Rethinking Stanford Football - 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: Rethinking Stanford Football (/thread-22699.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: Rethinking Stanford Football (/thread-22699.html)
Rethinking Stanford Football - OutsiderFan - 12-03-2021
Last week, I was talking with a friend about Nebraska's football program, and the topic of them being great in the past came up. I then remarked that the best team I think I ever saw was the undefeated 1995 Nebraska team that clobbered previously undefeated Florida 62-24 in the Fiesta Bowl. I remember watching the game at a college friend's parent's house, but only vaguely, so I looked it up on YouTube and re-watched a condensed viewing of the game a couple nights ago.
To re-fresh memories or introduce people to who they were, Nebraska was led on offense by QB Tommie Frazier, who was virtually a RB playing QB. Nebraska had evolved its offense from a traditional option attack, to a multiple set scheme that employed all kinds of runnings plays, including triple options, outside option runs, from 3 WR, 4 WR, and even 5 WR sets.
At the famed "I Back" position, they had Lawrence Phillips and Ahman Green as the top two, and they had a couple FBs who played a key role. Frazier rarely threw the ball, but was an effective passer that season, 56% completions 17 TDs, 4 INTs, and passer rating of 156, which would put him #25 in the country today.
The key to the offense was an athletic OL that could win 1-1 matchups. They were probably the first program that seemed to emphasize OL & DL with "good weight" not 300 pounders with a big gut. The WRs and TEs were not great, but adequate. It was all about the OL, RBs, and a QB nobody in the NFL would ever want.
On Defense they emphasized speed over size and considered undersized in the Front 7. It frankly looked a lot like Stanford's defense with Trent Murphy, but two Trent Murphys on the ends and two quick DTs.
I was watching and thinking "why isn't anyone running this type of offense today?" It sure seems to me Stanford could study the Nebraska of mid-90s and replicate it. There are likely some great athletes who could play a Tommie Frazier role today, who aren't great passers or receivers, but can make throws to open receivers when defenses are fooled, and also academically inclined. Stanford can always recruit OL, though it would have to do a better job bringing in better athletes. But even on defense, emphasizing speed in Front 7 recruits, and then building them up with a strong S&C program, seems doable.
To be clear, 90s Nebraska was not the service academy triple option offense. Though it used that play it its tool box, it was much more diversified than that. On defense, employ quick and undersized DTs, then two OLBs who can line up as DEs. Don't focus on bringing in guys who are trying to get to the NFL and try getting them there. Focus on bringing in guys who aren't seen as much as future NFL players when recruited, and then as they develop in the program, if they turn into NFL players, so much the better.
David Shaw's strategy was to play an NFL style and get recruits to come based on this. It worked for a while, but NFL teams started employing more college concepts and Stanford didn't adapt to what the NFL was evolving to. Now, Stanford isn't seen as the place to go if you want to get to the NFL. Other programs playing different styles can make a much more credible case.
The Nebraska of 90's style would allow Stanford to prioritize recruits other programs don't want as much, and at same time get the guys that most fit the style and scheme. It's like when everyone else is zigging, the opportunity is zagging. Don't try getting future NFL QBs and WRs. Get QBs who can win in a style unique to College Football. Recruit DEs and make them DTs. Recruit more TEs and make them DEs and OTs.
This of course, would require David Shaw to fire himself as OC and bring in someone who can employ the Nebraska offense of the 90s, but I think, given the state of affairs in recruiting and the competitive landscape, the strategy is a very viable one for Stanford to pursue.
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - gailtate - 12-03-2021
(12-03-2021, 08:11 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Last week, I was talking with a friend about Nebraska's football program, and the topic of them being great in the past came up. I then remarked that the best team I think I ever saw was the undefeated 1995 Nebraska team that clobbered previously undefeated Florida 62-24 in the Fiesta Bowl. I remember watching the game at a college friend's parent's house, but only vaguely, so I looked it up on YouTube and re-watched a condensed viewing of the game a couple nights ago.
To re-fresh memories or introduce people to who they were, Nebraska was led on offense by QB Tommie Frazier, who was virtually a RB playing QB. Nebraska had evolved its offense from a traditional option attack, to a multiple set scheme that employed all kinds of runnings plays, including triple options, outside option runs, from 3 WR, 4 WR, and even 5 WR sets.
At the famed "I Back" position, they had Lawrence Phillips and Ahman Green as the top two, and they had a couple FBs who played a key role. Frazier rarely threw the ball, but was an effective passer that season, 56% completions 17 TDs, 4 INTs, and passer rating of 156, which would put him #25 in the country today.
The key to the offense was an athletic OL that could win 1-1 matchups. They were probably the first program that seemed to emphasize OL & DL with "good weight" not 300 pounders with a big gut. The WRs and TEs were not great, but adequate. It was all about the OL, RBs, and a QB nobody in the NFL would ever want.
On Defense they emphasized speed over size and considered undersized in the Front 7. It frankly looked a lot like Stanford's defense with Trent Murphy, but two Trent Murphys on the ends and two quick DTs.
I was watching and thinking "why isn't anyone running this type of offense today?" It sure seems to me Stanford could study the Nebraska of mid-90s and replicate it. There are likely some great athletes who could play a Tommie Frazier role today, who aren't great passers or receivers, but can make throws to open receivers when defenses are fooled, and also academically inclined. Stanford can always recruit OL, though it would have to do a better job bringing in better athletes. But even on defense, emphasizing speed in Front 7 recruits, and then building them up with a strong S&C program, seems doable.
To be clear, 90s Nebraska was not the service academy triple option offense. Though it used that play it its tool box, it was much more diversified than that. On defense, employ quick and undersized DTs, then two OLBs who can line up as DEs. Don't focus on bringing in guys who are trying to get to the NFL and try getting them there. Focus on bringing in guys who aren't seen as much as future NFL players when recruited, and then as they develop in the program, if they turn into NFL players, so much the better.
David Shaw's strategy was to play an NFL style and get recruits to come based on this. It worked for a while, but NFL teams started employing more college concepts and Stanford didn't adapt to what the NFL was evolving to. Now, Stanford isn't seen as the place to go if you want to get to the NFL. Other programs playing different styles can make a much more credible case.
The Nebraska of 90's style would allow Stanford to prioritize recruits other programs don't want as much, and at same time get the guys that most fit the style and scheme. It's like when everyone else is zigging, the opportunity is zagging. Don't try getting future NFL QBs and WRs. Get QBs who can win in a style unique to College Football. Recruit DEs and make them DTs. Recruit more TEs and make them DEs and OTs.
This of course, would require David Shaw to fire himself as OC and bring in someone who can employ the Nebraska offense of the 90s, but I think, given the state of affairs in recruiting and the competitive landscape, the strategy is a very viable one for Stanford to pursue.
I'm all for Shaw's program to be anything and everything it is not today. And stop being whatever the hell it has become.
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - Phogge - 12-03-2021
I spoke to a USC grad in the film business yesterday. He hears 150 million for ten years is the Riley deal. SC is all in and will force Phil Knight to spend more money.
Stanford and Cal are in over their heads. They should bolt and join the Mountain West though they will be hard pressed to be able to compete with San Diego, Fresno, Utah State and others.
I am afraid that Cal and Stanford will never make it back to The Rose Bowl now that the PAC 12 has joined the arms race. Washington, ASU, Utah and UCLA have some hard planning going forward.
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - baycommuter - 12-03-2021
That would be suicidal for the athletic program. The Mountain West has a new TV contract that supplies about $4 million a year per school. The Pac-12's expiring contract is $21 million a year per school, and they're looking for a lot more in the next one. Even if you think Stanford and Cal will become Vanderbilt in football (I don't think so), it's worth it to keep the money for the other sports. Vanderbilt despite never going to be able to compete in football isn't leaving the SEC and is pretty happy to win in baseball most years.
(12-03-2021, 08:27 AM)Phogge Wrote: I spoke to a USC grad in the film business yesterday. He hears 150 million for ten years is the Riley deal. SC is all in and will force Phil Knight to spend more money.
Stanford and Cal are in over their heads. They should bolt and join the Mountain West though they will be hard pressed to be able to compete with San Diego, Fresno, Utah State and others.
I am afraid that Cal and Stanford will never make it back to The Rose Bowl now that the PAC 12 has joined the arms race. Washington, ASU, Utah and UCLA have some hard planning going forward.
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - Maple Leaf - 12-03-2021
(12-03-2021, 10:48 AM)baycommuter Wrote: That would be suicidal for the athletic program. The Mountain West has a new TV contract that supplies about $4 million a year per school. The Pac-12's expiring contract is $21 million a year per school, and they're looking for a lot more in the next one. Even if you think Stanford and Cal will become Vanderbilt in football (I don't think so), it's worth it to keep the money for the other sports. Vanderbilt despite never going to be able to compete in football isn't leaving the SEC and is pretty happy to win in baseball most years.
(12-03-2021, 08:27 AM)Phogge Wrote: I spoke to a USC grad in the film business yesterday. He hears 150 million for ten years is the Riley deal. SC is all in and will force Phil Knight to spend more money.
Stanford and Cal are in over their heads. They should bolt and join the Mountain West though they will be hard pressed to be able to compete with San Diego, Fresno, Utah State and others.
I am afraid that Cal and Stanford will never make it back to The Rose Bowl now that the PAC 12 has joined the arms race. Washington, ASU, Utah and UCLA have some hard planning going forward.
I wonder how many years and losses will the fans at LSU and USC find acceptable before a National Championship arrives on campus or should I say in the Football Rotunda?
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - Phogge - 12-03-2021
Probably one year.
So OK re the Mountain West, all about money. LOL, not my money.
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - OutsiderFan - 12-04-2021
The lack of interest in my post is really disappointing. I honestly thought more people on this board would be into talking about the Xs and Os of football, the evolution of the game, and the idea of going back to the future.
Baylor is playing as I type this. They went from #124 nationally in 2020 rushing, to #8 nationally in 2021 rushing.
https://wacotrib.com/sports/college/baylor/reliable-violent-offense-new-baylor-offensive-philosophy-under-jeff-grimes/article_b391a808-5824-11eb-a7a8-cf591d5af181.html
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - Phogge - 12-04-2021
Baylor has linemen who can block and a back who doesn’t go down when someone breathes on him.
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - SamuelMcF - 12-04-2021
(12-04-2021, 12:26 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The lack of interest in my post is really disappointing. I honestly thought more people on this board would be into talking about the Xs and Os of football, the evolution of the game, and the idea of going back to the future.
You did? Why?
Seriously, though, this part is already happening: "Recruit DEs and make them DTs. Recruit more TEs and make them DEs and OTs."
You'll note many OTs we've been signing are 6'6"-6'7" 270ish. Connor McLaughlin, James Pogorelc, Jack Leyrer, and '22 commit Fisher Anderson ALL fit this bill. Hell, even Walter Rouse was 275 as a recruit. This is no accident.
Same story with the DL we've been signing. '22 commits Rowell and Moi are both 260ish and will bulk up. Freshmen Franklin and Buckey were 250-260 upon arrival on campus and are both currently bulking up.
We are officially changing to a 4-3 defense, wherein there is no true 315-lb space-gobbling "Nose Tackle" (a la DWP) and instead 2 DTs that are 290-300 (a la Booker or Tobin Phillips, and the younger guys bulking up will hopefully get to 290ish in another year or 2). The DEs in such a scheme should be 260ish and long, exactly the type of "edge rusher" that the NFL is currently going gaga for (think the Bosa brothers, Chase Young, Myles Garrett, Khalil Mack, Maxx Crosby, Jags Josh Allen, and the list goes on and on). Lance Keneley at 255 is approaching great fit there size-wise already, for example, and would never have bulked up to the 280-290 necessary to be a 3-4 DE. Same with Aaron Armitage and Wilfredo Aybar. '22 commit Ernest Cooper will fit there quickly at 240 already (especially after a year of bulking to 250+). '22 commit Pat Caughey is a former TE-turned DE, though I have my doubts he'll be any good. This is a very good move scheme-wise IMO, and it should've been made earlier (what else is new?). Now if only we signed some LBs who can cover...
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - qwerty49 - 12-04-2021
Cmon OF you know you need a thicker skin than that!
Your original post, and SamuelMcF’s reply, are very interesting and informative. My main takeaway is that it’s important to keep one eye on the NFL’s requirements and to be able to adapt both recruiting and S&C accordingly.
I think Phogge and gailtate are implying that Stanford has a high degree of inertia (both institutionally and at Shaw’s level) that prevents us from being as nimble as we need to be to compete these days. (And that doesn’t even factor in the $NIL universe, as CI often points out).
So there. Avengers assemble!
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - BostonCard - 12-04-2021
(12-04-2021, 12:26 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The lack of interest in my post is really disappointing. I honestly thought more people on this board would be into talking about the Xs and Os of football, the evolution of the game, and the idea of going back to the future.
Baylor is playing as I type this. They went from #124 nationally in 2020 rushing, to #8 nationally in 2021 rushing.
https://wacotrib.com/sports/college/baylor/reliable-violent-offense-new-baylor-offensive-philosophy-under-jeff-grimes/article_b391a808-5824-11eb-a7a8-cf591d5af181.html
Everyone has a right to post (as long as they respect the rules). Everyone also has a right not to post, and no one should operate under the expectation that others will line up behind a post of theirs with reply, no matter how brilliant you think your post was.
With regards to Stanford, I would settle for figuring out something we do well and doing that.
BC
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - old spanish trail - 12-05-2021
(12-04-2021, 02:38 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(12-04-2021, 12:26 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The lack of interest in my post is really disappointing. I honestly thought more people on this board would be into talking about the Xs and Os of football, the evolution of the game, and the idea of going back to the future.
You did? Why?
Seriously, though, this part is already happening: "Recruit DEs and make them DTs. Recruit more TEs and make them DEs and OTs."
You'll note many OTs we've been signing are 6'6"-6'7" 270ish. Connor McLaughlin, James Pogorelc, Jack Leyrer, and '22 commit Fisher Anderson ALL fit this bill. Hell, even Walter Rouse was 275 as a recruit. This is no accident.
Same story with the DL we've been signing. '22 commits Rowell and Moi are both 260ish and will bulk up. Freshmen Franklin and Buckey were 250-260 upon arrival on campus and are both currently bulking up.
We are officially changing to a 4-3 defense, wherein there is no true 315-lb space-gobbling "Nose Tackle" (a la DWP) and instead 2 DTs that are 290-300 (a la Booker or Tobin Phillips, and the younger guys bulking up will hopefully get to 290ish in another year or 2). The DEs in such a scheme should be 260ish and long, exactly the type of "edge rusher" that the NFL is currently going gaga for (think the Bosa brothers, Chase Young, Myles Garrett, Khalil Mack, Maxx Crosby, Jags Josh Allen, and the list goes on and on). Lance Keneley at 255 is approaching great fit there size-wise already, for example, and would never have bulked up to the 280-290 necessary to be a 3-4 DE. Same with Aaron Armitage and Wilfredo Aybar. '22 commit Ernest Cooper will fit there quickly at 240 already (especially after a year of bulking to 250+). '22 commit Pat Caughey is a former TE-turned DE, though I have my doubts he'll be any good. This is a very good move scheme-wise IMO, and it should've been made earlier (what else is new?). Now if only we signed some LBs who can cover...
Great to hear from you Samuel. Have any info on staff changes you can share? Or not...
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - OutsiderFan - 12-05-2021
(12-04-2021, 08:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-04-2021, 12:26 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The lack of interest in my post is really disappointing. I honestly thought more people on this board would be into talking about the Xs and Os of football, the evolution of the game, and the idea of going back to the future.
Baylor is playing as I type this. They went from #124 nationally in 2020 rushing, to #8 nationally in 2021 rushing.
https://wacotrib.com/sports/college/baylor/reliable-violent-offense-new-baylor-offensive-philosophy-under-jeff-grimes/article_b391a808-5824-11eb-a7a8-cf591d5af181.html
Everyone has a right to post (as long as they respect the rules). Everyone also has a right not to post, and no one should operate under the expectation that others will line up behind a post of theirs with reply, no matter how brilliant you think your post was.
With regards to Stanford, I would settle for figuring out something we do well and doing that.
BC
Nothing said here is revelatory in any way. But I too have the right to express disappointment that readers of this board are uninterested in a topic I believe is fascinating.
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - Hurlburt88 - 12-05-2021
Do we know for sure that Stanford is moving from 3-4 to 4-3 scheme? posting above is the first I have heard of that. I don't know enough to support or oppose that . . . but find it interesting because I thought Lance was somewhat rooted in the 3-4
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - gailtate - 12-05-2021
(12-04-2021, 03:36 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Cmon OF you know you need a thicker skin than that!
Your original post, and SamuelMcF’s reply, are very interesting and informative. My main takeaway is that it’s important to keep one eye on the NFL’s requirements and to be able to adapt both recruiting and S&C accordingly.
I think Phogge and gailtate are implying that Stanford has a high degree of inertia (both institutionally and at Shaw’s level) that prevents us from being as nimble as we need to be to compete these days. (And that doesn’t even factor in the $NIL universe, as CI often points out).
So there. Avengers assemble!
Until David Shaw publicly reveals evidence that he recognizes the full extent of his program's deficiencies and how he intends to re-establish a program as competitive as the one he inherited 11 years ago, I remain doubtful about his suitability for what the job as head coach demands today. He must reverse a multi-year decline, evidenced in part by the recent record of 11-20, and the stunningly low national rankings in team-wide performance. Yes, current recruiting seems like a good start. Still, I am skeptical that he can recruit enough of the talent he needs, develop more of the talent he recruits and demand more from the coaches and staff who are accountable. His his now years-long performance on all three fronts is not encouraging. While I hope for the best, today I'm no longer sure that "his best" will suffice.
lex24 - lex24 - 12-05-2021
(12-05-2021, 09:58 AM)gailtate Wrote:(12-04-2021, 03:36 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Cmon OF you know you need a thicker skin than that!
Your original post, and SamuelMcF’s reply, are very interesting and informative. My main takeaway is that it’s important to keep one eye on the NFL’s requirements and to be able to adapt both recruiting and S&C accordingly.
I think Phogge and gailtate are implying that Stanford has a high degree of inertia (both institutionally and at Shaw’s level) that prevents us from being as nimble as we need to be to compete these days. (And that doesn’t even factor in the $NIL universe, as CI often points out).
So there. Avengers assemble!
Until David Shaw publicly reveals evidence that he recognizes the full extent of his program's deficiencies and how he intends to re-establish a program as competitive as the one he inherited 11 years ago, I remain doubtful about his suitability for what the job as head coach demands today. He must reverse a multi-year decline, evidenced in part by the recent record of 11-20, and the stunningly low national rankings in team-wide performance. Yes, current recruiting seems like a good start. Still, I am skeptical that he can recruit enough of the talent he needs, develop more of the talent he recruits and demand more from the coaches and staff who are accountable. His his now years-long performance on all three fronts is not encouraging. While I hope for the best, today I'm no longer sure that "his best" will suffice.
Publically? So, what will meet your expectations of a mea culpa. Perhaps a Seppuku ceremony? If there is a staff shakeup, you have your answer that he gets the need. If there isn’t, you have your proof he doesn’t.
But he doesn’t need to provide you or anyone else with some kind of public “confession “.
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - SamuelMcF - 12-05-2021
(12-05-2021, 09:11 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote: Do we know for sure that Stanford is moving from 3-4 to 4-3 scheme? posting above is the first I have heard of that. I don't know enough to support or oppose that . . . but find it interesting because I thought Lance was somewhat rooted in the 3-4
Discussed in an interview and shifted to it late in the season.
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - Brickcity - 12-05-2021
(12-04-2021, 02:38 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(12-04-2021, 12:26 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The lack of interest in my post is really disappointing. I honestly thought more people on this board would be into talking about the Xs and Os of football, the evolution of the game, and the idea of going back to the future.
You did? Why?
Seriously, though, this part is already happening: "Recruit DEs and make them DTs. Recruit more TEs and make them DEs and OTs."
You'll note many OTs we've been signing are 6'6"-6'7" 270ish. Connor McLaughlin, James Pogorelc, Jack Leyrer, and '22 commit Fisher Anderson ALL fit this bill. Hell, even Walter Rouse was 275 as a recruit. This is no accident.
Same story with the DL we've been signing. '22 commits Rowell and Moi are both 260ish and will bulk up. Freshmen Franklin and Buckey were 250-260 upon arrival on campus and are both currently bulking up.
We are officially changing to a 4-3 defense, wherein there is no true 315-lb space-gobbling "Nose Tackle" (a la DWP) and instead 2 DTs that are 290-300 (a la Booker or Tobin Phillips, and the younger guys bulking up will hopefully get to 290ish in another year or 2). The DEs in such a scheme should be 260ish and long, exactly the type of "edge rusher" that the NFL is currently going gaga for (think the Bosa brothers, Chase Young, Myles Garrett, Khalil Mack, Maxx Crosby, Jags Josh Allen, and the list goes on and on). Lance Keneley at 255 is approaching great fit there size-wise already, for example, and would never have bulked up to the 280-290 necessary to be a 3-4 DE. Same with Aaron Armitage and Wilfredo Aybar. '22 commit Ernest Cooper will fit there quickly at 240 already (especially after a year of bulking to 250+). '22 commit Pat Caughey is a former TE-turned DE, though I have my doubts he'll be any good. This is a very good move scheme-wise IMO, and it should've been made earlier (what else is new?). Now if only we signed some LBs who can cover...
Samuel, you seem to have a lot of faith in our defensive braintrust. Perhaps that's due to all the recent success that Stanford has displayed vis-a-vis its defensive dominance, eh?
RE: Rethinking Stanford Football - SamuelMcF - 12-05-2021
(12-05-2021, 12:04 PM)Brickcity Wrote:(12-04-2021, 02:38 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: You did? Why?
Seriously, though, this part is already happening: "Recruit DEs and make them DTs. Recruit more TEs and make them DEs and OTs."
You'll note many OTs we've been signing are 6'6"-6'7" 270ish. Connor McLaughlin, James Pogorelc, Jack Leyrer, and '22 commit Fisher Anderson ALL fit this bill. Hell, even Walter Rouse was 275 as a recruit. This is no accident.
Same story with the DL we've been signing. '22 commits Rowell and Moi are both 260ish and will bulk up. Freshmen Franklin and Buckey were 250-260 upon arrival on campus and are both currently bulking up.
We are officially changing to a 4-3 defense, wherein there is no true 315-lb space-gobbling "Nose Tackle" (a la DWP) and instead 2 DTs that are 290-300 (a la Booker or Tobin Phillips, and the younger guys bulking up will hopefully get to 290ish in another year or 2). The DEs in such a scheme should be 260ish and long, exactly the type of "edge rusher" that the NFL is currently going gaga for (think the Bosa brothers, Chase Young, Myles Garrett, Khalil Mack, Maxx Crosby, Jags Josh Allen, and the list goes on and on). Lance Keneley at 255 is approaching great fit there size-wise already, for example, and would never have bulked up to the 280-290 necessary to be a 3-4 DE. Same with Aaron Armitage and Wilfredo Aybar. '22 commit Ernest Cooper will fit there quickly at 240 already (especially after a year of bulking to 250+). '22 commit Pat Caughey is a former TE-turned DE, though I have my doubts he'll be any good. This is a very good move scheme-wise IMO, and it should've been made earlier (what else is new?). Now if only we signed some LBs who can cover...
Samuel, you seem to have a lot of faith in our defensive braintrust.
I do?
Staff made an adjustment that should've been made 2-3 years ago based on our present (and, at the time, OBVIOUS future) roster construction. They are getting a D instead of an F because they at least turned in the assignment.
I know nothing about how position coaching/development works so can't comment on that, but I think we're all pretty clear on how it's going.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 12-05-2021
(12-05-2021, 11:04 AM)lex24 Wrote:(12-05-2021, 09:58 AM)gailtate Wrote:(12-04-2021, 03:36 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Cmon OF you know you need a thicker skin than that!
Your original post, and SamuelMcF’s reply, are very interesting and informative. My main takeaway is that it’s important to keep one eye on the NFL’s requirements and to be able to adapt both recruiting and S&C accordingly.
I think Phogge and gailtate are implying that Stanford has a high degree of inertia (both institutionally and at Shaw’s level) that prevents us from being as nimble as we need to be to compete these days. (And that doesn’t even factor in the $NIL universe, as CI often points out).
So there. Avengers assemble!
Until David Shaw publicly reveals evidence that he recognizes the full extent of his program's deficiencies and how he intends to re-establish a program as competitive as the one he inherited 11 years ago, I remain doubtful about his suitability for what the job as head coach demands today. He must reverse a multi-year decline, evidenced in part by the recent record of 11-20, and the stunningly low national rankings in team-wide performance. Yes, current recruiting seems like a good start. Still, I am skeptical that he can recruit enough of the talent he needs, develop more of the talent he recruits and demand more from the coaches and staff who are accountable. His his now years-long performance on all three fronts is not encouraging. While I hope for the best, today I'm no longer sure that "his best" will suffice.
Publically? So, what will meet your expectations of a mea culpa. Perhaps a Seppuku ceremony? If there is a staff shakeup, you have your answer that he gets the need. If there isn’t, you have your proof he doesn’t.
But he doesn’t need to provide you or anyone else with some kind of public “confession “.
I don't want a confession or an acknowledgement . . . a resignation would do nicely. Bernard and Shaw should be working on a severance package that puts a nice bow on top of the tens of millions already paid to Stanford's head football coach.
(I, obviously, am further entrenched in Camp Negative than is Gail, in terms of seeing no hope for the program unless and until there is a change at the top - which we all know is NOT happening this year and probably not next year, either).