Hard times for hoops (and FB) - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Hard times for hoops (and FB) (/thread-23053.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Hard times for hoops (and FB) (/thread-23053.html)
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - BostonCard - 03-15-2022
I appreciate your analysis Matt, which is as thorough as always, but I would caution against extrapolating from the COVID season one way or another. Aside from the fact that the Sagarin ranking is not “connected” because the PAC-12 didn’t play any non-conference games and the fact that at 6 games, Sagarin is not as precise a model as it would be with a full season, there is also the fact that COVID wreaked havoc on how teams performed. In our case, we had Davis Mills and some others out with a false positive on our first game, we were on the road for the last five weeks, and we were practicing in a friggin park. Other teams were, of course, affected as well, meaning that comparing team performance in that bastardization of a season, even if you use more advanced metrics than win/loss, is kind of futile, because everything, including Sagarin’s ratings would have looked different, perhaps dramatically so, after a full season in a hypothetical world without COVID.
All that being said, as I said in both 2019 and 2021, and which looked to be the case in 2020 as well, our defense qualitatively underperformed compared to recruiting expectations. Some of it is, I believe, position-specific holes. It is telling, I think, that Fisk was moved from tight end to defensive lineman, and, wound up being a contributor in one season at that position. That betrays a criminal lack of depth. Pekola’s absence from the team maybe could not be anticipated, but it could have been reasonably anticipated looking at the two deep that if we lost a player like Pekola, we would have been screwed. Going back to your list from 2019 (Paulson Adebo, Curtis Robinson, Thomas Booker, Michael Williams, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Andres Fox, Joshua Pakola, Stephen Herron, Ryan Johnson, Salim Turner-Muhammad, and Tristan Sinclair) Adebo and Booker were great, Robinson shined when he was finally in the right position, Williams and DWP were contributors at a weak position, and the rest were MIA.
The question, going forward, is whether that was an unlucky confluence of factors (injuries, recruiting misses, mispositioning players, and lack of depth at the positions that could least afford it) or if it represents an ongoing or worsening pattern. It is worth mentioning that this coaching staff was able to put good to great defenses on the field. As recently as 2016 (2 years after Mason left), we were giving up 1.57 points per drive (it’s my preferred metric because it doesn’t benefit from our slow pace of play, but otherwise captures the defense’s ability to prevent other teams from scoring). That was good for 16th in the country. But from then we went to 2.1 ppd in 2017, 2.0 in 2018, 2.6 in 2019, 2.9* in 2020 (the COVID season), and 2.8 this year. So the question is whether that pretty good 2017 defense benefited from having been mostly recruited by Mason and the juniors and seniors learning their fundamentals under him, which would imply that the situation is unlikely to reverse itself. On the other hand, if the 2916 team’s defense can at least partially be credited to Lance Anderson, and the recent problems were due to things like a self assessed scholarship reduction (at one point, I think we had 75 players who had actually been recruited to a scholarship, plus a handful of walk ona who were awarded one because we had extra), and temporal gaps in recruiting certain position groups (ie, recruiting four defensive linemen one year and then going two years with one Dl between them), both recruiting issues that we appear to have fixed with our most recent recruiting class, then the future of the defense (if current recruiting trends continue) is better. But that’s why you see me hammering the lack of defensive linemen recruiting in the thread. After the last two classes, we should be fine once our current recruits get a couple years under their belts, but only if we don’t take a year off from recruiting at that position.
BC
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - SamuelMcF - 03-15-2022
(03-15-2022, 10:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: So the question is whether that pretty good 2017 defense benefited from having been mostly recruited by Mason and the juniors and seniors learning their fundamentals under him, which would imply that the situation is unlikely to reverse itself. On the other hand, if the 2916 team’s defense can at least partially be credited to Lance Anderson, and the recent problems were due to things like a self assessed scholarship reduction (at one point, I think we had 75 players who had actually been recruited to a scholarship, plus a handful of walk ona who were awarded one because we had extra), and temporal gaps in recruiting certain position groups (ie, recruiting four defensive linemen one year and then going two years with one Dl between them), both recruiting issues that we appear to have fixed with our most recent recruiting class, then the future of the defense (if current recruiting trends continue) is better.
Well put, but your musing about the 2916 Stanford football team really has me wondering what else you predict about 900 years from now.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - msqueri - 03-16-2022
(03-15-2022, 10:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I appreciate your analysis Matt, which is as thorough as always, but I would caution against extrapolating from the COVID season one way or another. Aside from the fact that the Sagarin ranking is not “connected” because the PAC-12 didn’t play any non-conference games and the fact that at 6 games, Sagarin is not as precise a model as it would be with a full season, there is also the fact that COVID wreaked havoc on how teams performed. In our case, we had Davis Mills and some others out with a false positive on our first game, we were on the road for the last five weeks, and we were practicing in a friggin park. Other teams were, of course, affected as well, meaning that comparing team performance in that bastardization of a season, even if you use more advanced metrics than win/loss, is kind of futile, because everything, including Sagarin’s ratings would have looked different, perhaps dramatically so, after a full season in a hypothetical world without COVID.
All that being said, as I said in both 2019 and 2021, and which looked to be the case in 2020 as well, our defense qualitatively underperformed compared to recruiting expectations. Some of it is, I believe, position-specific holes. It is telling, I think, that Fisk was moved from tight end to defensive lineman, and, wound up being a contributor in one season at that position. That betrays a criminal lack of depth. Pekola’s absence from the team maybe could not be anticipated, but it could have been reasonably anticipated looking at the two deep that if we lost a player like Pekola, we would have been screwed. Going back to your list from 2019 (Paulson Adebo, Curtis Robinson, Thomas Booker, Michael Williams, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Andres Fox, Joshua Pakola, Stephen Herron, Ryan Johnson, Salim Turner-Muhammad, and Tristan Sinclair) Adebo and Booker were great, Robinson shined when he was finally in the right position, Williams and DWP were contributors at a weak position, and the rest were MIA.
The question, going forward, is whether that was an unlucky confluence of factors (injuries, recruiting misses, mispositioning players, and lack of depth at the positions that could least afford it) or if it represents an ongoing or worsening pattern. It is worth mentioning that this coaching staff was able to put good to great defenses on the field. As recently as 2016 (2 years after Mason left), we were giving up 1.57 points per drive (it’s my preferred metric because it doesn’t benefit from our slow pace of play, but otherwise captures the defense’s ability to prevent other teams from scoring). That was good for 16th in the country. But from then we went to 2.1 ppd in 2017, 2.0 in 2018, 2.6 in 2019, 2.9* in 2020 (the COVID season), and 2.8 this year. So the question is whether that pretty good 2017 defense benefited from having been mostly recruited by Mason and the juniors and seniors learning their fundamentals under him, which would imply that the situation is unlikely to reverse itself. On the other hand, if the 2916 team’s defense can at least partially be credited to Lance Anderson, and the recent problems were due to things like a self assessed scholarship reduction (at one point, I think we had 75 players who had actually been recruited to a scholarship, plus a handful of walk ona who were awarded one because we had extra), and temporal gaps in recruiting certain position groups (ie, recruiting four defensive linemen one year and then going two years with one Dl between them), both recruiting issues that we appear to have fixed with our most recent recruiting class, then the future of the defense (if current recruiting trends continue) is better. But that’s why you see me hammering the lack of defensive linemen recruiting in the thread. After the last two classes, we should be fine once our current recruits get a couple years under their belts, but only if we don’t take a year off from recruiting at that position.
BC
Thanks for the thoughtful response, BC.
You make good points about the limitations of Sagarin in 2020 as well as the perils of a small sample and the weirdness of 2020. But one of my points in going through that analysis was that it actually doesn't matter whether the 2020 team was a 4/5/6/7/8-win caliber team. No matter what one extrapolates from the 2020 season - unless it's 9+ wins, which I would find extremely unreasonable given the quality of team we saw even in our best games in 2020 - it doesn't change that over a three year span Shaw has been in the bottom few coaches in Power Five football. My use of Sagarin perhaps obscured the point: no matter what one thought of our 2020 season (unless it was an extremely unreasonable take like we had a top 25-caliber team) the picture of this team 2019-2021 is clear. As I said, debates about 2020 are a distraction.
I think position-specific holes and under-performance of individual players can only go so far in explaining our defensive futility. There are many teams nationally with defensive linemen worse than Booker, Wade-Perry, Johnson, Williams, Swann, Schaffer, and Fisk (the group we drew on 2019-2021). Our 2021 roster had four 4-star defensive linemen on it. There are probably around 20-25 programs in the country that could say that. There are nine Power Five teams nationally that have failed to have a top 75 scoring defense three years in a row and among that group we had the most 4-star DL of any of them and more than double the number of 4-star front seven players as the next closest. [An analysis I just did on those nine worst defenses in Power Five football and what each has done to hold its coaching staff accountable is super interesting and I will probably post it here soon, but I'm still getting used to this forum's etiquette for thread drift, new threads, etc.]
I think it's inescapable looking at the facts that Stanford has a massive defensive coaching problem and that the problems have more to do with that than personnel. I think it's telling that your example of a good defense is 2016. That wasn't recent. That was six teams ago. Looking over the sweep of our defensive coaching staff's career it's pretty clear the track record is bad and the trajectory is horrible. My preferred metric is FEI, in part for the reason you mention that we need to focus on advanced metrics that adjust for pace of play, as the way Shaw runs this railroad has tended to make traditional stats make the offense look worse than it is and the defense look better than it is. FEI strikes me as a good stat because it is a per possession stat and adjusts for home field, strength of competition, situation, etc. Here are what Anderson's Defensive FEI rankings have been over time:
2014: #8
2015: #43
2016: #15
2017: #52
2018: #42
2019: #79
2020: #111
2021: #94
There's no question in the pattern at this point. Two good defenses in eight years and both of those were when he was dealing with what he inherited (and all of this looks much worse when you consider that on paper every team Shaw/Anderson have ever coached has had top 25 talent nationally). Once he owned it and, crucially, had to operate without Shannon Turley and Randy Hart making him look good, it's been absolute carnage. Again, one of nine Power Five teams nationally to not crack top 75 defenses once in the last three years. And six of those teams have crushingly less talent than we do. We have the most talent in the bunch, including on defensive line.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB)a - BostonCard - 03-16-2022
Thread drift is par for the course here, so don’t worry about it. Feel free to start a new thread when it is warranted. While you are generally encouraged to check if someone has a thread on the same topic, once something has scrolled off the front page, there is no expectation that you find an old one. Threads can be merged if they are on the same topic (for example, if two people report on the same bit of big news simultaneously).
The only real rule is don’t be a jerk (not worried about that) and don’t make overtly political posts (the current one on Ukraine is a rare exception). I’m glad you are here; detailed, well reasoned analysis is always welcome!
BC
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - murky - 03-16-2022
(03-15-2022, 11:10 AM)msqueri Wrote:(03-15-2022, 10:04 AM)winflop Wrote:(03-14-2022, 04:10 PM)msqueri Wrote: I think Shaw haters should agree not to focus on 2020 being a year without a bowl if Shawpologists can agree not to cite a year with a winning record. The fact is that was not a full season, so trying to use it as a major data point for or against Shaw is a stretch. I try to use it only as one data point in a three year span, and the least meaningful at that. It really goes too far to call it a .667 winning percentage in any sort of comparative sense with past years. A 4-2 season is not the same thing as an 8-4 season. The way 2020 played out should make that intuitive - we were tremendously lucky in a few of those games and it is highly plausible (computer algorithms would say likely) that there would have been somewhat of a reversion to the mean the rest of the year as that was not all that good of a team.
Not a Shawpologist here but I actually will give him credit for the 2020 season. It takes leadership to pull the team through the playing/practicing conditions they dealt with. And I give no criticism for not going to a bowl game. They were eligible, but they were exhausted after a month on the road.
If that had been a 4-8 season I'd be calling for him to be fired now. Instead, I think he deserves the opportunity to fix the mess he's made based on the last two full seasons in particular but also the slide down from the 2016 Rose Bowl to that point.
Credit to a point is fine and for sure the resilience and grittiness amidst COVID chaos is a feather in everybody's cap that year. But it's also the case that if that season were replayed with a full 12 game slate, 4-8 very much could have been on the table. We'll never know how it would have played out if the season could have been played with a normal home/road slate and full season, but.....
In the final analysis, Sagarin ranked us the #75 team in the country. However, Sagarin's "recent" ranking agreed with the analysis that the late season team was considerably better than the early season team (an argument many make given the early season Mills/Wedington COVID cluster). Using the "recent" ranking Sagarin would have had us #61. That's still not good in my book though. I think we should be proud of the resilience of the Road Dogs, but I don't think there is a great case that was a good team.
How would the #61 team in the country have done against the schedule that wasn't to be? Win probabilities according to Sagarin using that "recent" ranking:
William & Mary: 100 percent
@ Arizona: 94 percent
USC: 36 percent
@ Notre Dame: 6 percent
Washington State: 79 percent
BYU: 4 percent
Expected wins: 3.19
4 + 3.19 = 7.19
So there's a case that had we got to play out the string in 2020 a 7-8 win season could have been on the table. But it's important to note that we had close, lucky wins to enable the 4-2 real life record itself. By Sagarin's lights UCLA was a better team than even our late season version.
To me the bottom line is that the 2020 team probably would have been about a 6-7 win team under normal circumstances. If Shaw supporters want to use that to defend him I think they're telling on themselves. The fourth year for our epic 2017 class should not have been a middling, irrelevant, barely bowl, beating a bad ACC team in an unwatched bowl kind of team.
I'll put it this way: if we had gone 7-6 (say 6-6 plus a bowl win) that would have been a 14-23 record over three years. A .378 winning percentage over three years would put Shaw ranking with Scott Frost, Dino Babers, and Geoff Collins as the least successful Power Five coaches in the nation in the last three years. In other words, 4-2 vs. 7-6 vs. 6-7 vs. 8-5 in 2020 would have changed nothing about the reality that our last three years have been bad. Ultimately, then, debates about 2020 are a distraction. We know the reality.
(03-15-2022, 10:44 AM)murky Wrote: I agree, all bets were off in my mind for 2020, and I also give wide slack for the Covid disruption.
Winning 4 of 6 is better than losing them, but had we lost, I would have discounted them. My biggest concern with the program is the recruiting holes at key positions.
Can you say more about recruiting holes at key positions being what has held us back? The 2019 train wreck was the fifth year for the #24 recruiting class in the country, the fourth year for the #16 class, and the third year for the #14 class. The 2020 bad team that admirably gutted its way to a winning record in bad circumstances was the fifth year for the #16 class, fourth year for the #14 class, and third year for the #40 class. The 2021 train wreck that was one of the two lowest points for Stanford football in literally generations was the fifth year for the #14 class, the fourth year for the #40 class, and the third year for the #19 class. Recruiting explanations for those classes ring pretty hollow in light of the quality of recruiting that preceded those classes. Don't take my word for it, look at the 247 talent composite (which, notably, only counts players who were actually on the rosters nationally, excluding NFL departures and other attrition) for those years: #20 in 2019, #20 in 2020, and #25 in 2021.
The only argument left standing to write off those seasons to "recruiting holes" is the one you identified, that we had holes at key positions. The best argument for this is the offensive line situation in 2019. That year there is an extremely strong case that our dereliction of duty in recruiting offensive linemen in quantity completely torpedoed that offense. But that defense sucked too (#79 in both Defensive FEI, my favorite metric, and scoring defense). What was their excuse? Most Power Five teams would gladly have taken Paulson Adebo, Curtis Robinson, Thomas Booker, Michael Williams, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Andres Fox, Joshua Pakola, Stephen Herron, Ryan Johnson, Salim Turner-Muhammad, and Tristan Sinclair as recruits. Not many teams in the nation. The number of teams in the country with this level of defensive recruiting is closer to zero than it to 79.
I love recruiting and focus on it a lot but when I look at the evidence I can't escape the conclusion that what ails us has to have a lot to do with coaching, strength and conditioning, player development, and culture. Recruiting explanations can't explain why David Shaw has never coached a team with worse than top 25 talent but for a several year stretch has delivered results more like a top 75 coach.
Matt, apologies for quoting the whole thing.
My comment was to say that my biggest concern, going forward, is the result of holes in recruiting key positions. Particularly on defense.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - BostonCard - 03-16-2022
Murky, do you mean the one(!) upper class defensive lineman?
BC
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - msqueri - 03-17-2022
Here's the related analysis I mentioned:
Really crazy that we went three years in a row without even cracking top 75 scoring defenses in the country and yet didn't shake up the coaching staff at all. For what it's worth, there are eight other Power Five programs in the country that have had that level of futility. To put into perspective just how heinous Stanford's defensive coaching has been, I am going to rank the Inept Nine based on number of composite 4-star defensive players they had on their 2021 rosters:
1. Stanford: 9 (4 DL, 4 LB, 1 DB)
2. Georgia Tech: 8 (3 DL, O LB, 5 DB)
2. Maryland: 8 (2 DL, 4 LB, 2 DB)
4. Vanderbilt: 4 (2 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB)
5. Arizona: 2 (0 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB)
5. Kansas: 2 (1 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Duke: 1 (0 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Texas Tech: 1 (0 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Wake Forest: 1 (1 DL, 0 LB, O DB)
Congrats, Stanford, we stand alone as the most talented crappy defense in America! Georgia Tech and Maryland are the only ones even comparable. In front seven the disparity is absolutely insane - we had over double the 4-stars on our defense last year as any other of the Inept Nine.
Heading into 2022, here's what the indefensibly crappy defenses have done:
Georgia Tech has a new assistant head coach for defense/defensive run game coordinator and a new defensive backs/defensive pass game coordinator. Two of the top three defensive assistants are new.
Maryland made the defensive line coach the defensive coordinator last month and they hired a brand-new inside linebackers coach, a brand-new safeties coach, and a brand new outside linebackers coach/special teams coordinator. The cornerbacks coach is in his second season. Almost a complete defensive coaching overhaul.
Vanderbilt kept the defensive ends coach but brought in a completely new slate otherwise. Essentially complete overhaul, of course, including firing the noted defensive coordinator head coach who now has one of the top defensive coordinator jobs in the nation.
Arizona has a brand-new new defensive coordinator, brand new outside linebackers and defensive ends coach, two second year defensive backs coaches, and a second year defensive line coach. Overhaul.
Kansas has a second year defensive coordinator and a second year linebackers coach to go along with a brand-new defensive ends coach/special teams coordinator, brand-new defensive tackles coach. Overhaul.
Duke has a brand-new coach at every single defensive coaching job, obviously a complete overhaul.
Texas Tech has a brand-new coach at every single defensive coaching job, obviously a complete overhaul.
Wake Forest has a brand-new defensive coordinator, brand-new linebackers coach, and brand-new safeties coach. Almost a complete overhaul.
Stanford made no coaching changes whatsoever.
Those who are in contact with powers-that-be should feel free to share this. I can't imagine what the defense would be. Sadly, as a result, I can't imagine what our 2022 defense will be. We are the only chronically inept Power Five defense not to massively shake things up on defense this off-season, in most cases with a new defensive coordinator as well as other shuffles. And nine teams is not exactly a small sample.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - gailtate - 03-17-2022
(03-17-2022, 02:52 PM)msqueri Wrote: Here's the related analysis I mentioned:
Really crazy that we went three years in a row without even cracking top 75 scoring defenses in the country and yet didn't shake up the coaching staff at all. For what it's worth, there are eight other Power Five programs in the country that have had that level of futility. To put into perspective just how heinous Stanford's defensive coaching has been, I am going to rank the Inept Nine based on number of composite 4-star defensive players they had on their 2021 rosters:
1. Stanford: 9 (4 DL, 4 LB, 1 DB)
2. Georgia Tech: 8 (3 DL, O LB, 5 DB)
2. Maryland: 8 (2 DL, 4 LB, 2 DB)
4. Vanderbilt: 4 (2 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB)
5. Arizona: 2 (0 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB)
5. Kansas: 2 (1 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Duke: 1 (0 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Texas Tech: 1 (0 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Wake Forest: 1 (1 DL, 0 LB, O DB)
Congrats, Stanford, we stand alone as the most talented crappy defense in America! Georgia Tech and Maryland are the only ones even comparable. In front seven the disparity is absolutely insane - we had over double the 4-stars on our defense last year as any other of the Inept Nine.
Heading into 2022, here's what the indefensibly crappy defenses have done:
Georgia Tech has a new assistant head coach for defense/defensive run game coordinator and a new defensive backs/defensive pass game coordinator. Two of the top three defensive assistants are new.
Maryland made the defensive line coach the defensive coordinator last month and they hired a brand-new inside linebackers coach, a brand-new safeties coach, and a brand new outside linebackers coach/special teams coordinator. The cornerbacks coach is in his second season. Almost a complete defensive coaching overhaul.
Vanderbilt kept the defensive ends coach but brought in a completely new slate otherwise. Essentially complete overhaul, of course, including firing the noted defensive coordinator head coach who now has one of the top defensive coordinator jobs in the nation.
Arizona has a brand-new new defensive coordinator, brand new outside linebackers and defensive ends coach, two second year defensive backs coaches, and a second year defensive line coach. Overhaul.
Kansas has a second year defensive coordinator and a second year linebackers coach to go along with a brand-new defensive ends coach/special teams coordinator, brand-new defensive tackles coach. Overhaul.
Duke has a brand-new coach at every single defensive coaching job, obviously a complete overhaul.
Texas Tech has a brand-new coach at every single defensive coaching job, obviously a complete overhaul.
Wake Forest has a brand-new defensive coordinator, brand-new linebackers coach, and brand-new safeties coach. Almost a complete overhaul.
Stanford made no coaching changes whatsoever.
Those who are in contact with powers-that-be should feel free to share this. I can't imagine what the defense would be. Sadly, as a result, I can't imagine what our 2022 defense will be. We are the only chronically inept Power Five defense not to massively shake things up on defense this off-season, in most cases with a new defensive coordinator as well as other shuffles. And nine teams is not exactly a small sample.
And still more evidence that #MuirAndShawMustGo
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - Goose - 03-17-2022
(03-17-2022, 02:52 PM)msqueri Wrote: Here's the related analysis I mentioned:While this certainly does raise the question of why Stanford's defense performed so poorly given the number of 4 star recruits, it doesn't actually attempt to answer that question. It also points out that all other schools responded by replacing their defensive coaches (or more). As of now, we don't know if replacing those coaches will help. Some of the names on this list, like Kansas and Vandy, are generally under-performing programs. I strongly suspect changing coaches there will make no difference. Some of these schools will probably drop off the list not because they get better but rather because they get even fewer 4 star athletes. The fact other schools are adopting a particular course of action is not of itself evidence said actions are a good idea in general or even in particular cases. The assertion that standing pat is "crazy" is allegedly supported by the fact others are not doing so. That is true if and only if all such replacements produce better results. There may be plenty of good reasons to replace Anderson for example, but the fact others are replacing their coaches isn't one of them.
Really crazy that we went three years in a row without even cracking top 75 scoring defenses in the country and yet didn't shake up the coaching staff at all. For what it's worth, there are eight other Power Five programs in the country that have had that level of futility. To put into perspective just how heinous Stanford's defensive coaching has been, I am going to rank the Inept Nine based on number of composite 4-star defensive players they had on their 2021 rosters:
1. Stanford: 9 (4 DL, 4 LB, 1 DB)
2. Georgia Tech: 8 (3 DL, O LB, 5 DB)
2. Maryland: 8 (2 DL, 4 LB, 2 DB)
4. Vanderbilt: 4 (2 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB)
5. Arizona: 2 (0 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB)
5. Kansas: 2 (1 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Duke: 1 (0 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Texas Tech: 1 (0 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Wake Forest: 1 (1 DL, 0 LB, O DB)
Congrats, Stanford, we stand alone as the most talented crappy defense in America! Georgia Tech and Maryland are the only ones even comparable. In front seven the disparity is absolutely insane - we had over double the 4-stars on our defense last year as any other of the Inept Nine.
Heading into 2022, here's what the indefensibly crappy defenses have done:
Georgia Tech has a new assistant head coach for defense/defensive run game coordinator and a new defensive backs/defensive pass game coordinator. Two of the top three defensive assistants are new.
Maryland made the defensive line coach the defensive coordinator last month and they hired a brand-new inside linebackers coach, a brand-new safeties coach, and a brand new outside linebackers coach/special teams coordinator. The cornerbacks coach is in his second season. Almost a complete defensive coaching overhaul.
Vanderbilt kept the defensive ends coach but brought in a completely new slate otherwise. Essentially complete overhaul, of course, including firing the noted defensive coordinator head coach who now has one of the top defensive coordinator jobs in the nation.
Arizona has a brand-new new defensive coordinator, brand new outside linebackers and defensive ends coach, two second year defensive backs coaches, and a second year defensive line coach. Overhaul.
Kansas has a second year defensive coordinator and a second year linebackers coach to go along with a brand-new defensive ends coach/special teams coordinator, brand-new defensive tackles coach. Overhaul.
Duke has a brand-new coach at every single defensive coaching job, obviously a complete overhaul.
Texas Tech has a brand-new coach at every single defensive coaching job, obviously a complete overhaul.
Wake Forest has a brand-new defensive coordinator, brand-new linebackers coach, and brand-new safeties coach. Almost a complete overhaul.
Stanford made no coaching changes whatsoever.
Those who are in contact with powers-that-be should feel free to share this. I can't imagine what the defense would be. Sadly, as a result, I can't imagine what our 2022 defense will be. We are the only chronically inept Power Five defense not to massively shake things up on defense this off-season, in most cases with a new defensive coordinator as well as other shuffles. And nine teams is not exactly a small sample.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - msqueri - 03-17-2022
(03-17-2022, 05:13 PM)Goose Wrote:(03-17-2022, 02:52 PM)msqueri Wrote: Here's the related analysis I mentioned:While this certainly does raise the question of why Stanford's defense performed so poorly given the number of 4 star recruits, it doesn't actually attempt to answer that question. It also points out that all other schools responded by replacing their defensive coaches (or more). As of now, we don't know if replacing those coaches will help. Some of the names on this list, like Kansas and Vandy, are generally under-performing programs. I strongly suspect changing coaches there will make no difference. Some of these schools will probably drop off the list not because they get better but rather because they get even fewer 4 star athletes. The fact other schools are adopting a particular course of action is not of itself evidence said actions are a good idea in general or even in particular cases. The assertion that standing pat is "crazy" is allegedly supported by the fact others are not doing so. That is true if and only if all such replacements produce better results. There may be plenty of good reasons to replace Anderson for example, but the fact others are replacing their coaches isn't one of them.
Really crazy that we went three years in a row without even cracking top 75 scoring defenses in the country and yet didn't shake up the coaching staff at all. For what it's worth, there are eight other Power Five programs in the country that have had that level of futility. To put into perspective just how heinous Stanford's defensive coaching has been, I am going to rank the Inept Nine based on number of composite 4-star defensive players they had on their 2021 rosters:
1. Stanford: 9 (4 DL, 4 LB, 1 DB)
2. Georgia Tech: 8 (3 DL, O LB, 5 DB)
2. Maryland: 8 (2 DL, 4 LB, 2 DB)
4. Vanderbilt: 4 (2 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB)
5. Arizona: 2 (0 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB)
5. Kansas: 2 (1 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Duke: 1 (0 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Texas Tech: 1 (0 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Wake Forest: 1 (1 DL, 0 LB, O DB)
Congrats, Stanford, we stand alone as the most talented crappy defense in America! Georgia Tech and Maryland are the only ones even comparable. In front seven the disparity is absolutely insane - we had over double the 4-stars on our defense last year as any other of the Inept Nine.
Heading into 2022, here's what the indefensibly crappy defenses have done:
Georgia Tech has a new assistant head coach for defense/defensive run game coordinator and a new defensive backs/defensive pass game coordinator. Two of the top three defensive assistants are new.
Maryland made the defensive line coach the defensive coordinator last month and they hired a brand-new inside linebackers coach, a brand-new safeties coach, and a brand new outside linebackers coach/special teams coordinator. The cornerbacks coach is in his second season. Almost a complete defensive coaching overhaul.
Vanderbilt kept the defensive ends coach but brought in a completely new slate otherwise. Essentially complete overhaul, of course, including firing the noted defensive coordinator head coach who now has one of the top defensive coordinator jobs in the nation.
Arizona has a brand-new new defensive coordinator, brand new outside linebackers and defensive ends coach, two second year defensive backs coaches, and a second year defensive line coach. Overhaul.
Kansas has a second year defensive coordinator and a second year linebackers coach to go along with a brand-new defensive ends coach/special teams coordinator, brand-new defensive tackles coach. Overhaul.
Duke has a brand-new coach at every single defensive coaching job, obviously a complete overhaul.
Texas Tech has a brand-new coach at every single defensive coaching job, obviously a complete overhaul.
Wake Forest has a brand-new defensive coordinator, brand-new linebackers coach, and brand-new safeties coach. Almost a complete overhaul.
Stanford made no coaching changes whatsoever.
Those who are in contact with powers-that-be should feel free to share this. I can't imagine what the defense would be. Sadly, as a result, I can't imagine what our 2022 defense will be. We are the only chronically inept Power Five defense not to massively shake things up on defense this off-season, in most cases with a new defensive coordinator as well as other shuffles. And nine teams is not exactly a small sample.
The reason we should fire our defensive coaches is not that other schools have fired theirs, the reason we should fire our defensive coaches is that they've been terrible for years on end. The evidence for this is that they haven't been able to even be top 75 once in the last three years. The reason the number of 4-stars is relevant is to counter the inevitable arguments that our defensive coaches have limited talent to work with. That is simply not true, as demonstrated by either incoming (recruiting rankings) or outgoing (eventual NFL players) metrics. The reason the behavior of other terrible defensive programs is relevant is to show just how much of an outlandishly complacent outlier Shaw is for tolerating what Lance Anderson has rolled out there for years. Nobody else in the country with as prominent a job doesn't get fired for the performance Anderson has had since our last good defense (six years ago). But to be clear: this judgment has nothing to do with whether other crappy defenses get better going forward. It's about past performance and what that tells us about the likelihood of future success. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. At least the other crappy defenses are trying.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - 2006alum - 03-17-2022
(03-17-2022, 02:52 PM)msqueri Wrote: Here's the related analysis I mentioned:
Really crazy that we went three years in a row without even cracking top 75 scoring defenses in the country and yet didn't shake up the coaching staff at all. For what it's worth, there are eight other Power Five programs in the country that have had that level of futility. To put into perspective just how heinous Stanford's defensive coaching has been, I am going to rank the Inept Nine based on number of composite 4-star defensive players they had on their 2021 rosters:
1. Stanford: 9 (4 DL, 4 LB, 1 DB)
2. Georgia Tech: 8 (3 DL, O LB, 5 DB)
2. Maryland: 8 (2 DL, 4 LB, 2 DB)
4. Vanderbilt: 4 (2 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB)
5. Arizona: 2 (0 DL, 1 LB, 1 DB)
5. Kansas: 2 (1 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Duke: 1 (0 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Texas Tech: 1 (0 DL, 0 LB, 1 DB)
7. Wake Forest: 1 (1 DL, 0 LB, O DB)
Congrats, Stanford, we stand alone as the most talented crappy defense in America! Georgia Tech and Maryland are the only ones even comparable. In front seven the disparity is absolutely insane - we had over double the 4-stars on our defense last year as any other of the Inept Nine.
Heading into 2022, here's what the indefensibly crappy defenses have done:
Georgia Tech has a new assistant head coach for defense/defensive run game coordinator and a new defensive backs/defensive pass game coordinator. Two of the top three defensive assistants are new.
Maryland made the defensive line coach the defensive coordinator last month and they hired a brand-new inside linebackers coach, a brand-new safeties coach, and a brand new outside linebackers coach/special teams coordinator. The cornerbacks coach is in his second season. Almost a complete defensive coaching overhaul.
Vanderbilt kept the defensive ends coach but brought in a completely new slate otherwise. Essentially complete overhaul, of course, including firing the noted defensive coordinator head coach who now has one of the top defensive coordinator jobs in the nation.
Arizona has a brand-new new defensive coordinator, brand new outside linebackers and defensive ends coach, two second year defensive backs coaches, and a second year defensive line coach. Overhaul.
Kansas has a second year defensive coordinator and a second year linebackers coach to go along with a brand-new defensive ends coach/special teams coordinator, brand-new defensive tackles coach. Overhaul.
Duke has a brand-new coach at every single defensive coaching job, obviously a complete overhaul.
Texas Tech has a brand-new coach at every single defensive coaching job, obviously a complete overhaul.
Wake Forest has a brand-new defensive coordinator, brand-new linebackers coach, and brand-new safeties coach. Almost a complete overhaul.
Stanford made no coaching changes whatsoever.
Those who are in contact with powers-that-be should feel free to share this. I can't imagine what the defense would be. Sadly, as a result, I can't imagine what our 2022 defense will be. We are the only chronically inept Power Five defense not to massively shake things up on defense this off-season, in most cases with a new defensive coordinator as well as other shuffles. And nine teams is not exactly a small sample.
Matt, thanks for taking the time to lay this all out. This analysis is brutal and confirms what has been my biggest beef with Muir/Shaw/Haase - it may very well be the case that shuffling the top of the house isn't the right first course, but someone on the staff needs to be let go when the performance is mediocrity year after year after year even as we sign actually good recruiting classes. The fact that Stanford is the sole program of those nine to make no changes -- and to do so when we had by far the best talent pool to work with -- is all the evidence I need to think Muir is either negligent or complacent, and either way, needs to be shown the door.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - BostonCard - 03-17-2022
I don’t find the fact that other schools revamped their coaching staffs convincing one way or another. Many of those schools had bad defenses, and likely will continue to have bad defenses. There is sometimes an underpants gnome theory of coaching: fire coaches -> ??? -> win.
The poor statistical performance of the team, regardless of metric one uses (pts/drive, FEI, etc.), when coupled with a qualitative evaluation that supports the findings, is a much more convincing argument. Specifically, I don’t think saying that our defense the last few years was fundamentally unsound would draw much dissent. We missed more tackles way more than we should have (I don’t know if anyone keeps track of yards after contact given up, I would have to believe our defense was at or near the bottom), we were frequently out of position, giving up big plays (we gave up twelve 50+ yard plays, eight 60+ yard plays, five 70+ yard plays, two 80+ yard plays (only USC gave up even one), and were the only team in the PAC-12 to give up a 90+ yard play; all of those were dead last in the PAC-12. And we were simply manhandled up front, with guys getting pushed around way too easily.
I think recruiting, particularly recruiting holes, did play a role in our poor defense the last few years. That is not to absolve our coaching staff; Anderson has been DC 8 years I think, so he recruited (or failed to recruit) every one on the defensive roster. Yes, we’ve been fine at the top end, continuing to get our share of highly rated recruits. The problem is the lack of depth behind them. For several years, we were well below the 85-scholarship limit, which is worse when you subtract the walk ones who were given scholarships. We would have one big class of, say, defensive linemen, and then we would recruit zero or one DL the next two years. That puts a lot of pressure on the big class to deliver, because there are no younger guys behind them. It also means that if one of your 4* players is injured, or is a bust, or gets into disciplinary trouble, there is simply not enough depth behind them. And, it means you are forced to play young guys before they are ready.
Have a look at this depth chart:
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=22759
We have one scholarship DT with very little experience. We have six defensive ends (a few of whom will have to move inside), all of whom are true freshmen or sophomores, with little experience. If you are playing a 4-3 front, as we are moving to next year, you should have about 15 defensive linemen, ideally approximately evenly distributed. Especially up front, you want most of your two deep to be made up of juniors, seniors and fifth years (unless you are Alabama), so they have had time to gain size and strength. The depth chart is panic inducing, and the last few years, there have been MIA pockets like that at linebacker and safety as well.
Again, Anderson is the DC, and he damned well should have sounded the alarms before the situation became critical. I get it, defensive line is probably the hardest position to recruit at Stanford, but that’s all the more reason to redouble efforts. And this is not retconning; guys like Sam McFadden and others were sounding the alarm at the time and were predicting bad things down the line.
It’s a very negative post, but if there is one reason to be a bit more positive, it is that the class of 2022 was the first one in a while to deliver quality and depth at pretty much all defensive positions (except grrrr, DT, but I assume one of the three DE’s will move inside). If we can keep that up, and do it consistently, then at least one part of the problem will be better once those freshmen get to be juniors.
Of course, you gotta coach them up too.
BC
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - gailtate - 03-18-2022
(03-17-2022, 10:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I don’t find the fact that other schools revamped their coaching staffs convincing one way or another. Many of those schools had bad defenses, and likely will continue to have bad defenses. There is sometimes an underpants gnome theory of coaching: fire coaches -> ??? -> win.
The poor statistical performance of the team, regardless of metric one uses (pts/drive, FEI, etc.), when coupled with a qualitative evaluation that supports the findings, is a much more convincing argument. Specifically, I don’t think saying that our defense the last few years was fundamentally unsound would draw much dissent. We missed more tackles way more than we should have (I don’t know if anyone keeps track of yards after contact given up, I would have to believe our defense was at or near the bottom), we were frequently out of position, giving up big plays (we gave up twelve 50+ yard plays, eight 60+ yard plays, five 70+ yard plays, two 80+ yard plays (only USC gave up even one), and were the only team in the PAC-12 to give up a 90+ yard play; all of those were dead last in the PAC-12. And we were simply manhandled up front, with guys getting pushed around way too easily.
I think recruiting, particularly recruiting holes, did play a role in our poor defense the last few years. That is not to absolve our coaching staff; Anderson has been DC 8 years I think, so he recruited (or failed to recruit) every one on the defensive roster. Yes, we’ve been fine at the top end, continuing to get our share of highly rated recruits. The problem is the lack of depth behind them. For several years, we were well below the 85-scholarship limit, which is worse when you subtract the walk ones who were given scholarships. We would have one big class of, say, defensive linemen, and then we would recruit zero or one DL the next two years. That puts a lot of pressure on the big class to deliver, because there are no younger guys behind them. It also means that if one of your 4* players is injured, or is a bust, or gets into disciplinary trouble, there is simply not enough depth behind them. And, it means you are forced to play young guys before they are ready.
Have a look at this depth chart:
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=22759
We have one scholarship DT with very little experience. We have six defensive ends (a few of whom will have to move inside), all of whom are true freshmen or sophomores, with little experience. If you are playing a 4-3 front, as we are moving to next year, you should have about 15 defensive linemen, ideally approximately evenly distributed. Especially up front, you want most of your two deep to be made up of juniors, seniors and fifth years (unless you are Alabama), so they have had time to gain size and strength. The depth chart is panic inducing, and the last few years, there have been MIA pockets like that at linebacker and safety as well.
Again, Anderson is the DC, and he damned well should have sounded the alarms before the situation became critical. I get it, defensive line is probably the hardest position to recruit at Stanford, but that’s all the more reason to redouble efforts. And this is not retconning; guys like Sam McFadden and others were sounding the alarm at the time and were predicting bad things down the line.
It’s a very negative post, but if there is one reason to be a bit more positive, it is that the class of 2022 was the first one in a while to deliver quality and depth at pretty much all defensive positions (except grrrr, DT, but I assume one of the three DE’s will move inside). If we can keep that up, and do it consistently, then at least one part of the problem will be better once those freshmen get to be juniors.
Of course, you gotta coach them up too.
BC
"Of course, you gotta coach them up too."
And keep them from getting hurt, a couple of boxes unchecked now for multiple years. And a bunch of other stuff this program lacks. It's not a great sign when the only "positive" is a comparatively good recruiting class in light of the bigger picture. Theme song of the '22 season: "Comin' In On A Wing and A Prayer."
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - SamuelMcF - 03-18-2022
(03-17-2022, 10:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: It’s a very negative post, but if there is one reason to be a bit more positive, it is that the class of 2022 was the first one in a while to deliver quality and depth at pretty much all defensive positions (except grrrr, DT, but I assume one of the three DE’s will move inside). If we can keep that up, and do it consistently, then at least one part of the problem will be better once those freshmen get to be juniors.
Of course, you gotta coach them up too.
BC
A final reminder that in a base 4-3 (which we should've switched to 3 years ago) "DT" means nothing, they don't have to be 300lbs by design, and all 3 of the DL recruited in 2022 will be interior guys. Ideally they'd have a year of S&C to bulk up to 280+, but that would make sense so of course they don't.
As I've said before, for those who remember the absolute trash fire of a S situation we had for years, we are seeing the exact same thing playing out right now at DL. The cavalry is coming because coaches finally got their heads out of their asses when the problem was staring them right in the face, but too late because the recruited guys need years to develop. "Reactive" vs. "proactive" recruiting rears its ugly head. ILB could be the same way in a year or 2, but at least the staff saw that one coming slightly earlier and is already recruiting to fill the hole.
This is why I've always been an advocate for signing classes of 20+ every single year, addressing every single position (i.e. no "gap years" anywhere, and NEVER just 1 OL or DB...and usually never 2 either). Especially now that more and more guys are leaving with eligibility or retiring with degree in hand. You have to have depth. Period. 2022 was a good start there overall, and I hope 2023 continues that (it looks like it will, FWIW).
Finally, pending the incoming 2022 class, this year we are at the full 85 scholarships. The only walk-ons on scholarship are Brycen Tremayne and Ryan Sanborn, who more than earned it (and I usually don't count the starting specialists anyways). I never thought I'd see the day.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - BostonCard - 03-18-2022
Those guys are listed at 260, 260, and 235 lbs (by 247, so caveat emptor). sure, we don’t need 320+ lb space eating bohemoths (which is good, because we don’t have them) but those guys are going to have to majorly bulk upto play inside or they will get eaten up alive. In my mind, you want two guys who will be 290-300 lbs, unless you are an athletic freak at size (like Ndomekung Suh) or a strength freak at a slightly lower weight (like Aaron Donald, at 285). I didn’t get the impression that the guys we signed were future Donald’s, but then again, few are. I’m glad we signed three guys to play up front, and I think they will eventually be able to bulk up and contribute as inside guys on a 4-3 (unless Coughey is really 235, in which case I’m skeptical), but I don’t think it will be until their junior year.
On all the other stuff, we see eye to eye. The staff was very slow to react to impending recruiting catastrophes. I am hopeful that they will have learned their lesson, but it is fair to wait and see until we have another two classes. But basically, over any two year period, you pretty much want a complete two-deep at every position.
BC
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - winflop - 03-18-2022
(03-18-2022, 11:08 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: This is why I've always been an advocate for signing classes of 20+ every single year, addressing every single position (i.e. no "gap years" anywhere, and NEVER just 1 OL or DB...and usually never 2 either). Especially now that more and more guys are leaving with eligibility or retiring with degree in hand. You have to have depth. Period. 2022 was a good start there overall, and I hope 2023 continues that (it looks like it will, FWIW).
So you're OK with revoking scholarships to stay under the 85 player limit? Because with 20+/year you'd have to do that. Sorry, not interested. I think if you offer someone a scholarship, you are making a commitment (unless there are extenuating circumstances like academic performance, violations of team rules, etc.).
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - SamuelMcF - 03-18-2022
(03-18-2022, 01:16 PM)winflop Wrote:(03-18-2022, 11:08 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: This is why I've always been an advocate for signing classes of 20+ every single year, addressing every single position (i.e. no "gap years" anywhere, and NEVER just 1 OL or DB...and usually never 2 either). Especially now that more and more guys are leaving with eligibility or retiring with degree in hand. You have to have depth. Period. 2022 was a good start there overall, and I hope 2023 continues that (it looks like it will, FWIW).
So you're OK with revoking scholarships to stay under the 85 player limit? Because with 20+/year you'd have to do that. Sorry, not interested. I think if you offer someone a scholarship, you are making a commitment (unless there are extenuating circumstances like academic performance, violations of team rules, etc.).
We have asked non-productive 4th year seniors, who are graduating but have one more year of eligibility, to not come back every single year. I am perfectly ok with that, and I believe that is all that we'd need to (continue to) do.
We have NEVER had to revoke scholarships for underclassmen, and I don't expect we would have to. Enough guys will grad transfer for PT, retire altogether, or declare for the NFL that 85 is maintainable.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - BostonCard - 03-18-2022
20/yr is indefinitely sustainable and allows you to offer five players a chance to stay and play a fifth year (with additional spots when there is attrition)
21/yr means pretty much all of your spots for fifth year seniors are created through attrition (barring attrition, you’d have 1 spot for a fifth year senior each year)
22/yr means you have to count on there being attrition in order not to exceed the scholarship allotment.
I think signing 19-22 players a year, would work well. It’s a narrow band, but it would prevent deadly gaps from forming.
BC
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - msqueri - 03-18-2022
(03-17-2022, 10:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I don’t find the fact that other schools revamped their coaching staffs convincing one way or another. Many of those schools had bad defenses, and likely will continue to have bad defenses. There is sometimes an underpants gnome theory of coaching: fire coaches -> ??? -> win.
The poor statistical performance of the team, regardless of metric one uses (pts/drive, FEI, etc.), when coupled with a qualitative evaluation that supports the findings, is a much more convincing argument. Specifically, I don’t think saying that our defense the last few years was fundamentally unsound would draw much dissent. We missed more tackles way more than we should have (I don’t know if anyone keeps track of yards after contact given up, I would have to believe our defense was at or near the bottom), we were frequently out of position, giving up big plays (we gave up twelve 50+ yard plays, eight 60+ yard plays, five 70+ yard plays, two 80+ yard plays (only USC gave up even one), and were the only team in the PAC-12 to give up a 90+ yard play; all of those were dead last in the PAC-12. And we were simply manhandled up front, with guys getting pushed around way too easily.
I think recruiting, particularly recruiting holes, did play a role in our poor defense the last few years. That is not to absolve our coaching staff; Anderson has been DC 8 years I think, so he recruited (or failed to recruit) every one on the defensive roster. Yes, we’ve been fine at the top end, continuing to get our share of highly rated recruits. The problem is the lack of depth behind them. For several years, we were well below the 85-scholarship limit, which is worse when you subtract the walk ones who were given scholarships. We would have one big class of, say, defensive linemen, and then we would recruit zero or one DL the next two years. That puts a lot of pressure on the big class to deliver, because there are no younger guys behind them. It also means that if one of your 4* players is injured, or is a bust, or gets into disciplinary trouble, there is simply not enough depth behind them. And, it means you are forced to play young guys before they are ready.
Have a look at this depth chart:
https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=22759
We have one scholarship DT with very little experience. We have six defensive ends (a few of whom will have to move inside), all of whom are true freshmen or sophomores, with little experience. If you are playing a 4-3 front, as we are moving to next year, you should have about 15 defensive linemen, ideally approximately evenly distributed. Especially up front, you want most of your two deep to be made up of juniors, seniors and fifth years (unless you are Alabama), so they have had time to gain size and strength. The depth chart is panic inducing, and the last few years, there have been MIA pockets like that at linebacker and safety as well.
Again, Anderson is the DC, and he damned well should have sounded the alarms before the situation became critical. I get it, defensive line is probably the hardest position to recruit at Stanford, but that’s all the more reason to redouble efforts. And this is not retconning; guys like Sam McFadden and others were sounding the alarm at the time and were predicting bad things down the line.
It’s a very negative post, but if there is one reason to be a bit more positive, it is that the class of 2022 was the first one in a while to deliver quality and depth at pretty much all defensive positions (except grrrr, DT, but I assume one of the three DE’s will move inside). If we can keep that up, and do it consistently, then at least one part of the problem will be better once those freshmen get to be juniors.
Of course, you gotta coach them up too.
BC
The reason I chafe at the idea that replacing coaches would be an "underpant gnomes theory" of winning is the massive disconnect between our talent and our performance. Every which way I've sliced it demonstrates that Anderson has always had top 20-30 talent nationally to coach yet our results are far below that. The points on roster holes and depth issues distract from that core realization. Yes, we have had major roster holes and depth issues on defense. But that's true of at least a hundred major college football programs. Our limitations shouldn't stop us from being a, say, top 40 defense. We're not even top 75.
Earlier I noted that the 2021 roster had four 4-star DL, four 4-star LB, and one 4-star DB. That puts us tied for 27th in the nation in the number of 4-star defensive players. There are only 39 programs in the nation with even half as many 4-star defensive players as us. It's hard to argue we shouldn't have a top 40 kind of defense (or at least somewhere in the mediocre band), yet, again, we haven't even cracked top 75 in the last three years and we haven't had a top 40 defense for six years. This is well past the point of saying some holes on the team explain the performance. We have one of the worst defensive coaching staffs in the nation.
Let's take a look at 39 most talented defenses in the country as ranked by scoring defense, with the number of 4-star defenders listed parenthetically:
1) Georgia (33)
2) Clemson (26)
3) Texas A&M (25)
4) Wisconsin (5)
6) Penn State (25)
8) Michigan (23)
14) NC State (9)
14) Notre Dame (19)
18) Alabama (39)
22) Arizona State (10)
26) Kentucky (12)
27) Auburn (22)
35) Utah (7)
36) Washington (15)
36) Nebraska (10)
38) Ohio State (37)
39) Arkansas (7)
42) Pitt (5)
46) South Carolina (11)
51) Ole Miss (10)
54) Virginia Tech (8)
54) Michigan State (6)
58) Oklahoma (27)
62) Mississippi State (8)
67) Florida State (19)
70) LSU (27)
73) Florida (35)
73) UCLA (10)
75) Oregon (19)
84) Miami (21)
84) SMU (6)
90) Tennessee (13)
97) Maryland (8)
99) Texas (26)
103) USC (25)
105) North Carolina (17)
106) Stanford (9)
110) Georgia Tech (8)
118) TCU (6)
Other teams also have players get injured or be busts or get into disciplinary trouble, but nobody else gets defensive talent like we do and be unable to be top 75 once in three years. We stand alone. Most talented bad defense in America, unequivocally.
I agree with the alarm about our current DL situation. That is why our defense is extremely unlikely to be good anytime in the next several years. But that doesn't explain why we haven't been good for the last six. Our defensive line talent has easily been good enough to have a competitive defense. There is something going on with our scheme/coaching/strength and conditioning that is making us one of the worst defenses in the country, and very clearly the most talented defense that hasn't been good for half a decade.
RE: Hard times for hoops (and FB) - BostonCard - 03-18-2022
I think you’ve made a reasonable case that the coaches have underperformed; that case is not necessarily strengthened by the fact that other teams fire coaches, other than in a normative sense.
I still think poor recruiting has been a contributor to poor performance, and again, I don’t say that to absolve the coaches, who have been here long enough to have recruited everyone. We have always done pretty well in terms of recruiting on the high end. I’m old enough to remember that Buddy Teevens recruited Julian Jenkins, probably our highest rated defensive lineman ever. The issue for Stanford has generally been recruiting quality depth so that it can withstand attrition or recruiting disappointment (Michael Craven, anyone). It is compounded by the fact that transfers in are rare and opportunistic; we generally can’t just say “hey, we have a hole at d-line, let’s see who is in the portal”. In a nod to Samuel, I’ll note that we don’t even try. But the bottom line is that the number of 4* players recruited over a certain span is not the be all of how good a defense should be.
BC