[lex24]

Thoughts?

[lex24]

Thoughts?

[BobK]

Coaching
Weight training
Over rated out of HS
Slight injuries where they can play and better than the back up
In that order

[BobK]

Coaching
Weight training
Over rated out of HS
Slight injuries where they can play and better than the back up
In that order

[Red80]

Thoughts?

For one thing, they're not very athletic. I notice on those stretch running plays how easily defenders avoid blocks in space, forcing Peat or Jones to try outrun pursuit to the corner. The backs are rarely able to get upfield.

[Red80]

Thoughts?

For one thing, they're not very athletic. I notice on those stretch running plays how easily defenders avoid blocks in space, forcing Peat or Jones to try outrun pursuit to the corner. The backs are rarely able to get upfield.

[BostonCard]

Coaching
Weight training
Over rated out of HS
Slight injuries where they can play and better than the back up
In that order

I think that is probably right.  They have poor technique, don't play strong, and don't play together effectively.  I wonder how much of that is due to the change in the coaching. I would also add that lack of depth is a problem as well.  By my count, we have about 12 recruited offensive linemen, total, of which 7 are from the class of 2021 or 2020 (and remember, 2020's had a COVID-19 shortened fall of freshman year).  We should have at least 10 OL who are juniors, seniors, or fifth years (we have half that number) to have an adequately deep and experienced pipeline, but evidently, we decided we didn't need any offensive linemen in the recruiting class of 2018 (the only recruit that year was Trey Stratford, who is no longer with the team).  I think that one is a legacy Bloomgren hole; Carberry recruited better at the position, and I am at least gratified that Heffernan has continued to recruit enough OL.

This is why if there is one thing that I would really knock Shaw for is the inability to fill classes, especially in the trenches.  We absolutely need at least 8 offensive linemen in every two year interval (to allow for some lumpiness in recruiting).  No matter how highly rated, we can never again go with just 4 offensive linemen over two years, as we did in 2017/18.

BC

[BostonCard]

Coaching
Weight training
Over rated out of HS
Slight injuries where they can play and better than the back up
In that order

I think that is probably right.  They have poor technique, don't play strong, and don't play together effectively.  I wonder how much of that is due to the change in the coaching. I would also add that lack of depth is a problem as well.  By my count, we have about 12 recruited offensive linemen, total, of which 7 are from the class of 2021 or 2020 (and remember, 2020's had a COVID-19 shortened fall of freshman year).  We should have at least 10 OL who are juniors, seniors, or fifth years (we have half that number) to have an adequately deep and experienced pipeline, but evidently, we decided we didn't need any offensive linemen in the recruiting class of 2018 (the only recruit that year was Trey Stratford, who is no longer with the team).  I think that one is a legacy Bloomgren hole; Carberry recruited better at the position, and I am at least gratified that Heffernan has continued to recruit enough OL.

This is why if there is one thing that I would really knock Shaw for is the inability to fill classes, especially in the trenches.  We absolutely need at least 8 offensive linemen in every two year interval (to allow for some lumpiness in recruiting).  No matter how highly rated, we can never again go with just 4 offensive linemen over two years, as we did in 2017/18.

BC

[Goose]

This is why if there is one thing that I would really knock Shaw for is the inability to fill classes, especially in the trenches.  We absolutely need at least 8 offensive linemen in every two year interval (to allow for some lumpiness in recruiting).  No matter how highly rated, we can never again go with just 4 offensive linemen over two years, as we did in 2017/18.


BC

I totally agree that we need 8 offensive linemen (on average) every two years. I guess I also can't believe that Shaw ever thought otherwise. There must be more to this issue than just "We just didn't bother to recruit enough guys". Shaw isn't that dumb. It may be that we set our sights too high on who we would accept. If you only want 5 start or 4 star guys, some years you won't have enough of them. I don't know why it happened, but I would sure like to know. I expect I never will.
One of the many reasons I wouldn't want to be a football coach or a political leader is the necessity to dissemble. Shaw can't just say "The OL coach targeted a bunch of guys we couldn't attract/get admitted to Stanford and had a flawed fallback plan" even if that were the case. He would be accused of having thrown the guy under the bus. He has to use coachspeak. There are tons of things, good and bad, that happen in the program that we outsiders will never know about.

[Goose]

This is why if there is one thing that I would really knock Shaw for is the inability to fill classes, especially in the trenches.  We absolutely need at least 8 offensive linemen in every two year interval (to allow for some lumpiness in recruiting).  No matter how highly rated, we can never again go with just 4 offensive linemen over two years, as we did in 2017/18.


BC

I totally agree that we need 8 offensive linemen (on average) every two years. I guess I also can't believe that Shaw ever thought otherwise. There must be more to this issue than just "We just didn't bother to recruit enough guys". Shaw isn't that dumb. It may be that we set our sights too high on who we would accept. If you only want 5 start or 4 star guys, some years you won't have enough of them. I don't know why it happened, but I would sure like to know. I expect I never will.
One of the many reasons I wouldn't want to be a football coach or a political leader is the necessity to dissemble. Shaw can't just say "The OL coach targeted a bunch of guys we couldn't attract/get admitted to Stanford and had a flawed fallback plan" even if that were the case. He would be accused of having thrown the guy under the bus. He has to use coachspeak. There are tons of things, good and bad, that happen in the program that we outsiders will never know about.

[BostonCard]

I think a prominent and well-connected poster here has shared his thoughts in the past about the former OL/OC and now Rice head coach.  But again, whatever you might have thought of him, the buck has to stop at Shaw, and it is up to Shaw to motivate his coaches to figure it out, or find new coaches.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think a prominent and well-connected poster here has shared his thoughts in the past about the former OL/OC and now Rice head coach.  But again, whatever you might have thought of him, the buck has to stop at Shaw, and it is up to Shaw to motivate his coaches to figure it out, or find new coaches.

BC

[winflop]

OL decline began when Bloomgren was promoted to OC and was no longer 100% focused on coaching OL.

I tend to agree with the order but I'd flip S&C/training and coaching. Not only are there strength/speed/flexibility issues, but also injury issues since Turley left. Also, it's Hefffernan's first year so I'm going to cut him some slack. Finally, the S&C/training issues are also seen on DL and ILB where we are also being regularly dominated physically

Both point back to Shaw who has made all the hires/promotions in both areas. I'd love for Troy C or someone else who covers the team to start asking some rather pointed questions of Shaw in these areas.

[winflop]

OL decline began when Bloomgren was promoted to OC and was no longer 100% focused on coaching OL.

I tend to agree with the order but I'd flip S&C/training and coaching. Not only are there strength/speed/flexibility issues, but also injury issues since Turley left. Also, it's Hefffernan's first year so I'm going to cut him some slack. Finally, the S&C/training issues are also seen on DL and ILB where we are also being regularly dominated physically

Both point back to Shaw who has made all the hires/promotions in both areas. I'd love for Troy C or someone else who covers the team to start asking some rather pointed questions of Shaw in these areas.

[gailtate]

OL decline began when Bloomgren was promoted to OC and was no longer 100% focused on coaching OL.

I tend to agree with the order but I'd flip S&C/training and coaching. Not only are there strength/speed/flexibility issues, but also injury issues since Turley left. Also, it's Hefffernan's first year so I'm going to cut him some slack. Finally, the S&C/training issues are also seen on DL and ILB where we are also being regularly dominated physically

Both point back to Shaw who has made all the hires/promotions in both areas. I'd love for Troy C or someone else who covers the team to start asking some rather pointed questions of Shaw in these areas.

Clardy, as much as I've always respected him, is just not the guy to go after Shaw. It's just not who he is. At least I haven't seen the side of him who could and would. But I'll say this again and again and again: As long as Shaw is HC, we are going to see the same old same old, year after year. It's already underway. The "Peter Principle" is alive and well unfortunately at this time in Stanford Football. Oh, and Hoops too.

[gailtate]

OL decline began when Bloomgren was promoted to OC and was no longer 100% focused on coaching OL.

I tend to agree with the order but I'd flip S&C/training and coaching. Not only are there strength/speed/flexibility issues, but also injury issues since Turley left. Also, it's Hefffernan's first year so I'm going to cut him some slack. Finally, the S&C/training issues are also seen on DL and ILB where we are also being regularly dominated physically

Both point back to Shaw who has made all the hires/promotions in both areas. I'd love for Troy C or someone else who covers the team to start asking some rather pointed questions of Shaw in these areas.

Clardy, as much as I've always respected him, is just not the guy to go after Shaw. It's just not who he is. At least I haven't seen the side of him who could and would. But I'll say this again and again and again: As long as Shaw is HC, we are going to see the same old same old, year after year. It's already underway. The "Peter Principle" is alive and well unfortunately at this time in Stanford Football. Oh, and Hoops too.

[teejers1]

OL decline began when Bloomgren was promoted to OC and was no longer 100% focused on coaching OL.

I tend to agree with the order but I'd flip S&C/training and coaching. Not only are there strength/speed/flexibility issues, but also injury issues since Turley left. Also, it's Hefffernan's first year so I'm going to cut him some slack. Finally, the S&C/training issues are also seen on DL and ILB where we are also being regularly dominated physically

Both point back to Shaw who has made all the hires/promotions in both areas. I'd love for Troy C or someone else who covers the team to start asking some rather pointed questions of Shaw in these areas.

Clardy, as much as I've always respected him, is just not the guy to go after Shaw. It's just not who he is. At least I haven't seen the side of him who could and would. But I'll say this again and again and again: As long as Shaw is HC, we are going to see the same old same old, year after year. It's already underway. The "Peter Principle" is alive and well unfortunately at this time in Stanford Football. Oh, and Hoops too.

If the Athletic Director, Shaw's boss, won't ask the tough questions of his subordinate about longstanding and obvious program deficiencies, why would anyone expect a podcaster (among other things) who relies on the goodwill of the program (and HC in particular) for content to ask pointed questions?  Hell, professional journalists - to the extent there are any left covering Stanford football - fail to ask pointed questions.  I'm wondering if Shaw were a white 50+ year old guy making $6-7M per, if the questions would be more pointed . . . and I'm thinking "no" . . . because indifference reigns.  (Plus, it's not as if an AA head football coach is a novelty to be protected at Stanford).

Whatever.  The failure to take hard looks at program and adjust accordingly is just another log on the fire . . . check that, it may be the fire.

P.S.  Re: OL, in particular, I would have offered $1M (of Shaw's salary, if necessary) to try and entice Chris Dalman back to the Farm before the Heffernan hire.  No clue if that would have done the trick.  As for current guy, hard to draw definitive conclusions at this juncture.  But the early returns on the field are certainly discouraging.

[teejers1]

OL decline began when Bloomgren was promoted to OC and was no longer 100% focused on coaching OL.

I tend to agree with the order but I'd flip S&C/training and coaching. Not only are there strength/speed/flexibility issues, but also injury issues since Turley left. Also, it's Hefffernan's first year so I'm going to cut him some slack. Finally, the S&C/training issues are also seen on DL and ILB where we are also being regularly dominated physically

Both point back to Shaw who has made all the hires/promotions in both areas. I'd love for Troy C or someone else who covers the team to start asking some rather pointed questions of Shaw in these areas.

Clardy, as much as I've always respected him, is just not the guy to go after Shaw. It's just not who he is. At least I haven't seen the side of him who could and would. But I'll say this again and again and again: As long as Shaw is HC, we are going to see the same old same old, year after year. It's already underway. The "Peter Principle" is alive and well unfortunately at this time in Stanford Football. Oh, and Hoops too.

If the Athletic Director, Shaw's boss, won't ask the tough questions of his subordinate about longstanding and obvious program deficiencies, why would anyone expect a podcaster (among other things) who relies on the goodwill of the program (and HC in particular) for content to ask pointed questions?  Hell, professional journalists - to the extent there are any left covering Stanford football - fail to ask pointed questions.  I'm wondering if Shaw were a white 50+ year old guy making $6-7M per, if the questions would be more pointed . . . and I'm thinking "no" . . . because indifference reigns.  (Plus, it's not as if an AA head football coach is a novelty to be protected at Stanford).

Whatever.  The failure to take hard looks at program and adjust accordingly is just another log on the fire . . . check that, it may be the fire.

P.S.  Re: OL, in particular, I would have offered $1M (of Shaw's salary, if necessary) to try and entice Chris Dalman back to the Farm before the Heffernan hire.  No clue if that would have done the trick.  As for current guy, hard to draw definitive conclusions at this juncture.  But the early returns on the field are certainly discouraging.

[Giants]

Thoughts?

At any position group, it always comes back to recruiting.  The recruiting drop off is evident…..

[Giants]

Thoughts?

At any position group, it always comes back to recruiting.  The recruiting drop off is evident…..

[Phogge]

What were they seeing in Hinton in high school that he is not delivering today? Was it just that this was a big kid and the son of a pro bowler? How soft was the HS opposition? Is he not motivated? A mystery.

There are a bunch of OL coming in next year. If one shows phenomenal promise will Shaw unseat an underachiever like Hinton? Or will the old "Massive playbook" keep him on the bench?

[Phogge]

What were they seeing in Hinton in high school that he is not delivering today? Was it just that this was a big kid and the son of a pro bowler? How soft was the HS opposition? Is he not motivated? A mystery.

There are a bunch of OL coming in next year. If one shows phenomenal promise will Shaw unseat an underachiever like Hinton? Or will the old "Massive playbook" keep him on the bench?

[BostonCard]

There are a bunch of OL coming in next year. If one shows phenomenal promise will Shaw unseat an underachiever like Hinton? Or will the old "Massive playbook" keep him on the bench?

Usually, with offensive linemen it is size and strength that keeps them on the bench.  Not that our guys have it, but 18 year olds are still growing into their body, and you ideally want a 21 year old anchoring that line.  There are, of course, exceptions, but I don't see one in the incoming class.  Lots of good prospects who should get there with a couple years at the training table, but not many who are ready from day 1.

BC

[BostonCard]

There are a bunch of OL coming in next year. If one shows phenomenal promise will Shaw unseat an underachiever like Hinton? Or will the old "Massive playbook" keep him on the bench?

Usually, with offensive linemen it is size and strength that keeps them on the bench.  Not that our guys have it, but 18 year olds are still growing into their body, and you ideally want a 21 year old anchoring that line.  There are, of course, exceptions, but I don't see one in the incoming class.  Lots of good prospects who should get there with a couple years at the training table, but not many who are ready from day 1.

BC

[lex24]

Thanks for the thoughts. Question: has the new coach changed things?  Difference in splits. Zone v man blocking schemes. Etc.  I don’t know.

Watching the line is painful.  The left side is particularly bad.  They get beat off the ball.  No push.  They aren’t physical.  They can’t block in space.

It is the worst line I’ve seen since the bad old days.  Either that changes. Or the program dives  into the abyss.

[lex24]

Thanks for the thoughts. Question: has the new coach changed things?  Difference in splits. Zone v man blocking schemes. Etc.  I don’t know.

Watching the line is painful.  The left side is particularly bad.  They get beat off the ball.  No push.  They aren’t physical.  They can’t block in space.

It is the worst line I’ve seen since the bad old days.  Either that changes. Or the program dives  into the abyss.

[Red80]

Thanks for the thoughts. Question: has the new coach changed things?  Difference in splits. Zone v man blocking schemes. Etc.  I don’t know.

Watching the line is painful.  The left side is particularly bad.  They get beat off the ball.  No push.  They aren’t physical.  They can’t block in space.

It is the worst line I’ve seen since the bad old days.  Either that changes. Or the program dives  into the abyss.

The loss of Dalman is big. He was 1st Team All P12 in 2020.  A number of the guys on this year's OL played last year and with pretty good results. Not having Dalman's leadership and ability to make the right line calls has to be a factor.

[Red80]

Thanks for the thoughts. Question: has the new coach changed things?  Difference in splits. Zone v man blocking schemes. Etc.  I don’t know.

Watching the line is painful.  The left side is particularly bad.  They get beat off the ball.  No push.  They aren’t physical.  They can’t block in space.

It is the worst line I’ve seen since the bad old days.  Either that changes. Or the program dives  into the abyss.

The loss of Dalman is big. He was 1st Team All P12 in 2020.  A number of the guys on this year's OL played last year and with pretty good results. Not having Dalman's leadership and ability to make the right line calls has to be a factor.

[slide]

I think that is probably right.  They have poor technique, don't play strong, and don't play together effectively.  I wonder how much of that is due to the change in the coaching. I would also add that lack of depth is a problem as well.  By my count, we have about 12 recruited offensive linemen, total, of which 7 are from the class of 2021 or 2020 (and remember, 2020's had a COVID-19 shortened fall of freshman year).  We should have at least 10 OL who are juniors, seniors, or fifth years (we have half that number) to have an adequately deep and experienced pipeline, but evidently, we decided we didn't need any offensive linemen in the recruiting class of 2018 (the only recruit that year was Trey Stratford, who is no longer with the team).  I think that one is a legacy Bloomgren hole; Carberry recruited better at the position, and I am at least gratified that Heffernan has continued to recruit enough OL.

This is why if there is one thing that I would really knock Shaw for is the inability to fill classes, especially in the trenches.  We absolutely need at least 8 offensive linemen in every two year interval (to allow for some lumpiness in recruiting).  No matter how highly rated, we can never again go with just 4 offensive linemen over two years, as we did in 2017/18.

BC

some good builds BC.

I'd add a few more.  

really poor prospect identification/lackadaisical recruiting approach.  Connor Williams, now with Dallas, is a poster child on identification.  a part of a small group of OL on campus for a camp.  Shaw et al offered/signed 3 other camp guys who never played a meaningful down and didn't offer the guy who ended starting all 12 games as a FR, 1st team All-American as a SO and departed college for NFL after his JR year.  the lackadaisical recruiting approach poster child was Nicholas Petit-Frere.  a former college teammate gave Shaw an early heads up on NPF early during his SO year in HS (the Shaw teammate was a HS coach of NPF).  Shaw et al slowplayed NPF while NPF's recruiting profile blew up nationally (#1 OT prospect in the country, #7 overall national recruit), and then pitifully tried to swoop in July before NPF's SR year started including an ill-fated Shaw to FL recruiting trip.  it was far too late.  

neither Williams or NPF would have had issues with Admissions based on GPA/board scores.

2nd, building on your OL #s point, there has been a similar DL #s shortfall too.  short #s meant limited scrimmage time especially with OL as we often couldn't fill 2 deep.  the #s shortage (fewer young bodies with a higher number of reps) leads to more injuries.  

lastly on recruiting approach, it seems that Shaw and staff are not good in reading outcomes early with high ranking recruits.  Shaw, more or less, has philosophy of something akin to 1 offer out for 1 expected opening.  if you think you are still in it with that 1st offer, then subsequent offers are delayed, if ever made.  most coaches approach recruiting with multiple offers to fill requisite openings on more a "first to commit basis."  I don't Shaw needs to swing fully to "first to commit" approach but I think he needs more offers out early, more engagement and then better early calls on when the recruit is no longer viable.  then move on.

[slide]

I think that is probably right.  They have poor technique, don't play strong, and don't play together effectively.  I wonder how much of that is due to the change in the coaching. I would also add that lack of depth is a problem as well.  By my count, we have about 12 recruited offensive linemen, total, of which 7 are from the class of 2021 or 2020 (and remember, 2020's had a COVID-19 shortened fall of freshman year).  We should have at least 10 OL who are juniors, seniors, or fifth years (we have half that number) to have an adequately deep and experienced pipeline, but evidently, we decided we didn't need any offensive linemen in the recruiting class of 2018 (the only recruit that year was Trey Stratford, who is no longer with the team).  I think that one is a legacy Bloomgren hole; Carberry recruited better at the position, and I am at least gratified that Heffernan has continued to recruit enough OL.

This is why if there is one thing that I would really knock Shaw for is the inability to fill classes, especially in the trenches.  We absolutely need at least 8 offensive linemen in every two year interval (to allow for some lumpiness in recruiting).  No matter how highly rated, we can never again go with just 4 offensive linemen over two years, as we did in 2017/18.

BC

some good builds BC.

I'd add a few more.  

really poor prospect identification/lackadaisical recruiting approach.  Connor Williams, now with Dallas, is a poster child on identification.  a part of a small group of OL on campus for a camp.  Shaw et al offered/signed 3 other camp guys who never played a meaningful down and didn't offer the guy who ended starting all 12 games as a FR, 1st team All-American as a SO and departed college for NFL after his JR year.  the lackadaisical recruiting approach poster child was Nicholas Petit-Frere.  a former college teammate gave Shaw an early heads up on NPF early during his SO year in HS (the Shaw teammate was a HS coach of NPF).  Shaw et al slowplayed NPF while NPF's recruiting profile blew up nationally (#1 OT prospect in the country, #7 overall national recruit), and then pitifully tried to swoop in July before NPF's SR year started including an ill-fated Shaw to FL recruiting trip.  it was far too late.  

neither Williams or NPF would have had issues with Admissions based on GPA/board scores.

2nd, building on your OL #s point, there has been a similar DL #s shortfall too.  short #s meant limited scrimmage time especially with OL as we often couldn't fill 2 deep.  the #s shortage (fewer young bodies with a higher number of reps) leads to more injuries.  

lastly on recruiting approach, it seems that Shaw and staff are not good in reading outcomes early with high ranking recruits.  Shaw, more or less, has philosophy of something akin to 1 offer out for 1 expected opening.  if you think you are still in it with that 1st offer, then subsequent offers are delayed, if ever made.  most coaches approach recruiting with multiple offers to fill requisite openings on more a "first to commit basis."  I don't Shaw needs to swing fully to "first to commit" approach but I think he needs more offers out early, more engagement and then better early calls on when the recruit is no longer viable.  then move on.

[Phogge]

BC, the question was an IF. If one of the kids so far outplayed in practice Hinton would he start or is Shaw tied to the ancient belief of entrenched coaches?

[Phogge]

BC, the question was an IF. If one of the kids so far outplayed in practice Hinton would he start or is Shaw tied to the ancient belief of entrenched coaches?

[CowboyIndian]

The worst thing about the OL is....they are getting worse instead of better. That would seem to indicate a bad mix of talent and coaching.

[CowboyIndian]

The worst thing about the OL is....they are getting worse instead of better. That would seem to indicate a bad mix of talent and coaching.

[Snorlax94]

What were they seeing in Hinton in high school that he is not delivering today? Was it just that this was a big kid and the son of a pro bowler? How soft was the HS opposition? Is he not motivated? A mystery.

There are a bunch of OL coming in next year. If one shows phenomenal promise will Shaw unseat an underachiever like Hinton? Or will the old "Massive playbook" keep him on the bench?

Why do you call Hinton an underachiever? What game? What plays? 

I recently re-watched parts of the Washington State game reviewing this one particular question, and I'd rewind the key run plays and watch them, focusing on a different lineman each time, and from the plays I saw, the problem is not Hinton. If I had to pick on anyone from what I saw, first I'd pick on the guards, then on the fullback, then on the center.

From what I watched, the biggest problems are:
#1) Schematically, it's just too easy to anticipate, prepare for, and defend Stanford's run game. Often, it feels like the opposing team knows what we're going to run. Occasionally we throw a wrinkle to exploit the aggressiveness, but it's been many years since Stanford had an offense where it felt like the running game and the run/pass game was keeping an opponent off-balance. Probably my favorite coach in this respect was Bill Walsh in the early nineties. He'd have different backs (Milburn and Vardell) and mix up the plays, the locations, the speed of the plays (a mix of fast dives and slower-developing plays). He mixed up straight and angled runs, inside and sweeps, and it punished gambling defenses and kept them off-balance, which is the opposite of what we have now.
2) Combining with the above, the run plays we have have odd technique. Not since the Bloomgren days have they come into a game with the specific priority to hit the defense and get the run blocking into a rhythm and to tenderize the defense and assert dominance. 
3) Then, there is some poor play, we're not delivering punishing, accurate blows particularly at the second level onto the linebackers. Blocking at the second level takes a lot more athleticism than is given credit for -- there's a lot of balance and timing combined with the physicality. In recent years, the technique seems to emphasize just "getting hands" on defenders and running with them. Maybe this works in the NFL with already-developed, NFL athletes, but it's not working at Stanford.
4) Lastly, the most upsetting thing is when we occasionally see Stanford O-linemen just physically manhandled and tossed aside like a rag doll. It's outrageous to see that happen. It doesn't happen as often as the doomsayers yell about, but it does happen sometimes, which is way too much.

So those are the observed phenomena. But what are the root causes? This is where it's more speculative -- one observation can have many different possible causes, and it's a guess. But my guess is that:
#1) The first fix is at a schematic level. Do we even have a running game offensive coordinator? We have a former WR head coach, a former QB offensive coordinator, a running back coach who seems to focus only on RBs, and a new o-line coach from the NFL who seems to have experience with the nuances of the NFL game but seems like a poor fit planning any X's and O's for the running game, or developing and motivating college players who aren't pros yet. I've been the defender for Tavita Pritchard, and this isn't necessarily an attack on him, but just in terms of looking for a balance of specializations on the coaching staff, it feels like no one is that running game genius, or even just the run game vision owner.
#2) I actually think the last two o-line coaches from the NFL have gotten some really good pass blocking going -- it's really, really hard because there is plenty of scheming, blitzing, and crossing in our opponents, and a *lot* of athleticism. It's actually impressive that they've kept McKee somewhat upright when you have no balance and no running game to take the heat of the pass rush. But despite apparent gains in pass blocking, I wonder if we're getting the wrong o-line coaches overall. It just feels like we aren't developing/growing/motivating the O-line into road grinders like we used to.
#3) There is something also going on with the physical development. I guess there's a little bit of a pass because these guys weren't on campus in 2020 due to the pandemic. So we lost a year of physical development. And I think the injuries are now more in line with other teams, and not like, say 2019. But I'm still concerned about how linemen are developing athletically. For one, nobody is blocking linebackers well. The guards in particular seem sluggish, they have poor balance, and no one appears to be delivering blows. Is that the strength and conditioning coach? is that the line coach? Is that a cultural issue where there's a lack of leadership to work on their bodies in the offseason? Is it a recruiting issue where Stanford isn't getting the right guys? I don't know, but I just think back about how people like David Yankey used to move -- with a pad level like a submarine, and then he'd just blow someone up. My guess is that it is all three -- it's a problem with the S&C coach, it's a problem with the o-line coach, and it's a problem with locker room leadership during the offseason, all of which, ultimately, are the responsibility of the head coach to fix.

[Snorlax94]

What were they seeing in Hinton in high school that he is not delivering today? Was it just that this was a big kid and the son of a pro bowler? How soft was the HS opposition? Is he not motivated? A mystery.

There are a bunch of OL coming in next year. If one shows phenomenal promise will Shaw unseat an underachiever like Hinton? Or will the old "Massive playbook" keep him on the bench?

Why do you call Hinton an underachiever? What game? What plays? 

I recently re-watched parts of the Washington State game reviewing this one particular question, and I'd rewind the key run plays and watch them, focusing on a different lineman each time, and from the plays I saw, the problem is not Hinton. If I had to pick on anyone from what I saw, first I'd pick on the guards, then on the fullback, then on the center.

From what I watched, the biggest problems are:
#1) Schematically, it's just too easy to anticipate, prepare for, and defend Stanford's run game. Often, it feels like the opposing team knows what we're going to run. Occasionally we throw a wrinkle to exploit the aggressiveness, but it's been many years since Stanford had an offense where it felt like the running game and the run/pass game was keeping an opponent off-balance. Probably my favorite coach in this respect was Bill Walsh in the early nineties. He'd have different backs (Milburn and Vardell) and mix up the plays, the locations, the speed of the plays (a mix of fast dives and slower-developing plays). He mixed up straight and angled runs, inside and sweeps, and it punished gambling defenses and kept them off-balance, which is the opposite of what we have now.
2) Combining with the above, the run plays we have have odd technique. Not since the Bloomgren days have they come into a game with the specific priority to hit the defense and get the run blocking into a rhythm and to tenderize the defense and assert dominance. 
3) Then, there is some poor play, we're not delivering punishing, accurate blows particularly at the second level onto the linebackers. Blocking at the second level takes a lot more athleticism than is given credit for -- there's a lot of balance and timing combined with the physicality. In recent years, the technique seems to emphasize just "getting hands" on defenders and running with them. Maybe this works in the NFL with already-developed, NFL athletes, but it's not working at Stanford.
4) Lastly, the most upsetting thing is when we occasionally see Stanford O-linemen just physically manhandled and tossed aside like a rag doll. It's outrageous to see that happen. It doesn't happen as often as the doomsayers yell about, but it does happen sometimes, which is way too much.

So those are the observed phenomena. But what are the root causes? This is where it's more speculative -- one observation can have many different possible causes, and it's a guess. But my guess is that:
#1) The first fix is at a schematic level. Do we even have a running game offensive coordinator? We have a former WR head coach, a former QB offensive coordinator, a running back coach who seems to focus only on RBs, and a new o-line coach from the NFL who seems to have experience with the nuances of the NFL game but seems like a poor fit planning any X's and O's for the running game, or developing and motivating college players who aren't pros yet. I've been the defender for Tavita Pritchard, and this isn't necessarily an attack on him, but just in terms of looking for a balance of specializations on the coaching staff, it feels like no one is that running game genius, or even just the run game vision owner.
#2) I actually think the last two o-line coaches from the NFL have gotten some really good pass blocking going -- it's really, really hard because there is plenty of scheming, blitzing, and crossing in our opponents, and a *lot* of athleticism. It's actually impressive that they've kept McKee somewhat upright when you have no balance and no running game to take the heat of the pass rush. But despite apparent gains in pass blocking, I wonder if we're getting the wrong o-line coaches overall. It just feels like we aren't developing/growing/motivating the O-line into road grinders like we used to.
#3) There is something also going on with the physical development. I guess there's a little bit of a pass because these guys weren't on campus in 2020 due to the pandemic. So we lost a year of physical development. And I think the injuries are now more in line with other teams, and not like, say 2019. But I'm still concerned about how linemen are developing athletically. For one, nobody is blocking linebackers well. The guards in particular seem sluggish, they have poor balance, and no one appears to be delivering blows. Is that the strength and conditioning coach? is that the line coach? Is that a cultural issue where there's a lack of leadership to work on their bodies in the offseason? Is it a recruiting issue where Stanford isn't getting the right guys? I don't know, but I just think back about how people like David Yankey used to move -- with a pad level like a submarine, and then he'd just blow someone up. My guess is that it is all three -- it's a problem with the S&C coach, it's a problem with the o-line coach, and it's a problem with locker room leadership during the offseason, all of which, ultimately, are the responsibility of the head coach to fix.

[BobK]

Sports Performance doesn’t report to Shaw. However I just looked and the Football group seems now separate from all other sports. For football it is a group of three which isn’t new but seems solely football.

[BobK]

Sports Performance doesn’t report to Shaw. However I just looked and the Football group seems now separate from all other sports. For football it is a group of three which isn’t new but seems solely football.

[Phogge]

Hinton had a holding penalty in the first five games halting drives. He’s been handled by an outside rush. I get that they don’t have anybody better so the IF question. Goes to Shaw’s attitude.

[Phogge]

Hinton had a holding penalty in the first five games halting drives. He’s been handled by an outside rush. I get that they don’t have anybody better so the IF question. Goes to Shaw’s attitude.