Daily article on Patrick Fields

Daily article on Patrick Fields - 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: Daily article on Patrick Fields (/thread-23233.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - msqueri - 06-05-2022

(In response to BC's post, not quoted here to save characters to get under the limit)

Yeah, I presented it as a narrative/theory of the case in response to your question but I don't think the reality is a monocausal one, as it rarely is. There were indeed issues related to recruiting at key positions and insufficient player retention/seniority. Moreover, I am not one who credits our 2015 and 2017 seasons to Harbaugh. Shaw was a great college football coach at one point. Nonetheless, I think it's accurate and not "just so" to think that Shaw has molded the team in his own image, that those effects have become more profound over time, and that it has produced a worse (in terms of likelihood of producing a winning team) identity than what made his 2011-2017 teams successful.

I think your view that this isn't an issue of terminal decline has to reckon with the steady decline over time. Consider how things look if you break his tenure into three year chunks:

2011-2013: Median wins 11, median Sagarin ranking #7 (also median AP finish), median Offensive FEI #21, median Defensive FEI #9

2014-2016: Median wins 10, median Sagarin ranking #18 (#12 median AP finish), median Offensive FEI #45, median Defensive FEI #15

2017-2019: Median wins 9, median Sagarin ranking #24 (unranked median AP finish), median Offensive FEI #37, median Defensive FEI #52

2020-2022: TBD based on 2022 but even if we assume this is the best year in the span that would make 2020 the median year and that team was not going to have 9+ wins in a full season as that was an AP unranked Sagarin #75 team, the median Offensive FEI will be a further tick up from the 2017-2019 median if we're better than #37 on offense, median Defensive FEI TBD based on how horrible it is this year but even if this is miraculously the best of the period the median in this period would be #94

I think that paints a vivid picture, don't you? It's pretty indisputable that Shaw's teams have steadily gotten worse over time. 2011-2013 was better than 2014-2016 which was better than 2017-2019 which was better than 2020-2022. Literally zero exceptions to that trend, so I don't see what's too convenient about a narrative that Shaw has steadily declined over time as his influence on the program has become greater. Moreover, while 12 games can be noisy, 30 games much less so. Shaw has won less than 37 percent of his games over a 30 game period. You don't find currently good coaches for whom that's true. Noise doesn't explain 37 percent over three years.

If one wants to complicate the narrative, the place to do it is in separating out the offensive and defensive stories. 2014 and 2016 were bad years for Stanford on offense and a case can be made that the evolution in Shaw's offensive approach since then that you mentioned has been successful in staunching the bleeding/reversing the downward trend. The offense has arguably gotten better over the last half decade. It's been nowhere near the standard set in 2011-2013, which is why we hear so many laments calling for a return to a smash, run-oriented offense, but I think a better case can be made that the 2011-2013 offenses relied on a type of mentality Shaw doesn't prioritize to the extent Harbaugh did, a level of OL dominance (DeCastro, Martin, Yankey, Fleming) we rarely get (and to be fair few teams do), and the lingering benefits of Harbaugh's great offensive bequest to Shaw when it came to not only talent but also an operating system for the offense. I'd further argue that where Shaw and Pritchard have taken the offense may be an attempt to adapt based on their staff's own personality/strengths and the type of talent they can recruit (for some reason WRs being easier for us to recruit than RB and OL over a many year stretch), which is admirable but because they're not as talented as their predecessors likely places a ceiling on the offense. Something in the 20s/30s on offense is pretty good but it's not where we used to be.

Where I think the data are absolutely clear is fixing the greatest share of the (again, I think undeniable) steady decline in Stanford football's quality over the last decade on the catastrophic defensive decline. Defense has gotten worse in every three year increment, without exception and was mediocre from 2017-2019 and terrible since then. Think of it this way: Shaw's offenses have taken a moderate step back from the Kevin Hogan era offenses but a) the defenses in Shaw's first half decade were better/more important to our success than the offenses and b) the defense has gone from top 10 in the nation to arguably not even top 100.

I don't think any of this undermines my narrative that Shaw's identity of Football IQ is problematic. I won't belabor the examples/rationale from my previous post about why we're overly cerebral but without results that justify it on either side of the ball.

Your recruiting explanation (early signing period, 2018 class, gaps at certain positions) is flawed. The decline has been steady over time, not a blip caused by a particular bad class. Shaw also had a dud of a class in 2013. Tellingly, Stanford's recruiting did not decline over time in a way that lines up with the decline in performance. If you break Stanford recruiting into three year chunks to try to get a picture of what Shaw's teams have been able to work with, the 2009-2011 cohort had a median class rank of #22, 2012-2014's median was #13, 2015-2017's median was #16, and 2018-2020's median was #22. There may be granular recruiting explanations at the margins for specific season failures but the overall picture is clear: Shaw has always recruited top 25 talent consistently and the steady decline over time owes principally to other factors (coaching, strength and conditioning, team identity, and your second issue paragraph being the factors that essentially tell the story).

I am much more sympathetic to your argument about the many factors producing a sea change in how long players stay at Stanford compared to other schools. I think that's a really big part of the story, in particular for what it's meant for us in the trenches. Offensive and defensive linemen do not play fifth years at Stanford as often as they did pre-Shaw or as often as they do at other programs. Really big problem.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - BostonCard - 06-05-2022

Thanks for your well considered response. My takeaway is that, on the whole, we agree much more than we disagree, and wanted to highlight two areas of vehement agreement.

1) its multi factorial. There’s a tendency among fans (and I fall victim to it myself) of thinking that things would be better if we could just fix this one little thing. On this board, it is often ascribed to the offensive playcalling, which would actually be pretty far down on my list of priorities to fix. When there is that big a gap between performance in 2015 (arguably our apex) and 2021 (hopefully our bottom, but I may be optimistic), it isn’t one thing that went to crap.

2) the defensive decline has been more colossal than our offensive struggles (which, are a contributor, see above). Again, this board like to ascribe issues to offense, even though it is our defense which, per your analysis, has gone from elite (top 10) to gawd awful (90’s or worse). I think it might be a bit fanciful to hope for a top-20 caliber defense again, but if we can at least get it back to respectability, that would go a long way to regaining a sustainable program.

3) the retention problem that I discussed earlier.

Thanks for your thoughts.

BC

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - msqueri - 06-05-2022

(06-05-2022, 10:54 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Thanks for your well considered response. My takeaway is that, on the whole, we agree much more than we disagree, and wanted to highlight two areas of vehement agreement.

1) its multi factorial. There’s a tendency among fans (and I fall victim to it myself) of thinking that things would be better if we could just fix this one little thing. On this board, it is often ascribed to the offensive playcalling, which would actually be pretty far down on my list of priorities to fix. When there is that big a gap between performance in 2015 (arguably our apex) and 2021 (hopefully our bottom, but I may be optimistic), it isn’t one thing that went to crap.

2) the defensive decline has been more colossal than our offensive struggles (which, are a contributor, see above). Again, this board like to ascribe issues to offense, even though it is our defense which, per your analysis, has gone from elite (top 10) to gawd awful (90’s or worse). I think it might be a bit fanciful to hope for a top-20 caliber defense again, but if we can at least get it back to respectability, that would go a long way to regaining a sustainable program.

3) the retention problem that I discussed earlier.

Thanks for your thoughts.

BC

Indeed, vehement agreement here on the broad points.

I don't rule out a top 20 defense. Stanford has been pretty good at defense in 1992, 1996, 2004, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016. Given our level of defensive recruiting, including, notably, the players in the pipeline who have yet to step on the field, I think top 20 is doable with good coaching. My problem is I don't see that coaching coming from Anderson. But I think if Stanford had a really good defensive coordinator/coaching staff our level of talent could certainly produce occasional top 20 defensive seasons.

But the coaching would have to be really good, which it currently isn't and is not easy to identify/attract/retain. In today's day and age (with the Pac-12's decline) we're talking about 1-2 Pac-12 defenses a year that gets to this level. Jimmy Lake had Washington on that level. Kyle Whittingham/Morgan Scalley have Utah at that level. Since Stanford's last defense at that level (2016), aside from Washington and Utah only a few other Pac-12 teams have reached it for single seasons (Washington State in 2017, Cal in 2018, Oregon in 2019). The rarity of it is daunting, but that Stanford's defensive talent going forward looks to be better than what Washington State and Cal had to work with shows that the right coaching can get you there.

I would have liked to have seen what we could have done if we moved on from Anderson and replaced him with a proven Group of Five or FCS coordinator (Kurt Mattix, Corey Hetherman, etc.) or tried to be quite bold and backed up the truck for a proven guy coming off head coach failure and/or disgrace due to personal conduct (Jimmy Lake, Derek Mason, DJ Durkin). I think you give one of those guys the talent we've recruited and Stanford's 2023 and 2024 defenses very well could be very good. With Lance Anderson, I have trouble seeing him getting those defenses past mediocre.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - old spanish trail - 06-05-2022

Excellent discussion Square and BC. Thanks.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - gailtate - 06-05-2022

I will put all of this in, shall we say, short-winded terms: The same head coach who led us to three Rose Bowls now blithely presides over the program's steady demise.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - Spiny_Norman - 06-05-2022

(06-04-2022, 11:03 AM)msqueri Wrote: Has something changed compared to 5+ years ago, when our players were expounding the same things, but going to a bowl every year, and winning the PAC-12 north about every other year (2012, 2013, 2015, 2017)?

I'll add one more item to your timeline, msqueri. Randy Hart's retirement after the 2015 season.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - BostonCard - 06-05-2022

Yeah, DL performance has declined markedly since then.

@Matt, you point out just how hard it is to have a top-20 defense, at least in the West Coast. The fact that it has been done, of course, presages that it could be done. And, we should aspire for not just a competent defense, but an excellent one. That being said, things have gotten so bad that even a below average defense would be an improvement, and aspiring to mediocrity, at least in the mid term, would represent a substantial improvement over what we have now.

Like you, I was happy to see that the 2022 recruiting class brought with it quality and depth at defense. It could be the start of the improvement we seek. However, in order to see that, we need to have sustained recruiting results. Not just “have a good year and take a year off mentality”. If we can have two back-to-back good recruiting classes, it would predict improvement in three or so years. I think we would need three solid classes in a row, plus a couple difference makers, plus retention on the back end in order to get a top-20 type season. And, as you point out, we need a better coordinator and assistants.

BC

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - Beeg_Dawg - 06-06-2022

(06-05-2022, 09:43 AM)Red80 Wrote:
(06-05-2022, 05:09 AM)Phogge Wrote: Andersen terrorized Mariota in the second half. Without him they lose.

They also lose without Taylor's 33 carries for 160. Whenever a RB posts those kind of numbers his team's chance for a win are extremely high. Total carries are more telling than yards per carry. Stanford had a 23 minute edge in TOP that night. A staggering 43 minute advantage in the '13 win over UO. Stanford's defense got a big assist from its offense in both games.

ToP is meaningless for those vintage Duck teams. Quick strike O, not unusual for the Ducks to lose ToP by a 2-1 margin

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - gailtate - 06-07-2022

(06-05-2022, 09:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Yeah, DL performance has declined markedly since then.

@Matt, you point out just how hard it is to have a top-20 defense, at least in the West Coast. The fact that it has been done, of course, presages that it could be done. And, we should aspire for not just a competent defense, but an excellent one. That being said, things have gotten so bad that even a below average defense would be an improvement, and aspiring to mediocrity, at least in the mid term, would represent a substantial improvement over what we have now.

Like you, I was happy to see that the 2022 recruiting class brought with it quality and depth at defense. It could be the start of the improvement we seek. However, in order to see that, we need to have sustained recruiting results. Not just “have a good year and take a year off mentality”. If we can have two back-to-back good recruiting classes, it would predict improvement in three or so years. I think we would need three solid classes in a row, plus a couple difference makers, plus retention on the back end in order to get a top-20 type season. And, as you point out, we need a better coordinator and assistants.

BC

The lightning is gone, as is the bottle to put it in. I throw in another metaphor: Cap'n Shaw looks at his ship and approves of the deck chairs and the shuffleboard. Meanwhile, the hull is gashed and water pours in. "What, me worry?"

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - PAsportsfan - 06-07-2022

Hey Gail...when is College GameDay coming back to The Farm?

LOL

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - Hulk01 - 06-07-2022

(06-03-2022, 12:25 PM)msqueri Wrote: Excellent piece. Very nice job by the reporter, Daniel Wu. Fields, as we knew and like Isaiah Sanders before him, seems like a very neat young man. I'm glad he ended up at Stanford and am looking forward to seeing him on the field.

Now, on this quote: "Fields is fitting well into the culture of a Stanford program that, by his observation, is big on player leadership and developing players’ football IQ. Oklahoma, by contrast, felt “old school in a lot of ways,” Fields said. “Stuff was simple. We were gonna push sleds, run fast, lift heavy weights… our practices were very intense, like crazy.”

Lack of intensity compared to a winning program is concerning. Also maddening is the perennial trope about how Stanford develops football IQ. COACH SHAW, PLEASE STOP WITH THIS BULLSHIT! Football is not a sport in which you need to be smart or in which being smart is a big advantage. To the contrary, it's about pushing sleds, running fast, lifting weights, being intense, being crazy. It's modern day gladiators. You need to impose your will on the other team. You need to harness aggression (with "aggression" more operative than "harness"). You need to play fast.

Our coach is a nerd whose pride in his own intellect and that of the players around him is foundational to his identity, so he concocts a vision of football built around football IQ, but it's a vanity project rather than what's actually important to succeed in football. Our offense takes years for a quarterback to truly master. Every player on our offense has to have numerous plays in their head when they get to the line of scrimmage because every play is a pop quiz on how the defense is lined up and what play we should audible into rather than trusting a good play call and trying to play with any sort of tempo or surprise the defense. Our defenders talk incessantly about "keys" and "eye discipline" and other football IQ virtue signalling. True freshmen rarely make big impacts on either side of the ball.

There are so many tells on how all this BS is a vanity project. Very little of the above traits reflect what's actually successful in football. Watch the best offenses and see if any of them take as long at the line of scrimmage or change up the plays as much. Listen to the best defensive players talk and tell me if any of them talk about the mental side of the game so much. Look at other offenses and see if the effectiveness of the offense is so closely tied to the seniority of QB1.

This all would be bad enough if it only contributed to us being less competitive in football. Alas, it also has the effect of making the football less fun to watch. I think I'm like many fans in that when I watch my team play I want to see them actually play rather than just watch time run off the clock. Alas, out of 130 teams in the full seasons Shaw has coached our plays per game rankings (excluding the short 2020 season when we were #68) have been #129, #95, #127, #128, #120, #111, #109, #120, #93, and #45. Spot the outlier? This list is in order of recency, so #45 was with Andrew Luck at QB as a fourth year human computer. Without Luck (or fellow NFL starting QB Mills in his fourth year getting us to almost average tempo), it's been slow as molasses. Nobody gets to watch their team less than a Stanford fan. On defense, I think I'm like many fans in that when I watch my team play I want to see, sorry if it's uncouth, violence. The defenders who spark joy, always, are the ones who are described as "playing with their hair on fire" or exhibiting "reckless abandon" or who, to use the Stanford phrase, party in the backfield. It's about hitting people, not calculating how to react or what your one eleventh on that play is.

I've given versions of this rant many times but this insight from Fields put me over the edge. We heard happy talk all spring about how intense and focused the team is and in particular how the defense has a newfound aggression. Then, the very player who our coaches and players alike habitually tout as teaching our players how to win and how to have a winning mentality reveals that all the happy talk is BS. Fields was trying to pay Stanford a compliment and I have no reason to believe he doesn't think it's a compliment. But that makes it all the more revealing. Even when the coaches have ostensibly focused on intensity, Fields' takeaway is that we are more cerebral and less intense than the winning program he came from. The identity Shaw has built around this team is hard-wired at this point. It's about Stanford Men excelling in all walks of life and, to the extent there's a theory of the case about how it translates to winning football, it's about finding comparative advantage in the intellect of our players. The team's identity is a lie they tell themselves that being smart is helpful to football.

There is something called football intelligence, and it is very useful. Speed without football intelligence is a waste; it just gets you to the wrong place faster.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - gailtate - 06-07-2022

(06-07-2022, 08:09 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:
(06-03-2022, 12:25 PM)msqueri Wrote: Excellent piece. Very nice job by the reporter, Daniel Wu. Fields, as we knew and like Isaiah Sanders before him, seems like a very neat young man. I'm glad he ended up at Stanford and am looking forward to seeing him on the field.

Now, on this quote: "Fields is fitting well into the culture of a Stanford program that, by his observation, is big on player leadership and developing players’ football IQ. Oklahoma, by contrast, felt “old school in a lot of ways,” Fields said. “Stuff was simple. We were gonna push sleds, run fast, lift heavy weights… our practices were very intense, like crazy.”

Lack of intensity compared to a winning program is concerning. Also maddening is the perennial trope about how Stanford develops football IQ. COACH SHAW, PLEASE STOP WITH THIS BULLSHIT! Football is not a sport in which you need to be smart or in which being smart is a big advantage. To the contrary, it's about pushing sleds, running fast, lifting weights, being intense, being crazy. It's modern day gladiators. You need to impose your will on the other team. You need to harness aggression (with "aggression" more operative than "harness"). You need to play fast.

Our coach is a nerd whose pride in his own intellect and that of the players around him is foundational to his identity, so he concocts a vision of football built around football IQ, but it's a vanity project rather than what's actually important to succeed in football. Our offense takes years for a quarterback to truly master. Every player on our offense has to have numerous plays in their head when they get to the line of scrimmage because every play is a pop quiz on how the defense is lined up and what play we should audible into rather than trusting a good play call and trying to play with any sort of tempo or surprise the defense. Our defenders talk incessantly about "keys" and "eye discipline" and other football IQ virtue signalling. True freshmen rarely make big impacts on either side of the ball.

There are so many tells on how all this BS is a vanity project. Very little of the above traits reflect what's actually successful in football. Watch the best offenses and see if any of them take as long at the line of scrimmage or change up the plays as much. Listen to the best defensive players talk and tell me if any of them talk about the mental side of the game so much. Look at other offenses and see if the effectiveness of the offense is so closely tied to the seniority of QB1.

This all would be bad enough if it only contributed to us being less competitive in football. Alas, it also has the effect of making the football less fun to watch. I think I'm like many fans in that when I watch my team play I want to see them actually play rather than just watch time run off the clock. Alas, out of 130 teams in the full seasons Shaw has coached our plays per game rankings (excluding the short 2020 season when we were #68) have been #129, #95, #127, #128, #120, #111, #109, #120, #93, and #45. Spot the outlier? This list is in order of recency, so #45 was with Andrew Luck at QB as a fourth year human computer. Without Luck (or fellow NFL starting QB Mills in his fourth year getting us to almost average tempo), it's been slow as molasses. Nobody gets to watch their team less than a Stanford fan. On defense, I think I'm like many fans in that when I watch my team play I want to see, sorry if it's uncouth, violence. The defenders who spark joy, always, are the ones who are described as "playing with their hair on fire" or exhibiting "reckless abandon" or who, to use the Stanford phrase, party in the backfield. It's about hitting people, not calculating how to react or what your one eleventh on that play is.

I've given versions of this rant many times but this insight from Fields put me over the edge. We heard happy talk all spring about how intense and focused the team is and in particular how the defense has a newfound aggression. Then, the very player who our coaches and players alike habitually tout as teaching our players how to win and how to have a winning mentality reveals that all the happy talk is BS. Fields was trying to pay Stanford a compliment and I have no reason to believe he doesn't think it's a compliment. But that makes it all the more revealing. Even when the coaches have ostensibly focused on intensity, Fields' takeaway is that we are more cerebral and less intense than the winning program he came from. The identity Shaw has built around this team is hard-wired at this point. It's about Stanford Men excelling in all walks of life and, to the extent there's a theory of the case about how it translates to winning football, it's about finding comparative advantage in the intellect of our players. The team's identity is a lie they tell themselves that being smart is helpful to football.

There is something called football intelligence, and it is very useful. Speed without football intelligence is a waste; it just gets you to the wrong place faster.

No argument. I just wish Shaw had more coaching intelligence. Program-wide.

(06-07-2022, 08:08 AM)PAsportsfan Wrote: Hey Gail...when is College GameDay coming back to The Farm?

LOL

That ship sailed. And sunk.
:)

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - msqueri - 06-07-2022

(06-07-2022, 08:09 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: There is something called football intelligence, and it is very useful. Speed without football intelligence is a waste; it just gets you to the wrong place faster.

And the notion that it's particularly tied to regular intelligence is self-flattery more than empirical. The evidence is overwhelming that there is no positive correlation between the Wonderlic and future football performance. Being smart is just not all that important for football. Football intelligence is not synonymous with regular intelligence. Does Kendall Williamson have higher football intelligence than Tyrann Mathieu? Come on. For what it's worth, one study showed no correlation at every position with the exception that being smart is negatively correlated with being good at football at tight end and defensive back.

Moreover, football intelligence being important is not the same thing as it being something that coaches can cultivate. Maybe it's largely about instincts or innate spatial awareness or processing ability. If it is something that can be cultivated, it seems overwhelmingly likely that one would do so by focusing on muscle memory, physical drills on your head/eye position, and watching other players you want to emulate more than making everything about the complexity of football/schemes/playbooks. I'd think the trick about football intelligence is letting the game slow down for you and become simpler rather than trying to see increasingly more complexity in everything.

And, regardless, football intelligence being important does not mean that Stanford systematically has players better suited for a focus on the cerebral part of the game such that it would behoove us to make that part of our identity. Again, no correlation between intelligence - even intelligence as measured by the NFL with an attempt to be diagnostically useful for draft purposes! - and football performance. If our players don't have any higher football intelligence than opposing players, then why on earth would we make intelligence something we try to make a comparative advantage on the football field? The answer is that we want to believe that the kind of players we recruit are better suited for this than the brutes who go to Oregon State or Arizona State and it makes us feel good to build an identity around it. But those brutes have played football just as long, train just as hard, and tend to have fewer non-football pursuits that detract from their time to learn a playbook or watch players they'd like to emulate.

Ultimately, football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc., not brainpower. It's just not helpful to build a football team's identity around "intelligence."

P.S. I want folks to perhaps dwell on the fact that Stanford's greatest football prior to Shaw came with terms like Thunder Chickens, Tunnel Workers Union, Party in the Backfield. From Ralston to Green to Harbaugh we've hit on something when we've tried to tap into grittiness and/or swagger, not intellect. The "Stanford Men" and our self-flattery that our players are just different than elsewhere have been constant across all eras. What unlocks greatness is getting your hands dirty and digging deeper.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - Goose - 06-07-2022

(06-07-2022, 09:03 AM)msqueri Wrote: Ultimately, football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc., not brainpower. It's just not helpful to build a football team's identity around "intelligence."

P.S. I want folks to perhaps dwell on the fact that Stanford's greatest football prior to Shaw came with terms like Thunder Chickens, Tunnel Workers Union, Party in the Backfield. From Ralston to Green to Harbaugh we've hit on something when we've tried to tap into grittiness and/or swagger, not intellect. The "Stanford Men" and our self-flattery that our players are just different than elsewhere have been constant across all eras. What unlocks greatness is getting your hands dirty and digging deeper.

What unlocks greatness is variable and ephemeral. Themes like Tunnel Workers Union are just a manifestation of a chemistry that is being built. How that all works is not well understood or easily replicated. You are correct that football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc. What you point out above is that Stanford has needed an "extra dose" of chemistry to compensate for not having quite as much of the other things. Alabama can get by with "average" team chemistry. Sometimes they do just fine when they have QB controversies and half the team hates the other half. Their self-interest and talent overcomes the other issues.

Stanford likes the role of being "different", being the underdog, punching above their weight. In general, they have had to do those things to succeed. However, as Chip Kelly pointed out, "Shane Skov is a very good football player...". Stanford has only succeeded when it had "enough" such players who did get their hands dirty and were just a little bit crazy. Most of the team wasn't "like that", but just enough were to make it "work". You are correct that Shaw is not that kind of person and probably doesn't attract that kind of recruit. He also doesn't tend to hire that kind of person as an assistant. This does have consequences.

However, it is not for certain that a "professional" approach to developing a team at Stanford, where people "do their jobs" because that is who they are and that is what is expected of them can't work. In the past, it has not. Obviously, having adequate talent is a requirement in any case. Unfortunately, in the past the "chemistry" was always ephemeral and we went back to the about 0.500 (or worse) team we historically have been. Shaw has shown signs that he can sustain success for longer periods than others have without so much "rah rah". It remains to be seen if he can put us back in a sustainable and successful situation.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - msqueri - 06-07-2022

(06-07-2022, 11:16 AM)Goose Wrote:
(06-07-2022, 09:03 AM)msqueri Wrote: Ultimately, football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc., not brainpower. It's just not helpful to build a football team's identity around "intelligence."

P.S. I want folks to perhaps dwell on the fact that Stanford's greatest football prior to Shaw came with terms like Thunder Chickens, Tunnel Workers Union, Party in the Backfield. From Ralston to Green to Harbaugh we've hit on something when we've tried to tap into grittiness and/or swagger, not intellect. The "Stanford Men" and our self-flattery that our players are just different than elsewhere have been constant across all eras. What unlocks greatness is getting your hands dirty and digging deeper.
What unlocks greatness is variable and ephemeral. Themes like Tunnel Workers Union are just a manifestation of a chemistry that is being built. How that all works is not well understood or easily replicated. You are correct that football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc. What you point out above is that Stanford has needed an "extra dose" of chemistry to compensate for not having quite as much of the other things. Alabama can get by with "average" team chemistry. Sometimes they do just fine when they have QB controversies and half the team hates the other half. Their self-interest and talent overcomes the other issues.

Stanford likes the role of being "different", being the underdog, punching above their weight. In general, they have had to do those things to succeed. However, as Chip Kelly pointed out, "Shane Skov is a very good football player...". Stanford has only succeeded when it had "enough" such players who did get their hands dirty and were just a little bit crazy. Most of the team wasn't "like that", but just enough were to make it "work". You are correct that Shaw is not that kind of person and probably doesn't attract that kind of recruit. He also doesn't tend to hire that kind of person as an assistant. This does have consequences.

However, it is not for certain that a "professional" approach to developing a team at Stanford, where people "do their jobs" because that is who they are and that is what is expected of them can't work. In the past, it has not. Obviously, having adequate talent is a requirement in any case. Unfortunately, in the past the "chemistry" was always ephemeral and we went back to the about 0.500 (or worse) team we historically have been. Shaw has shown signs that he can sustain success for longer periods than others have without so much "rah rah". It remains to be seen if he can put us back in a sustainable and successful situation.

Who says Stanford hasn't/won't/can't have quite as much strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, etc.? We've been among the most prolific producers of NFL talent for many years now. Shaw has had top 25 classes in eight of 11 years. As a result, by objective measures he's had top 25 talent every single season he's ever coached. Compared to Alabama, sure, we don't have as much talent and would have to compensate in other ways (actually, we couldn't even compete with them, and why one would think Alabama has less chemistry than Stanford I do no understand), but compared to the teams we actually play we don't need to compensate or punch above our weight. Our weight should be a perennial bowl team that is top 25 as often as it isn't.

The plucky underdog thing doesn't work for me. Maybe Stanford likes that role because it lowers expectations, but it's an awkward fit for a coach who has been to four New Year's Six bowls (legendary), touts getting players to the NFL with the best of them (at least in our conference), and recruits well enough that we always have good talent. What we need more of rather than an underdog mentality is some pride and fire in our belly.

It sounds like you and I agree that Shaw isn't the type to recruit or hire the maniacs. That doesn't mean our only option is the mentality/identity Shaw cultivates. I'm not calling on him to be rah rah. There are aspects of his even keel, sensibilities, broad-minded perspective, and other aspects of his personality I find attractive. But you can be even keel and also incentivize certain types of play more likely to be successful, in line with the best coaches in the sport. My hypothesis, maybe wrong but I don't think so, is that Intellectual without the Brutality ain't it.

It also bears mentioning that there's a distinct possibility that we could throw out the complex playbooks/never-ending list of reads players on both sides of the ball are asked to make and that could lead to improvement independent of there being any increase in intensity/brutality. I laid out earlier how what we do on offense and defense doesn't resemble best practices. To be blunt I fear that our focus on the cerebral aspects amounts to Shaw play acting Jon Gruden/Greg Roman and Anderson play acting Vic Fangio/Derek Mason without actually having the schematic chops.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - gailtate - 06-07-2022

(06-07-2022, 11:16 AM)Goose Wrote:
(06-07-2022, 09:03 AM)msqueri Wrote: Ultimately, football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc., not brainpower. It's just not helpful to build a football team's identity around "intelligence."

P.S. I want folks to perhaps dwell on the fact that Stanford's greatest football prior to Shaw came with terms like Thunder Chickens, Tunnel Workers Union, Party in the Backfield. From Ralston to Green to Harbaugh we've hit on something when we've tried to tap into grittiness and/or swagger, not intellect. The "Stanford Men" and our self-flattery that our players are just different than elsewhere have been constant across all eras. What unlocks greatness is getting your hands dirty and digging deeper.
What unlocks greatness is variable and ephemeral. Themes like Tunnel Workers Union are just a manifestation of a chemistry that is being built. How that all works is not well understood or easily replicated. You are correct that football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc. What you point out above is that Stanford has needed an "extra dose" of chemistry to compensate for not having quite as much of the other things. Alabama can get by with "average" team chemistry. Sometimes they do just fine when they have QB controversies and half the team hates the other half. Their self-interest and talent overcomes the other issues.

Stanford likes the role of being "different", being the underdog, punching above their weight. In general, they have had to do those things to succeed. However, as Chip Kelly pointed out, "Shane Skov is a very good football player...". Stanford has only succeeded when it had "enough" such players who did get their hands dirty and were just a little bit crazy. Most of the team wasn't "like that", but just enough were to make it "work". You are correct that Shaw is not that kind of person and probably doesn't attract that kind of recruit. He also doesn't tend to hire that kind of person as an assistant. This does have consequences.

However, it is not for certain that a "professional" approach to developing a team at Stanford, where people "do their jobs" because that is who they are and that is what is expected of them can't work. In the past, it has not. Obviously, having adequate talent is a requirement in any case. Unfortunately, in the past the "chemistry" was always ephemeral and we went back to the about 0.500 (or worse) team we historically have been. Shaw has shown signs that he can sustain success for longer periods than others have without so much "rah rah". It remains to be seen if he can put us back in a sustainable and successful situation.

A good exchange, there. Much appreciated. My own two cents, which I never miss a chance to toss in, is the troubling absence of any evidence for Shaw's ability to "put us back in a sustainable and successful situation". On the contrary, the record suggests and supports an inability--or flat-out unwillingness--to do any such thing. What we now see, and Square has documented, is a steady, years-long, sustained decline since Shaw took the reins in 2011. It does not remain to be seen. It's out there for all to see. You either want to or you don't.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - Goose - 06-07-2022

(06-07-2022, 12:01 PM)msqueri Wrote: Who says Stanford hasn't/won't/can't have quite as much strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, etc.? We've been among the most prolific producers of NFL talent for many years now. Shaw has had top 25 classes in eight of 11 years. As a result, by objective measures he's had top 25 talent every single season he's ever coached. Compared to Alabama, sure, we don't have as much talent and would have to compensate in other ways (actually, we couldn't even compete with them, and why one would think Alabama has less chemistry than Stanford I do no understand), but compared to the teams we actually play we don't need to compensate or punch above our weight. Our weight should be a perennial bowl team that is top 25 as often as it isn't.

Under Shaw, we have recruited well at some positions and poorly at others. The "quite as much strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism" is historically evident. I can accept the argument that "things have changed" in that regard, but to make that argument you would have to agree that Shaw is a major factor (if not the major factor, because there has been turnover elsewhere in the staff) in that change.

The reasons I don't think Alabama, or Georgia, or many other such teams rely on "team chemistry" are many. First, many players who leave the program say that is the case, sometimes in anger and sometimes as just a fact. Second, "team chemistry" is almost impossible to develop when everybody on the team realistically thinks they have a shot ant the NFL and not getting playing time is fatal to that intention. It is a zero-sum game for them. Third, the really successful coaches know that developing "team chemistry" reliably is just too unpredictable. If you are going to win every year, you need to win without everybody loving each other. This is especially true with a significant number of players transferring out each year and a similar number transferring in.

Your argument that we have had "top 25 recruiting classes" would be valid if we had recruited a defensive line most years. It is also quite possible to be way above average in some positions and way below average in others. Putting aside questions about how well the highly rated recruits have/have not performed (which are important questions), Stanford has historically had some really highly ranked players. Under Shaw, they have had more of them than "usual". But we still have had major deficiencies at several positions repeatedly every year and occasionally at some other positions. That often cancels out excellence at other positions.

Quote:The plucky underdog thing doesn't work for me. Maybe Stanford likes that role because it lowers expectations, but it's an awkward fit for a coach who has been to four New Year's Six bowls (legendary), touts getting players to the NFL with the best of them (at least in our conference), and recruits well enough that we always have good talent. What we need more of rather than an underdog mentality is some pride and fire in our belly.

Please. The "obvious" difference between Stanford and many of the schools we compete with is that admitting athletes (or anybody else) to Stanford is lots harder. Our recruiting pool is much smaller. Ignoring that fact just isn't credible. The fact that Shaw has done well doesn't mean it is easy, inevitable, or even probable. It means he has done better than the vast majority of his predecessors. We do recruit well enough we always have good talent but often not at all positions. If you want to say "Well, Shaw should have just recruited better at those positions", you can't use the fact he did so at some positions as an argument it is easy. In many cases if we had literally the league average (instead of what we had) on the DL, we would have been markedly better.

That said, I don't think Shaw or the team has an "underdog mentality". I think the fans do. I do think the team has shown signs of no fire in the belly. To get that, you need to recruit the "right" guys, and some of them aren't even 4*. Washington State does that. Sometimes, it works. Often, it doesn't. Shaw and company either need to get lucky and generate some "fire in the belly" or need to get enough athletes in all the required positions that can go out there and execute. The "rah rah" is often used to generate fire in the belly, and it sometimes works. Often, it doesn't. Shaw isn't good at it, and the guys he has recruited probably aren't "the type". Hope for plan B.

Quote:It sounds like you and I agree that Shaw isn't the type to recruit or hire the maniacs. That doesn't mean our only option is the mentality/identity Shaw cultivates. I'm not calling on him to be rah rah. There are aspects of his even keel, sensibilities, broad-minded perspective, and other aspects of his personality I find attractive. But you can be even keel and also incentivize certain types of play more likely to be successful, in line with the best coaches in the sport. My hypothesis, maybe wrong but I don't think so, is that Intellectual without the Brutality ain't it.

It also bears mentioning that there's a distinct possibility that we could throw out the complex playbooks/never-ending list of reads players on both sides of the ball are asked to make and that could lead to improvement independent of there being any increase in intensity/brutality. I laid out earlier how what we do on offense and defense doesn't resemble best practices. To be blunt I fear that our focus on the cerebral aspects amounts to Shaw play acting Jon Gruden/Greg Roman and Anderson play acting Vic Fangio/Derek Mason without actually having the schematic chops.

I am not sure Jon Gruden Derek Mason had the "chops" either. Humans have a strong tendency to generate explanations for events based on a naritive that makes them see predictability and causality when there is none. IMHO "Intellectual Brutality" was always a slogan, not a reality. The Stanford OL generated physical dominance by hard work and repeated practice. It was no more "brutal" than anybody else's football. It was "intellectual" only in the sense they didn't miss assignments or reads. It is actually simple stuff. Doing it isn't so simple. There was "fire in the belly" that led to skill.

When you say what we do on offense and defense doesn't resemble "best practices", I think you are greatly overstating the case you have attempted to make. If "best practices" in football were a determined, exact science, maybe your argument would have a chance. They aren't. Consider that the West Coast Offense itself was not considered "best practice" at one point. Some say it still isn't No two teams run the same offense or defense. They borrow from each other but they aren't identical. What Chip Kelly thought was "best practice" at Oregon he basically doesn't do now. Rules change and the available players change. That alone requires changes and many of those changes are not deterministic. It is unclear to me why so many people think our large playbook is an impediment to success. As Shaw points out, Leach only has about 7 plays in his playbook, but every one of them has 20 varients which are sight reads by the players and the QB. How is that simpler than having 140 plays?

Right now, our problems are simpler than that. We can't play defense because we have no DL and despite the fact we have had several highly ranked OL candidates our OL has not played well. Fix those things and maybe the playbook matters. Otherwise, it doesn't.

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - BigJohn043 - 06-07-2022

(06-05-2022, 07:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Like you, I was happy to see that the 2022 recruiting class brought with it quality and depth at defense. It could be the start of the improvement we seek. However, in order to see that, we need to have sustained recruiting results. Not just “have a good year and take a year off mentality”. If we can have two back-to-back good recruiting classes, it would predict improvement in three or so years. I think we would need three solid classes in a row, plus a couple difference makers, plus retention on the back end in order to get a top-20 type season. And, as you point out, we need a better coordinator and assistants.

BC

But this is the exact problem with Shaw. He is a bad manager. In 11 years he has never fired an assistant. Anyone that has ever managed a team knows that you need to continue to top-grade and that your worst performers inevitably drag down the rest of the team. How exactly are we going to get a better coordinator and assistants if we never fire anyone?

Shaw has all sorts of problems:
- he is a bad play caller who won't give up that responsibility
- he isn't good at developing that killer mentality and over time the mentality that Harbaugh built has worn off
- he can't manage a staff and over time that staff has gotten worse
- he doesn't rage against the losses and make changes as circumstances & recruiting rules change

You can spend lots of time figuring out which combo of the 4 issues above is the biggest one but the short answer is Shaw.

I am already depressed about how bad we are going to be this season.....

RE: Daily article on Patrick Fields - msqueri - 06-07-2022

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, Goose. I'm enjoying this.

I think you have a bad read of chemistry at Alabama/Georgia compared to Stanford. Those teams have many more players return to the team rather than declare for the draft than Stanford does and many fewer key contributors transfer out. You can argue that it's hard to have chemistry with malcontents not happy about their role, but chemistry among players who actually play is far more important than Kumbaya across the entire roster and we have ample evidence of Stanford players talking with their feet. Our guys bolt once they have NFL prospects or a degree. At the factories the key guys stay until they have great NFL prospects, or sometimes even longer (which Shaw has hardly been able to accomplish at all in recent years). To the extent this chemistry discussion is about football effectiveness, I think we need to recognize that Shaw is not building a culture any better than at these factories. I'd argue it's worse from a football standpoint. He's building a culture where people respect each other as individuals, take pride in the complete individual, and prioritize the 40 year decision. Saban and Smart build cultures where football and teamwork are paramount and the goals are very specific, impatient, and football-focused. For a football team, the latter is more effective.

My biggest disagreement with you is my view that you are asserting without evidence that "we have recruited well at some positions and poorly at others." You cite defensive line several times. While our 2022 DL situation is a horrifying freak show, historically Shaw has had talented defensive lines by Pac-12 standards whether judging by pre-matriculation (recruiting rankings) or post-career (NFL placement) metrics. Here are the Pac-12 schools ranked by drafted DL since 2015:

1. Utah (Nate Orchard, Pita Taumoepenu, Kylie Fitts, Leki Fotu, Bradlee Anae, John Penisini)
1. Washington (Danny Shelton, Elijah Qualls, Vita Vea, Greg Gaines, Joe Tryon-Shoyinka, Levi Onwuzurike)
1. USC (Leonard Williams, Stevie Tu'ikolovatu, Rasheem Green, Jay Tufele, Marlon Tuipulotu, Drake Jackson)
1. UCLA (Owa Odighizuwa, Kenny Clark, Takkarist McKinley, Eddie Vanderdoes, Osa Odighizuwa, Otito Ogbonnia)
5. Stanford (Henry Anderson, David Parry, Solomon Thomas, Harrison Phillips, Thomas Booker)
6. Oregon (Arik Armstead, DeForest Buckner, Jalen Jelks, Kayvon Thibodeaux)
7. Arizona State (Marcus Hardison, Renell Wren, DJ Davidson)
8. Washington State (Xavier Cooper)
8. Oregon State (Obum Gwacham)
8. Colorado (Jordan Carrell)
8. Cal (James Looney)
8. Arizona (Roy Lopez)

Using the same approach of using an eight year span, here are the Pac-12 schools as ranked by number of composite 4-star DL recruits, including JC transfers:

1. USC: 14
2. Stanford: 9
2. UCLA: 9
2. Washington: 9
5. Oregon: 6
6. Arizona State: 4
7. Utah: 3
8. Colorado: 1
8. Washington State: 1
10. Arizona: 0
11. Cal: 0
12. Oregon State: 0

The reality is that we recruit DL extremely well and produce NFL DL regularly. If you think we have below average DL play, that's not because of talent.

I don't think there's a single position at which you'd be right that Stanford has recruited worse than average in the Pac-12. There have been short bursts of time at which we've completely fallen down in recruiting a position group (OL, ILB) and that can mean that in particular years we may have one or two positions that are below average by Pac-12 standards, but that's true of almost the entire conference (maybe Oregon would be immune from that dynamic?). But over multi-year sweeps we recruit well pretty much everywhere. The fact that you picked DL as the egregious case and your perception is so far from the reality is telling. It's just not true that Stanford recruits certain positions poorly. Compared to our competition we recruit everything at least averagely and, in general, are above-average.

And yes, I do acknowledge this is different than much of Stanford history and that Shaw is the major factor why. He is, empirically, by far the greatest recruiter in Stanford history. I am including Ralston, Walsh, Green, and Harbaugh in that statement. When you look at volume and longevity Shaw easily takes the cake. Easily. Shaw gets credit for that, but it puts in even starker relief the failings in certain areas despite having the talent, as validated not only by recruiting rankings but by NFL teams as well. In particular, our front seven performance has been a complete joke given the talent that has played there. I become a broken record on this and it's sad because Lance Anderson seems like a prince of a man, but our defensive coordinator has a pathetic track record at Stanford. Just execrable, considering talent.

When I talk about "best practices" I'm not trying to be overly scientific or prescriptive about it. I'm just saying that being dead last in the country in plays per game over a however many year period, which is where I suspect Shaw would be but certainly in the bottom few, is not something associated with good offenses. Related, the best offenses aren't checking/changing the playcall practically every play. The best defenses have linebackers who try to move toward ballcarriers rather than engaging blockers. I take your point that I may be succumbing to a cognitive bias trying to fit these observations into a narrative, but it has been striking to me to observe how much our coaches and players always emphasize cerebral things and then how much of our problems on both sides of the ball appear, at least to my naked eye, to look like players are thinking too much and not just playing.

Regardless, the results speak for themselves. Whatever it is Shaw thinks he's doing or whatever identity he's seeking to impart, it hasn't worked for years. He's been on a steady decline his whole tenure and, in particular, his lack of accountability for the defense has given us a situation in which we have top half of the Pac-12 talent, despite your mistaken impression of our DL, and consistently play like one of the two worst defenses in the conference. Your impression of the DL can be forgiven because it's based on how ineffective they've been. But that's not recruiting. That's coaching and scheme. My hypothesis is that our coaching emphases deserve some of that blame. But surely there are lots of reasons we suck so much at defense despite all the 4-star recruits we get and the players we send to the NFL.