[SamuelMcF]

Mims no longer in the class, but “bailed” isn’t the right word, based on what I know.

[SamuelMcF]

Mims no longer in the class, but “bailed” isn’t the right word, based on what I know.

[MVCard]

Infrequent poster here, but frequent reader of various boards (and certain flyer-based publications, back in the day) since 1994.

I feel like we've seen this arc before... coach inherits solid recruits, focuses on discipline/strength, team excels, and eventually pipeline dries up, offense gets dull (or opposition adjusts), etc.  Reminds me of the Tyrone Willingham years.

Back then there were a lot of similar comments.  Of course Ty left for Notre Dame and left us with a bare cupboard on the OL, but I remember plenty of people being all jazzed up over the "Fun 'n' Gun" offense that was coming in.

How is this different?
- I don't think we're as screwed on the OL as we were back then
- I haven't heard that Admissions has tightened up (which, IIRC, was a contributing factor in Ty's later years)
- We have a head coach that's very committed to Stanford

The mistake a lot of us made when Ty left was in pushing for a radical change in the offense and looking for that change to happen at the head coach position.  I think the team culture formula that Shaw/Harbs have established is the winning formula for Stanford ("Intellectual Brutality" was probably the best way of summarizing it but of course it's more nuanced than that).  Shaw needs to pivot to be much more of a culture-and-reputation-coach who focuses on ensuring that the foundation is there and can jump into anyone's kitchen where needed to apply the right tension and focus.  S&C slipping?  Spend time there.  Specific recruiting gaps?  Focus there.  Reinvigorate the basic platform and then open it up for assistant coaches to innovate: "you have some forward-looking ideas for next evolution of offenses, that are attractive at NFL level?  Great.  Here's a group of strong, smart, and intensely competitive guys.  Now have at it... in the meantime I'm going to teach you how to be a head coach who can one day lead your own team with the culture we've got here at Stanford."

So it comes down to what some have been saying already: we need a change at Offensive Coordinator, to someone who will also call the vast majority of the plays.  Signal something fresh to recruits and fans, while keeping our cultural foundation in place.  A change which isn't necessarily irreparable if it doesn't work out.

[MVCard]

Infrequent poster here, but frequent reader of various boards (and certain flyer-based publications, back in the day) since 1994.

I feel like we've seen this arc before... coach inherits solid recruits, focuses on discipline/strength, team excels, and eventually pipeline dries up, offense gets dull (or opposition adjusts), etc.  Reminds me of the Tyrone Willingham years.

Back then there were a lot of similar comments.  Of course Ty left for Notre Dame and left us with a bare cupboard on the OL, but I remember plenty of people being all jazzed up over the "Fun 'n' Gun" offense that was coming in.

How is this different?
- I don't think we're as screwed on the OL as we were back then
- I haven't heard that Admissions has tightened up (which, IIRC, was a contributing factor in Ty's later years)
- We have a head coach that's very committed to Stanford

The mistake a lot of us made when Ty left was in pushing for a radical change in the offense and looking for that change to happen at the head coach position.  I think the team culture formula that Shaw/Harbs have established is the winning formula for Stanford ("Intellectual Brutality" was probably the best way of summarizing it but of course it's more nuanced than that).  Shaw needs to pivot to be much more of a culture-and-reputation-coach who focuses on ensuring that the foundation is there and can jump into anyone's kitchen where needed to apply the right tension and focus.  S&C slipping?  Spend time there.  Specific recruiting gaps?  Focus there.  Reinvigorate the basic platform and then open it up for assistant coaches to innovate: "you have some forward-looking ideas for next evolution of offenses, that are attractive at NFL level?  Great.  Here's a group of strong, smart, and intensely competitive guys.  Now have at it... in the meantime I'm going to teach you how to be a head coach who can one day lead your own team with the culture we've got here at Stanford."

So it comes down to what some have been saying already: we need a change at Offensive Coordinator, to someone who will also call the vast majority of the plays.  Signal something fresh to recruits and fans, while keeping our cultural foundation in place.  A change which isn't necessarily irreparable if it doesn't work out.

[Austroturf]

With all those stud recruits of late, why has our program declined to 4-6? If not the players, then what?

This just underscores my view that player development has been in decline.  David DeCastro received no elite offers, yet was a top notch college player and is successful in the NFL.  This list is an indictment of the current coaching regime.  Our recruiting rankings through 2019 have not severely declined when averaging the most recent four years.  The excellent squads in 2010-2015 had recruiting ranking averages ranging from a low of 18 (2012) and a high of 31 (2010).  With the exception of the 2014 squad, every one of those teams finished the season in the AP top 11.  This 2019 team has an average recruiting ranking of 25 (somewhere in the usual range), but is currently slotted somewhere in the 80s among NCAA Division I football teams.  So several conclusions:

1) either the recruiting rankings mean nothing
2) we are just unlucky
3) we get good recruits, but they don't fit the system or are overrated
4) our player development has declined

I think it's #4 in that list.  We get good players to sign, but they play below their potential.

[Austroturf]

With all those stud recruits of late, why has our program declined to 4-6? If not the players, then what?

This just underscores my view that player development has been in decline.  David DeCastro received no elite offers, yet was a top notch college player and is successful in the NFL.  This list is an indictment of the current coaching regime.  Our recruiting rankings through 2019 have not severely declined when averaging the most recent four years.  The excellent squads in 2010-2015 had recruiting ranking averages ranging from a low of 18 (2012) and a high of 31 (2010).  With the exception of the 2014 squad, every one of those teams finished the season in the AP top 11.  This 2019 team has an average recruiting ranking of 25 (somewhere in the usual range), but is currently slotted somewhere in the 80s among NCAA Division I football teams.  So several conclusions:

1) either the recruiting rankings mean nothing
2) we are just unlucky
3) we get good recruits, but they don't fit the system or are overrated
4) our player development has declined

I think it's #4 in that list.  We get good players to sign, but they play below their potential.

[stupac2]

With all those stud recruits of late, why has our program declined to 4-6? If not the players, then what?

This just underscores my view that player development has been in decline.  David DeCastro received no elite offers, yet was a top notch college player and is successful in the NFL.  This list is an indictment of the current coaching regime.  Our recruiting rankings through 2019 have not severely declined when averaging the most recent four years.  The excellent squads in 2010-2015 had recruiting ranking averages ranging from a low of 18 (2012) and a high of 31 (2010).  With the exception of the 2014 squad, every one of those teams finished the season in the AP top 11.  This 2019 team has an average recruiting ranking of 25 (somewhere in the usual range), but is currently slotted somewhere in the 80s among NCAA Division I football teams.  So several conclusions:

1) either the recruiting rankings mean nothing
2) we are just unlucky
3) we get good recruits, but they don't fit the system or are overrated
4) our player development has declined

I think it's #4 in that list.  We get good players to sign, but they play below their potential.

There are a few other options, not all mutually exclusive:

1) Recruiting rankings have gotten more accurate over the past 10 years with the proliferation of social media, etc, so there are fewer diamonds in the rough.
2) Whatever inefficiency we found in recruiting has been discovered by others and is no longer useful.
3) We just got unreasonably lucky during those years.

It's tricky because to a large extent we have the same staff, similarly (or better!) regarded staff, or chased off the staff with pitchforks. Why would the development have stopped?

A lot of this discussion looks to me like trying to read into randomness. I think the real reason for Stanford's decline over the past years is a combination of luck (we were lucky earlier, we're unlucky now, our "true" talent is more like 8-4), other teams getting better, and perhaps some small amount of not being able to adapt to new strategies.

But ultimately pretty much every team goes through this at some point. It's virtually impossible to win consistently in CFB unless you're at a blueblood, and even those can have rough patches. Is this our new normal? I personally doubt it, but it we'll find out I suppose.

[stupac2]

With all those stud recruits of late, why has our program declined to 4-6? If not the players, then what?

This just underscores my view that player development has been in decline.  David DeCastro received no elite offers, yet was a top notch college player and is successful in the NFL.  This list is an indictment of the current coaching regime.  Our recruiting rankings through 2019 have not severely declined when averaging the most recent four years.  The excellent squads in 2010-2015 had recruiting ranking averages ranging from a low of 18 (2012) and a high of 31 (2010).  With the exception of the 2014 squad, every one of those teams finished the season in the AP top 11.  This 2019 team has an average recruiting ranking of 25 (somewhere in the usual range), but is currently slotted somewhere in the 80s among NCAA Division I football teams.  So several conclusions:

1) either the recruiting rankings mean nothing
2) we are just unlucky
3) we get good recruits, but they don't fit the system or are overrated
4) our player development has declined

I think it's #4 in that list.  We get good players to sign, but they play below their potential.

There are a few other options, not all mutually exclusive:

1) Recruiting rankings have gotten more accurate over the past 10 years with the proliferation of social media, etc, so there are fewer diamonds in the rough.
2) Whatever inefficiency we found in recruiting has been discovered by others and is no longer useful.
3) We just got unreasonably lucky during those years.

It's tricky because to a large extent we have the same staff, similarly (or better!) regarded staff, or chased off the staff with pitchforks. Why would the development have stopped?

A lot of this discussion looks to me like trying to read into randomness. I think the real reason for Stanford's decline over the past years is a combination of luck (we were lucky earlier, we're unlucky now, our "true" talent is more like 8-4), other teams getting better, and perhaps some small amount of not being able to adapt to new strategies.

But ultimately pretty much every team goes through this at some point. It's virtually impossible to win consistently in CFB unless you're at a blueblood, and even those can have rough patches. Is this our new normal? I personally doubt it, but it we'll find out I suppose.

[winflop]

But ultimately pretty much every team goes through this at some point.

Very true, but for me the question is more how Shaw responds to the clear need for significant changes. This is not a one-year blip. It's a trend that this year has put a magnifying glass on.

[winflop]

But ultimately pretty much every team goes through this at some point.

Very true, but for me the question is more how Shaw responds to the clear need for significant changes. This is not a one-year blip. It's a trend that this year has put a magnifying glass on.

[JeffInCorvallis]

How about this: while Stanford may not be playing at the level we have in years past, the rest of the conference has gotten better.

Conference head coaches in 2013 (hand-picked sample):

Rich Rodriquez
Todd Graham
Steve Sarkisian
Jim Mora
Lane Kiffin
Mark Helfrich
Sonny Dykes

Fast-forward to 2019 and I think there are clear upgrades for all of our opponents in the coaching department. Some might argue with me on Kevin Sumlin. For the forseeable future we're going to have to play Chip Kelly, Chris Peterson, The Pirate and Mario Cristobal every year with an occasional appearance by Kyle Wittingham (yes, I know Wittingham was there in 2013). David Shaw can hold his own against those guys but there's not any margin for error.

[JeffInCorvallis]

How about this: while Stanford may not be playing at the level we have in years past, the rest of the conference has gotten better.

Conference head coaches in 2013 (hand-picked sample):

Rich Rodriquez
Todd Graham
Steve Sarkisian
Jim Mora
Lane Kiffin
Mark Helfrich
Sonny Dykes

Fast-forward to 2019 and I think there are clear upgrades for all of our opponents in the coaching department. Some might argue with me on Kevin Sumlin. For the forseeable future we're going to have to play Chip Kelly, Chris Peterson, The Pirate and Mario Cristobal every year with an occasional appearance by Kyle Wittingham (yes, I know Wittingham was there in 2013). David Shaw can hold his own against those guys but there's not any margin for error.

[BostonCard]

Also, the combination of Shaw being caught flat-footed in 2018 by the early signing period, and the unused scholarships that resulted, exacerbated by the lack of fifth year seniors (just Scarlett and Toohill remain from the class of 2015) left Stanford in a precarious position and vulnerable to injuries.  When those injuries hit, we found ourselves in deep doo doo.

The good news is that the scholarship gap will largely be plugged, unless a large number of 2016 recruits with eligibility remaining depart.

The flip side is that the class of 2018 should start approaching their peak contribution years (true junior and senior years), and I see Booker as the sole projected starter from that class next year (there are a couple maybes, like Wilson, though I find it hard to see him remain ahead of Fehoko on the depth chart).

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, the combination of Shaw being caught flat-footed in 2018 by the early signing period, and the unused scholarships that resulted, exacerbated by the lack of fifth year seniors (just Scarlett and Toohill remain from the class of 2015) left Stanford in a precarious position and vulnerable to injuries.  When those injuries hit, we found ourselves in deep doo doo.

The good news is that the scholarship gap will largely be plugged, unless a large number of 2016 recruits with eligibility remaining depart.

The flip side is that the class of 2018 should start approaching their peak contribution years (true junior and senior years), and I see Booker as the sole projected starter from that class next year (there are a couple maybes, like Wilson, though I find it hard to see him remain ahead of Fehoko on the depth chart).

BC

[SamuelMcF]

The flip side is that the class of 2018 should start approaching their peak contribution years (true junior and senior years), and I see Booker as the sole projected starter from that class next year (there are a couple maybes, like Wilson, though I find it hard to see him remain ahead of Fehoko on the depth chart).

Kendall Williamson and JMF/Miezan (assuming one of Pryts or Robinson leaves) will start next year. 

The 2018 class will prove to be really rough IMO. A bunch of likely non-contributors in an already too-small class. You can safely expect and handle that in a class of 20+, but not a class of 13. From what I hear, '21 will likely be small as well. Let's hope that means high 'teens, not 13 again.

[SamuelMcF]

The flip side is that the class of 2018 should start approaching their peak contribution years (true junior and senior years), and I see Booker as the sole projected starter from that class next year (there are a couple maybes, like Wilson, though I find it hard to see him remain ahead of Fehoko on the depth chart).

Kendall Williamson and JMF/Miezan (assuming one of Pryts or Robinson leaves) will start next year. 

The 2018 class will prove to be really rough IMO. A bunch of likely non-contributors in an already too-small class. You can safely expect and handle that in a class of 20+, but not a class of 13. From what I hear, '21 will likely be small as well. Let's hope that means high 'teens, not 13 again.

[BostonCard]

Yes, those are possible starters, but like Wilson, I put them in the “maybe” category.  But it looks like the upper limit of starters from this class is likely to be five, which is a shockingly low number.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yes, those are possible starters, but like Wilson, I put them in the “maybe” category.  But it looks like the upper limit of starters from this class is likely to be five, which is a shockingly low number.

BC

[SamuelMcF]

Yes, those are possible starters, but like Wilson, I put them in the “maybe” category.  But it looks like the upper limit of starters from this class is likely to be five, which is a shockingly low number.

BC

Right. Put another way, when 8 guys from the class DON’T start, it’s not a big deal when the class is 20 players. It’s a massive deal when the class is 13.

[SamuelMcF]

Yes, those are possible starters, but like Wilson, I put them in the “maybe” category.  But it looks like the upper limit of starters from this class is likely to be five, which is a shockingly low number.

BC

Right. Put another way, when 8 guys from the class DON’T start, it’s not a big deal when the class is 20 players. It’s a massive deal when the class is 13.

[81alum]

When it comes to football in general and football recruiting in particular, most of you are far more knowledgeable than I am.  My less-informed view is that this year's decline can in large measure be attributed to 2 things:

1) The poor recruiting of offensive linemen by Bloomgren before his departure.  I'd like to know more about this possibility.
2) A ridiculous number of injuries.  At least it seems so to me.  Aren't we way above average for serious injuries this year?

I'm sure there are a lot of other things, too, that could be better, but if we had more quality offensive linemen and if we had only an average number of serious injuries, wouldn't we have a pretty good record at this point?

[81alum]

When it comes to football in general and football recruiting in particular, most of you are far more knowledgeable than I am.  My less-informed view is that this year's decline can in large measure be attributed to 2 things:

1) The poor recruiting of offensive linemen by Bloomgren before his departure.  I'd like to know more about this possibility.
2) A ridiculous number of injuries.  At least it seems so to me.  Aren't we way above average for serious injuries this year?

I'm sure there are a lot of other things, too, that could be better, but if we had more quality offensive linemen and if we had only an average number of serious injuries, wouldn't we have a pretty good record at this point?

[BostonCard]

There are 53 scholarship players with at least two years of eligibility left.  Depending on where the class of 2020 winds up, we may have about 20 scholarships for the incoming class, leaving a floor of 12 scholarships for 2021. You can add at least one likely medical retirement. In terms of early departures to the NFL, I really only see two next year: Booker and Mills.  That gets us to 15, but there is likely some additional attrition and these days And there are some non-contributors who may not be invited back, but that suggests a 2021 class of 15 to 20, and we probably ought to plan for the higher end of the range.  Your post that the 2021 class is likely to be small is a bit ominous. It will likely be smaller than 2019 and 2020, but that should just be a reversion to a “normal” sized class as we use up the unused scholarships.

And please tell me we are recruiting some defensive linemen and linebackers.

BC

[BostonCard]

There are 53 scholarship players with at least two years of eligibility left.  Depending on where the class of 2020 winds up, we may have about 20 scholarships for the incoming class, leaving a floor of 12 scholarships for 2021. You can add at least one likely medical retirement. In terms of early departures to the NFL, I really only see two next year: Booker and Mills.  That gets us to 15, but there is likely some additional attrition and these days And there are some non-contributors who may not be invited back, but that suggests a 2021 class of 15 to 20, and we probably ought to plan for the higher end of the range.  Your post that the 2021 class is likely to be small is a bit ominous. It will likely be smaller than 2019 and 2020, but that should just be a reversion to a “normal” sized class as we use up the unused scholarships.

And please tell me we are recruiting some defensive linemen and linebackers.

BC

[SamuelMcF]

There are 53 scholarship players with at least two years of eligibility left.  Depending on where the class of 2020 winds up, we may have about 20 scholarships for the incoming class, leaving a floor of 12 scholarships for 2021. You can add at least one likely medical retirement. In terms of early departures to the NFL, I really only see two next year: Booker and Mills.  That gets us to 15, but there is likely some additional attrition and these days And there are some non-contributors who may not be invited back, but that suggests a 2021 class of 15 to 20, and we probably ought to plan for the higher end of the range.  Your post that the 2021 class is likely to be small is a bit ominous. It will likely be smaller than 2019 and 2020, but that should just be a reversion to a “normal” sized class as we use up the unused scholarships.

And please tell me we are recruiting some defensive linemen and linebackers.

BC

Based on early offers, 2021 will have a couple DL and LBs each. Not sure what numbers staff is targeting yet. 2020 should have LBs, and if it doesn't that will bite us in a few years. Yaaaaay.

[SamuelMcF]

There are 53 scholarship players with at least two years of eligibility left.  Depending on where the class of 2020 winds up, we may have about 20 scholarships for the incoming class, leaving a floor of 12 scholarships for 2021. You can add at least one likely medical retirement. In terms of early departures to the NFL, I really only see two next year: Booker and Mills.  That gets us to 15, but there is likely some additional attrition and these days And there are some non-contributors who may not be invited back, but that suggests a 2021 class of 15 to 20, and we probably ought to plan for the higher end of the range.  Your post that the 2021 class is likely to be small is a bit ominous. It will likely be smaller than 2019 and 2020, but that should just be a reversion to a “normal” sized class as we use up the unused scholarships.

And please tell me we are recruiting some defensive linemen and linebackers.

BC

Based on early offers, 2021 will have a couple DL and LBs each. Not sure what numbers staff is targeting yet. 2020 should have LBs, and if it doesn't that will bite us in a few years. Yaaaaay.

[GK3]

I am not sure Shaw and Company are not trying to recruit at the same level as before, but one question that I have never seen answered is whether or not it has become more difficult due to a small amount of admission creep.  It would not take too much of an increase to have a significant impact on our recruiting.  Secondly, it takes a fair amount of money to live in the Bay Area today.  There is probably a limit on what Shaw can offer an assistant and if he wants the best he has to compete with the football factories.  More often than not the factories can and will match or beat our offer and the money goes much further in Lincon or Tuscaloosa.  So attracting the best and the brightest might be difficult to impossible depending on the individual.  
Succeeding at Stanford over a long period of time is difficult.  Witness Mike Montgomery who by the accounts I read got tired of dealing with the recruiting issues.  My guess is that to be successful at Stanford takes more hours and more work.  Not always an attractive situation.

[GK3]

I am not sure Shaw and Company are not trying to recruit at the same level as before, but one question that I have never seen answered is whether or not it has become more difficult due to a small amount of admission creep.  It would not take too much of an increase to have a significant impact on our recruiting.  Secondly, it takes a fair amount of money to live in the Bay Area today.  There is probably a limit on what Shaw can offer an assistant and if he wants the best he has to compete with the football factories.  More often than not the factories can and will match or beat our offer and the money goes much further in Lincon or Tuscaloosa.  So attracting the best and the brightest might be difficult to impossible depending on the individual.  
Succeeding at Stanford over a long period of time is difficult.  Witness Mike Montgomery who by the accounts I read got tired of dealing with the recruiting issues.  My guess is that to be successful at Stanford takes more hours and more work.  Not always an attractive situation.

[ADPinWDC]

$MONEY -- since the 2011 TV rights deal. 
Amplified by Social Media.  The recruits all communicate with each other more extensively than 10-15 years ago. 
Facebook started in 2005, Twitter in 2007.
DeCastro makes $10M a year, ditto Richard Sherman, Zach Ertz.  
Andrew Luck had an even bigger deal early in his career, >$100M total.  

Money has changed the NATURE of the recruiting game where the Rich get Richer in the CFP Era.  
The Top dozen or so programs now are a bus ride for some players to Millionaire money.

[ADPinWDC]

$MONEY -- since the 2011 TV rights deal. 
Amplified by Social Media.  The recruits all communicate with each other more extensively than 10-15 years ago. 
Facebook started in 2005, Twitter in 2007.
DeCastro makes $10M a year, ditto Richard Sherman, Zach Ertz.  
Andrew Luck had an even bigger deal early in his career, >$100M total.  

Money has changed the NATURE of the recruiting game where the Rich get Richer in the CFP Era.  
The Top dozen or so programs now are a bus ride for some players to Millionaire money.

[Phogge]

Mills maybe but saying Booker will be ready next year is a stretch. I think the player with the biggest upside on the roster is Rouse who probably will go early in two years.

[Phogge]

Mills maybe but saying Booker will be ready next year is a stretch. I think the player with the biggest upside on the roster is Rouse who probably will go early in two years.

[BostonCard]

Mills maybe but saying Booker will be ready next year is a stretch. I think the player with the biggest upside on the roster is Rouse who probably will go early in two years.

Probably right; I was basing that assessment on his freshman year; his trajectory flattened out this year.  on Rouse, unless he transfers, he will still be taking up a scholarship in 2020.  I left Adebo out though, as I was mentally counting him out after this year.  But he would have two years of eligibility left, so he was counted amongst the 53, even though he will almost certainly be gone.

BC

[BostonCard]

Mills maybe but saying Booker will be ready next year is a stretch. I think the player with the biggest upside on the roster is Rouse who probably will go early in two years.

Probably right; I was basing that assessment on his freshman year; his trajectory flattened out this year.  on Rouse, unless he transfers, he will still be taking up a scholarship in 2020.  I left Adebo out though, as I was mentally counting him out after this year.  But he would have two years of eligibility left, so he was counted amongst the 53, even though he will almost certainly be gone.

BC