good field grade officers. They are different skill sets. Hopefully, some of those at each level can rise to the next, but it is job performance in the job they have, not their potential, that is paramount. It is great if the subordinates have other skills, but the ones the leader wants are paramount.

Certainly football is different from a large corporation with many layers of management.  My point is that Shaw should surround himself with coaches who have their sights set high and possess the requisite ambition.  During one season, Harbaugh had Taggart, Fangio, Shaw, Mason and Hamilton on his staff.  All of these individuals brought something different to the table; but they shared one trait: they all ultimately became head coaches.  That's a pretty strong staff with some individuals who moved on to bigger challenges.  Shaw needs similar people around him: he should hire a younger version of himself, or a younger version of Harbaugh or Fangio, -- coaches that have the potential and ambition to win big in the sport.  

I agree that each head coach will have a different portfolio of abilities; and the staff he hires needs to complement those abilities.  After some bad luck with OCs, Gus Malzahn of Auburn is back to calling the plays himself again.  Clearly, he needs to compensate for his lack of defensive acumen by having a top flight DC.  I don't think we have a different view here.  What I miss in Shaw's coaching staff right now is the sense that they all have their sights aimed higher.  Taggart was the running backs coach at Stanford and left for the HC job at Western Kentucky after the 2009 season; after a season at Oregon, he is now HC at Florida State back in his native Florida.  Fangio was DC at Stanford and left with Harbaugh to be DC at the Niners and then again left after Harbaugh's departure to Michigan to take on the DC role at the Chicago Bears.  Now he is HC at the Broncos.  Shaw replaced Harbaugh at Stanford.  Mason took over the DC role, then departed as HC of Vanderbilt after the 2013 season.  Finally, Hamilton was OC at Stanford and left after the 2012 season to join Luck at the Colts.  He is now HC of the DC Defenders of the XFL.  

Having read through some of the comments here on the Cardboard concerning Shaw's current staff and their potential for roles elsewhere, here is a summary:
1) Alamar could probably get a better or similar position elsewhere.  
2) Akina is highly respected and might have the potential to go up one level
3) Anderson might have the skills, but maybe doesn't have the ambition
4) Gould has been running backs coach at Cal and HC at UC Davis; he could probably get a similar job somewhere else.  
5) Pritchard seems to have potential, but not enough experience
6) Carberry and Kennedy are seen to have the ability to get a similar job somewhere else
7) Hansen, Reynolds and Turner got no ringing endorsements from this board.  

But Alamar is already pushing 60.  Time might be running out on his career.  Gould is mid-fifties and has already dropped down from the head-coaching ranks.  Where is he going?  Anderson is two years younger than Shaw, so he is probably still on the upswing of his career; but does he have the ambition and the skills?  Pritchard might have great potential, but he is very, very green and one-dimensional. Akina is in his early sixties: Stanford might be his last station.  Carberry and Kennedy might have the ability to move laterally, but could they move up one level?  The jury is out on these two.  

This is quite a different staff from the one that led Stanford into its golden years back in 2009; and I doubt we will see similar career trajectories for Shaw's lieutenants.  And, yes, I think this is a major problem.  Shaw should surround himself with the same caliber of coaches that he worked with back in those days as a member of Harbaugh's staff -- individuals who have their sights set high and are burning to win and prove themselves and take the next step.

[qwerty49]

One of the principles of great management is that you should always have a couple of possible successors in your team and always hire people who challenge you and who may be, at least in some areas, better than you are.

I am going to challenge this statement, at least as written. It may apply to larger hierarchical organizations above a certain level, but IMHO it doesn't apply well to organization like football teams and organizations with less than about 200 participants. These organization are small enough that everybody knows the "leader". There are many different styles of leadership, but the leader has to lead. That takes a special kind of guy that can get people to follow them. There is no place to hide, and you aren't a name on an email.

The subordinates to the leader need to fill the gaps in the leader's capabilities. These subordinates will be working closely with the leader and must "fit" into the organization. Thus, if you are a "CEO" type coach (Herm Edwards), you need strong Xs and Os guys at both the OC and DC positions. Those guys may not be head coaching material, now or ever. That is OK, the HC doesn't care. The AD might, but in this case he doesn't get a vote. If, OTOH, the HC is an "offensive guy" (David Shaw) or a "defensive guy" (Justin Wilcox), you can live with a guy that is more of a "people person" as the coordinator in the area where the HC is involved. This guy may also be recruiting coordinator and manage other things the HC doesn't want to do or can't do. The HC should choose the guy on that basis. He then needs a great Xs and Os guy in the other position.  The HC needs to hire the best guys he can to do the coordinator job as the HC defines it. Shaw for instance is never going to hire an Air Raid guy as his OC, no matter how smart or how good he may be. The clash of styles just would never ever work, and Shaw is the leader. He does need to hire somebody who is capable of independent thinking and articulate enough to sell his ideas to Shaw. AFAIK, Tavita might be just that. Wilcox might hire an Air Raid guy, and may have to any minute now.

Some guys are "pointy end" guys. Some are "organization guys". Both types can work, but the people they hire need to compliment their strengths, not duplicate them. Chip Kelly is a "pointy end" guy, who hates recruiting and alumni relations. He needs an OC who is good at both.

The analogy is that good platoon leaders often don't make good company commanders, and that good company commanders often don't make good field grade officers. They are different skill sets. Hopefully, some of those at each level can rise to the next, but it is job performance in the job they have, not their potential, that is paramount. It is great if the subordinates have other skills, but the ones the leader wants are paramount.

Certainly football is different from a large corporation with many layers of management.  My point is that Shaw should surround himself with coaches who have their sights set high and possess the requisite ambition.  During one season, Harbaugh had Taggart, Fangio, Shaw, Mason and Hamilton on his staff.  All of these individuals brought something different to the table; but they shared one trait: they all ultimately became head coaches.  That's a pretty strong staff with some individuals who moved on to bigger challenges.  Shaw needs similar people around him: he should hire a younger version of himself, or a younger version of Harbaugh or Fangio, -- coaches that have the potential and ambition to win big in the sport.  

I agree that each head coach will have a different portfolio of abilities; and the staff he hires needs to complement those abilities.  After some bad luck with OCs, Gus Malzahn of Auburn is back to calling the plays himself again.  Clearly, he needs to compensate for his lack of defensive acumen by having a top flight DC.  I don't think we have a different view here.  What I miss in Shaw's coaching staff right now is the sense that they all have their sights aimed higher.  Taggart was the running backs coach at Stanford and left for the HC job at Western Kentucky after the 2009 season; after a season at Oregon, he is now HC at Florida State back in his native Florida.  Fangio was DC at Stanford and left with Harbaugh to be DC at the Niners and then again left after Harbaugh's departure to Michigan to take on the DC role at the Chicago Bears.  Now he is HC at the Broncos.  Shaw replaced Harbaugh at Stanford.  Mason took over the DC role, then departed as HC of Vanderbilt after the 2013 season.  Finally, Hamilton was OC at Stanford and left after the 2012 season to join Luck at the Colts.  He is now HC of the DC Defenders of the XFL.  

Having read through some of the comments here on the Cardboard concerning Shaw's current staff and their potential for roles elsewhere, here is a summary:
1) Alamar could probably get a better or similar position elsewhere.  
2) Akina is highly respected and might have the potential to go up one level
3) Anderson might have the skills, but maybe doesn't have the ambition
4) Gould has been running backs coach at Cal and HC at UC Davis; he could probably get a similar job somewhere else.  
5) Pritchard seems to have potential, but not enough experience
6) Carberry and Kennedy are seen to have the ability to get a similar job somewhere else
7) Hansen, Reynolds and Turner got no ringing endorsements from this board.  

But Alamar is already pushing 60.  Time might be running out on his career.  Gould is mid-fifties and has already dropped down from the head-coaching ranks.  Where is he going?  Anderson is two years younger than Shaw, so he is probably still on the upswing of his career; but does he have the ambition and the skills?  Pritchard might have great potential, but he is very, very green and one-dimensional. Akina is in his early sixties: Stanford might be his last station.  Carberry and Kennedy might have the ability to move laterally, but could they move up one level?  The jury is out on these two.  

This is quite a different staff from the one that led Stanford into its golden years back in 2009; and I doubt we will see similar career trajectories for Shaw's lieutenants.  And, yes, I think this is a major problem.  Shaw should surround himself with the same caliber of coaches that he worked with back in those days as a member of Harbaugh's staff -- individuals who have their sights set high and are burning to win and prove themselves and take the next step.

+1. Excellent post, Austroturf.

I think you’ve summed up the entire  coaching staff issue. I only wish your real identity was Bernard Muir, or even Willie Shaw.

[qwerty49]

One of the principles of great management is that you should always have a couple of possible successors in your team and always hire people who challenge you and who may be, at least in some areas, better than you are.

I am going to challenge this statement, at least as written. It may apply to larger hierarchical organizations above a certain level, but IMHO it doesn't apply well to organization like football teams and organizations with less than about 200 participants. These organization are small enough that everybody knows the "leader". There are many different styles of leadership, but the leader has to lead. That takes a special kind of guy that can get people to follow them. There is no place to hide, and you aren't a name on an email.

The subordinates to the leader need to fill the gaps in the leader's capabilities. These subordinates will be working closely with the leader and must "fit" into the organization. Thus, if you are a "CEO" type coach (Herm Edwards), you need strong Xs and Os guys at both the OC and DC positions. Those guys may not be head coaching material, now or ever. That is OK, the HC doesn't care. The AD might, but in this case he doesn't get a vote. If, OTOH, the HC is an "offensive guy" (David Shaw) or a "defensive guy" (Justin Wilcox), you can live with a guy that is more of a "people person" as the coordinator in the area where the HC is involved. This guy may also be recruiting coordinator and manage other things the HC doesn't want to do or can't do. The HC should choose the guy on that basis. He then needs a great Xs and Os guy in the other position.  The HC needs to hire the best guys he can to do the coordinator job as the HC defines it. Shaw for instance is never going to hire an Air Raid guy as his OC, no matter how smart or how good he may be. The clash of styles just would never ever work, and Shaw is the leader. He does need to hire somebody who is capable of independent thinking and articulate enough to sell his ideas to Shaw. AFAIK, Tavita might be just that. Wilcox might hire an Air Raid guy, and may have to any minute now.

Some guys are "pointy end" guys. Some are "organization guys". Both types can work, but the people they hire need to compliment their strengths, not duplicate them. Chip Kelly is a "pointy end" guy, who hates recruiting and alumni relations. He needs an OC who is good at both.

The analogy is that good platoon leaders often don't make good company commanders, and that good company commanders often don't make good field grade officers. They are different skill sets. Hopefully, some of those at each level can rise to the next, but it is job performance in the job they have, not their potential, that is paramount. It is great if the subordinates have other skills, but the ones the leader wants are paramount.

Certainly football is different from a large corporation with many layers of management.  My point is that Shaw should surround himself with coaches who have their sights set high and possess the requisite ambition.  During one season, Harbaugh had Taggart, Fangio, Shaw, Mason and Hamilton on his staff.  All of these individuals brought something different to the table; but they shared one trait: they all ultimately became head coaches.  That's a pretty strong staff with some individuals who moved on to bigger challenges.  Shaw needs similar people around him: he should hire a younger version of himself, or a younger version of Harbaugh or Fangio, -- coaches that have the potential and ambition to win big in the sport.  

I agree that each head coach will have a different portfolio of abilities; and the staff he hires needs to complement those abilities.  After some bad luck with OCs, Gus Malzahn of Auburn is back to calling the plays himself again.  Clearly, he needs to compensate for his lack of defensive acumen by having a top flight DC.  I don't think we have a different view here.  What I miss in Shaw's coaching staff right now is the sense that they all have their sights aimed higher.  Taggart was the running backs coach at Stanford and left for the HC job at Western Kentucky after the 2009 season; after a season at Oregon, he is now HC at Florida State back in his native Florida.  Fangio was DC at Stanford and left with Harbaugh to be DC at the Niners and then again left after Harbaugh's departure to Michigan to take on the DC role at the Chicago Bears.  Now he is HC at the Broncos.  Shaw replaced Harbaugh at Stanford.  Mason took over the DC role, then departed as HC of Vanderbilt after the 2013 season.  Finally, Hamilton was OC at Stanford and left after the 2012 season to join Luck at the Colts.  He is now HC of the DC Defenders of the XFL.  

Having read through some of the comments here on the Cardboard concerning Shaw's current staff and their potential for roles elsewhere, here is a summary:
1) Alamar could probably get a better or similar position elsewhere.  
2) Akina is highly respected and might have the potential to go up one level
3) Anderson might have the skills, but maybe doesn't have the ambition
4) Gould has been running backs coach at Cal and HC at UC Davis; he could probably get a similar job somewhere else.  
5) Pritchard seems to have potential, but not enough experience
6) Carberry and Kennedy are seen to have the ability to get a similar job somewhere else
7) Hansen, Reynolds and Turner got no ringing endorsements from this board.  

But Alamar is already pushing 60.  Time might be running out on his career.  Gould is mid-fifties and has already dropped down from the head-coaching ranks.  Where is he going?  Anderson is two years younger than Shaw, so he is probably still on the upswing of his career; but does he have the ambition and the skills?  Pritchard might have great potential, but he is very, very green and one-dimensional. Akina is in his early sixties: Stanford might be his last station.  Carberry and Kennedy might have the ability to move laterally, but could they move up one level?  The jury is out on these two.  

This is quite a different staff from the one that led Stanford into its golden years back in 2009; and I doubt we will see similar career trajectories for Shaw's lieutenants.  And, yes, I think this is a major problem.  Shaw should surround himself with the same caliber of coaches that he worked with back in those days as a member of Harbaugh's staff -- individuals who have their sights set high and are burning to win and prove themselves and take the next step.

+1. Excellent post, Austroturf.

I think you’ve summed up the entire  coaching staff issue. I only wish your real identity was Bernard Muir, or even Willie Shaw.

[Goose]

Shaw should surround himself with the same caliber of coaches that he worked with back in those days as a member of Harbaugh's staff -- individuals who have their sights set high and are burning to win and prove themselves and take the next step.

I think you are confusing caliber with aspiration. It is perfectly possible to be a very high caliber OC, or Running Backs coach, or any other kind of coach without having any aspirations at all to be a head coach. It is often true that people who have aspirations to advance to the next level are very good at their current position. If you aren't good in your present position, you will very probably not advance, so that can be motivation. However, it is not the only possible motivation. Loving what you do can be equally powerful.

There are lots of coaches who spend their entire career as coordinators, are very good at it, and willingly stay there. There are also many who aspire to be head coaches, get the job, and fail at it. Those guys often go back to being coordinators and are excellent.

[Goose]

Shaw should surround himself with the same caliber of coaches that he worked with back in those days as a member of Harbaugh's staff -- individuals who have their sights set high and are burning to win and prove themselves and take the next step.

I think you are confusing caliber with aspiration. It is perfectly possible to be a very high caliber OC, or Running Backs coach, or any other kind of coach without having any aspirations at all to be a head coach. It is often true that people who have aspirations to advance to the next level are very good at their current position. If you aren't good in your present position, you will very probably not advance, so that can be motivation. However, it is not the only possible motivation. Loving what you do can be equally powerful.

There are lots of coaches who spend their entire career as coordinators, are very good at it, and willingly stay there. There are also many who aspire to be head coaches, get the job, and fail at it. Those guys often go back to being coordinators and are excellent.

[Austroturf]

+1. Excellent post, Austroturf.

I think you’ve summed up the entire  coaching staff issue. I only wish your real identity was Bernard Muir, or even Willie Shaw.

I am probably about as far from having any influence on the Stanford football program as anybody on the planet.  Sorry to disappoint. I'm not even Bernard Shaw or Willie Muir....

[Austroturf]

+1. Excellent post, Austroturf.

I think you’ve summed up the entire  coaching staff issue. I only wish your real identity was Bernard Muir, or even Willie Shaw.

I am probably about as far from having any influence on the Stanford football program as anybody on the planet.  Sorry to disappoint. I'm not even Bernard Shaw or Willie Muir....