[slide]

"Palo Alto to Atherton would have been a tough drive for the coaches to see him play."

exactly.  

the above is one of the reasons for our self-imposed recruiting sanctions.  Bernie loves it though -- unused scholarships are extra money for AD.

[slide]

"Palo Alto to Atherton would have been a tough drive for the coaches to see him play."

exactly.  

the above is one of the reasons for our self-imposed recruiting sanctions.  Bernie loves it though -- unused scholarships are extra money for AD.

[Austroturf]

As much as I care about the team, the 2018 iteration drives me nuts.  At times, especially in the last few games, they seem to be playing superbly and are a playoff contender or at least a conference championship contender.  And then, during the same game, they are just brutal.  

Seems to me there are four issues affecting performance:

1. Even year schedules are tough.
2. In-game adaptations on offense and defense take too long to be made, if they are made at all.
3. Injuries seem to be more prevalent than in past years.
4. Line play, particularly on the defensive line, is not where it needs to be.  I think there are many reasons for this.  I don't follow recruiting as closely as others, but I wonder if we are looking too closely at measurables and not enough at the raw desire to be a great football player. IIRC, a number of our best players from earlier on in the Shaw/Harbaugh era, such as Ben Gardner, Henry Anderson, Trent Murphy and David Parry, were no more than three star recruits, but their desire to win and become great football players was clearly obvious and a joy to watch at the time. Football is a highly emotional game, particularly on defense.  I wonder sometimes if the generally calm demeanor of Coach Shaw is rubbing off a little too much on our players attitudes.  Contrast this with Harbaugh with his EUTM.

Yes, I have often wondered the same about Harbaugh's culture vs. Shaw's culture.  Shaw is clearly the better statesman, a balanced and even-keeled "Director" of the football program.  And he knows the sport inside out and has an impressive depth of experience.  I am also sure the players really like him, certainly more than Harbaugh's players like him.  But can Shaw light a fire under the players the way Harbaugh could?  My impression is that this element has gone missing in the course of the past eight years....

[Austroturf]

As much as I care about the team, the 2018 iteration drives me nuts.  At times, especially in the last few games, they seem to be playing superbly and are a playoff contender or at least a conference championship contender.  And then, during the same game, they are just brutal.  

Seems to me there are four issues affecting performance:

1. Even year schedules are tough.
2. In-game adaptations on offense and defense take too long to be made, if they are made at all.
3. Injuries seem to be more prevalent than in past years.
4. Line play, particularly on the defensive line, is not where it needs to be.  I think there are many reasons for this.  I don't follow recruiting as closely as others, but I wonder if we are looking too closely at measurables and not enough at the raw desire to be a great football player. IIRC, a number of our best players from earlier on in the Shaw/Harbaugh era, such as Ben Gardner, Henry Anderson, Trent Murphy and David Parry, were no more than three star recruits, but their desire to win and become great football players was clearly obvious and a joy to watch at the time. Football is a highly emotional game, particularly on defense.  I wonder sometimes if the generally calm demeanor of Coach Shaw is rubbing off a little too much on our players attitudes.  Contrast this with Harbaugh with his EUTM.

Yes, I have often wondered the same about Harbaugh's culture vs. Shaw's culture.  Shaw is clearly the better statesman, a balanced and even-keeled "Director" of the football program.  And he knows the sport inside out and has an impressive depth of experience.  I am also sure the players really like him, certainly more than Harbaugh's players like him.  But can Shaw light a fire under the players the way Harbaugh could?  My impression is that this element has gone missing in the course of the past eight years....

[Hank 91]

I care. For the past two Saturday nights I've watched the games on my phone's four-inch screen while sitting in the stands at marching band competitions. (My son is a percussionist.) I can tell you this -- football is not meant to be watched on an iPhone even in the best of circumstances, but the sketchy internet connections at both schools made things even worse. For more than half the time, the game was stuck in buffering purgatory, with the images blurry and jumpy. Sometimes the video completely froze, leaving me with only the audio. It was... less than ideal. It would have been so easy to put my phone away at 21-0 on Saturday night when things were darkest, but I kept watching. So yes, I care. Sometimes I think I care too much.

Adding on to that fun, I felt the negative side of Twitter ("Is there any other side?" one might ask) when my attempts at optimism after the Washington loss were met with disbelief and even anger, enough so that I began thinking about closing my site.

Yes, I care.

[Hank 91]

I care. For the past two Saturday nights I've watched the games on my phone's four-inch screen while sitting in the stands at marching band competitions. (My son is a percussionist.) I can tell you this -- football is not meant to be watched on an iPhone even in the best of circumstances, but the sketchy internet connections at both schools made things even worse. For more than half the time, the game was stuck in buffering purgatory, with the images blurry and jumpy. Sometimes the video completely froze, leaving me with only the audio. It was... less than ideal. It would have been so easy to put my phone away at 21-0 on Saturday night when things were darkest, but I kept watching. So yes, I care. Sometimes I think I care too much.

Adding on to that fun, I felt the negative side of Twitter ("Is there any other side?" one might ask) when my attempts at optimism after the Washington loss were met with disbelief and even anger, enough so that I began thinking about closing my site.

Yes, I care.

[BostonCard]

I care but was at a wedding last night. I was pissed off then and I'm pissed off now. There is no excuse for this coaching staff and roster to have 8-4 as the best possible result this season other than just doing a poor job. I don't know enough to know where the problems lie, but I think Shaw needs to make significant changes in his staff. Carberry, Pritchard, and maybe Reynolds need to go. I doubt he will do much if anything, but he should.

There also seem to be some awfully big holes in the roster for next year = poor recruiting.

Would have been nice to have had Ben Burr-Kirven from Sacred Heart Prep of Atherton, currently second in the nation in tackles for the Washington Huskies.  12 tackles against Stanford, six solo, one forced fumble, one pass defensed.  His 12 tackles against was actually his fewest against a Pac-12 opponent.

Someone with intimate knowledge of the situation indicated that Burr-Kirven was injured during Stanford camp so the coaches never got to see him to see.

BC

Understandable. Palo Alto to Atherton would have been a tough drive for the coaches to see him play.

This is selection bias.  You have the benefit of knowing that Ben Kirven turned out to be a stud. Lots of guys were relatively local, wanted to come to Stanford, but didn't amount to anything in college.  For every BBK that would have been found, there would have been a bunch of guys that the staff would have wasted their time driving out to see play.

BC

[BostonCard]

I care but was at a wedding last night. I was pissed off then and I'm pissed off now. There is no excuse for this coaching staff and roster to have 8-4 as the best possible result this season other than just doing a poor job. I don't know enough to know where the problems lie, but I think Shaw needs to make significant changes in his staff. Carberry, Pritchard, and maybe Reynolds need to go. I doubt he will do much if anything, but he should.

There also seem to be some awfully big holes in the roster for next year = poor recruiting.

Would have been nice to have had Ben Burr-Kirven from Sacred Heart Prep of Atherton, currently second in the nation in tackles for the Washington Huskies.  12 tackles against Stanford, six solo, one forced fumble, one pass defensed.  His 12 tackles against was actually his fewest against a Pac-12 opponent.

Someone with intimate knowledge of the situation indicated that Burr-Kirven was injured during Stanford camp so the coaches never got to see him to see.

BC

Understandable. Palo Alto to Atherton would have been a tough drive for the coaches to see him play.

This is selection bias.  You have the benefit of knowing that Ben Kirven turned out to be a stud. Lots of guys were relatively local, wanted to come to Stanford, but didn't amount to anything in college.  For every BBK that would have been found, there would have been a bunch of guys that the staff would have wasted their time driving out to see play.

BC

[Hulk01]

Burr-Kirven was a high school safety/LB--6'0", 200 pounds--who was too slow to be a safety and far too small to be an ILB in a scheme that requires its ILBs to fend off blocks from offensive linemen.  Washington, among the very few schools to offer Burr-Kirven, employs what is basically a two nose front (Qualis and Vea in 2016, Vea and Gaines in 2017,  and Gaines and whomever they can find in 2018) that allows them to play undersized linebackers like Burr-Kirven. 

Oregon seems to be heading toward a similar scheme, what is virtually a 2-4-5. 

Fans who insist Perez and Branch are too small to be ILBs and notice that Okereke often gets swallowed up by bigger blockers would have the same reaction to Burr-Kirven.  He can be overpowered, as we proved against them last year, often.

[Hulk01]

Burr-Kirven was a high school safety/LB--6'0", 200 pounds--who was too slow to be a safety and far too small to be an ILB in a scheme that requires its ILBs to fend off blocks from offensive linemen.  Washington, among the very few schools to offer Burr-Kirven, employs what is basically a two nose front (Qualis and Vea in 2016, Vea and Gaines in 2017,  and Gaines and whomever they can find in 2018) that allows them to play undersized linebackers like Burr-Kirven. 

Oregon seems to be heading toward a similar scheme, what is virtually a 2-4-5. 

Fans who insist Perez and Branch are too small to be ILBs and notice that Okereke often gets swallowed up by bigger blockers would have the same reaction to Burr-Kirven.  He can be overpowered, as we proved against them last year, often.

[cardcrimson]

I care but was at a wedding last night. I was pissed off then and I'm pissed off now. There is no excuse for this coaching staff and roster to have 8-4 as the best possible result this season other than just doing a poor job. I don't know enough to know where the problems lie, but I think Shaw needs to make significant changes in his staff. Carberry, Pritchard, and maybe Reynolds need to go. I doubt he will do much if anything, but he should.

There also seem to be some awfully big holes in the roster for next year = poor recruiting.

Would have been nice to have had Ben Burr-Kirven from Sacred Heart Prep of Atherton, currently second in the nation in tackles for the Washington Huskies.  12 tackles against Stanford, six solo, one forced fumble, one pass defensed.  His 12 tackles against was actually his fewest against a Pac-12 opponent.

Someone with intimate knowledge of the situation indicated that Burr-Kirven was injured during Stanford camp so the coaches never got to see him to see.

BC

Understandable. Palo Alto to Atherton would have been a tough drive for the coaches to see him play.

This is selection bias.  You have the benefit of knowing that Ben Kirven turned out to be a stud. Lots of guys were relatively local, wanted to come to Stanford, but didn't amount to anything in college.  For every BBK that would have been found, there would have been a bunch of guys that the staff would have wasted their time driving out to see play.

BC

It's not selection bias. You stated that he was hurt and didn't come to a Stanford camp, so the coaches never got to see him play. My point is that Atherton isn't very far away, and could have seen him play if they wanted to.

And for what it's worth:
Hand-timed 4.49 in the 40 his Junior year, before he hurt his leg.
Struggled to recover, but did.
As a senior rushed for 862 yards on 106 carries, and caught 10 passes for 224 yards.
Played every snap on defense.

Interesting article. Apparently the kid had a lot of heart in high school.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/12/25/s...-the-year/

Oh, and one more interesting tidbit from the article. He was pretty much a year younger than most of the seniors that year, turning 17 during his senior year. Another year certainly would have added some muscle, one would think.

[cardcrimson]

I care but was at a wedding last night. I was pissed off then and I'm pissed off now. There is no excuse for this coaching staff and roster to have 8-4 as the best possible result this season other than just doing a poor job. I don't know enough to know where the problems lie, but I think Shaw needs to make significant changes in his staff. Carberry, Pritchard, and maybe Reynolds need to go. I doubt he will do much if anything, but he should.

There also seem to be some awfully big holes in the roster for next year = poor recruiting.

Would have been nice to have had Ben Burr-Kirven from Sacred Heart Prep of Atherton, currently second in the nation in tackles for the Washington Huskies.  12 tackles against Stanford, six solo, one forced fumble, one pass defensed.  His 12 tackles against was actually his fewest against a Pac-12 opponent.

Someone with intimate knowledge of the situation indicated that Burr-Kirven was injured during Stanford camp so the coaches never got to see him to see.

BC

Understandable. Palo Alto to Atherton would have been a tough drive for the coaches to see him play.

This is selection bias.  You have the benefit of knowing that Ben Kirven turned out to be a stud. Lots of guys were relatively local, wanted to come to Stanford, but didn't amount to anything in college.  For every BBK that would have been found, there would have been a bunch of guys that the staff would have wasted their time driving out to see play.

BC

It's not selection bias. You stated that he was hurt and didn't come to a Stanford camp, so the coaches never got to see him play. My point is that Atherton isn't very far away, and could have seen him play if they wanted to.

And for what it's worth:
Hand-timed 4.49 in the 40 his Junior year, before he hurt his leg.
Struggled to recover, but did.
As a senior rushed for 862 yards on 106 carries, and caught 10 passes for 224 yards.
Played every snap on defense.

Interesting article. Apparently the kid had a lot of heart in high school.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/12/25/s...-the-year/

Oh, and one more interesting tidbit from the article. He was pretty much a year younger than most of the seniors that year, turning 17 during his senior year. Another year certainly would have added some muscle, one would think.

[BostonCard]

It's not selection bias. You stated that he was hurt and didn't come to a Stanford camp, so the coaches never got to see him play. My point is that Atherton isn't very far away, and could have seen him play if they wanted to.

And for what it's worth:
Hand-timed 4.49 in the 40 his Junior year, before he hurt his leg.
Struggled to recover, but did.
As a senior rushed for 862 yards on 106 carries, and caught 10 passes for 224 yards.
Played every snap on defense.

Interesting article. Apparently the kid had a lot of heart in high school.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/12/25/s...-the-year/

Oh, and one more interesting tidbit from the article. He was pretty much a year younger than most of the seniors that year, turning 17 during his senior year. Another year certainly would have added some muscle, one would think.

And my question to you is how many guys who never would have panned out would they have had to drive out to to find one Ben Burr Kirven?  How many dead ends would they have had to pursue in order to find one guy who was worthy of a scholarship?

All of this hand wringing would be much more understandable if there was a post here from back in 2013 asking why we weren't offering this guy from M-A who wants to come to Stanford.  But the first mention of Ben Burr Kirven on this board is here: 

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ght=Kirven

You can fill a book with the names of all the players the staff passed over who wound up being contributors and even stars at other teams.  But you can fill an entire library with the names of the players the staff passed over who never amounted to anything, and those never get posted on message boards as "woulda/coulda/shoulda's"

BC

[BostonCard]

It's not selection bias. You stated that he was hurt and didn't come to a Stanford camp, so the coaches never got to see him play. My point is that Atherton isn't very far away, and could have seen him play if they wanted to.

And for what it's worth:
Hand-timed 4.49 in the 40 his Junior year, before he hurt his leg.
Struggled to recover, but did.
As a senior rushed for 862 yards on 106 carries, and caught 10 passes for 224 yards.
Played every snap on defense.

Interesting article. Apparently the kid had a lot of heart in high school.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/12/25/s...-the-year/

Oh, and one more interesting tidbit from the article. He was pretty much a year younger than most of the seniors that year, turning 17 during his senior year. Another year certainly would have added some muscle, one would think.

And my question to you is how many guys who never would have panned out would they have had to drive out to to find one Ben Burr Kirven?  How many dead ends would they have had to pursue in order to find one guy who was worthy of a scholarship?

All of this hand wringing would be much more understandable if there was a post here from back in 2013 asking why we weren't offering this guy from M-A who wants to come to Stanford.  But the first mention of Ben Burr Kirven on this board is here: 

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ght=Kirven

You can fill a book with the names of all the players the staff passed over who wound up being contributors and even stars at other teams.  But you can fill an entire library with the names of the players the staff passed over who never amounted to anything, and those never get posted on message boards as "woulda/coulda/shoulda's"

BC

[cardcrimson]

It's not selection bias. You stated that he was hurt and didn't come to a Stanford camp, so the coaches never got to see him play. My point is that Atherton isn't very far away, and could have seen him play if they wanted to.

And for what it's worth:
Hand-timed 4.49 in the 40 his Junior year, before he hurt his leg.
Struggled to recover, but did.
As a senior rushed for 862 yards on 106 carries, and caught 10 passes for 224 yards.
Played every snap on defense.

Interesting article. Apparently the kid had a lot of heart in high school.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/12/25/s...-the-year/

Oh, and one more interesting tidbit from the article. He was pretty much a year younger than most of the seniors that year, turning 17 during his senior year. Another year certainly would have added some muscle, one would think.

And my question to you is how many guys who never would have panned out would they have had to drive out to to find one Ben Burr Kirven?  How many dead ends would they have had to pursue in order to find one guy who was worthy of a scholarship?

All of this hand wringing would be much more understandable if there was a post here from back in 2013 asking why we weren't offering this guy from M-A who wants to come to Stanford.  But the first mention of Ben Burr Kirven on this board is here: 

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ght=Kirven

You can fill a book with the names of all the players the staff passed over who wound up being contributors and even stars at other teams.  But you can fill an entire library with the names of the players the staff passed over who never amounted to anything, and those never get posted on message boards as "woulda/coulda/shoulda's"

BC

I'm not a recruiting guru. That said, the kid was rated a 5.6 and 26th at ILB by Rivals. So somebody was paying attention to him. With grades good enough to get into Harvard, one would have thought somebody within Stanford's football program might have noticed him, especially with him just a few miles away, with family ties to Stanford to boot. . . .

As for your question, they didn't even have to drive, they could have walked.

[cardcrimson]

It's not selection bias. You stated that he was hurt and didn't come to a Stanford camp, so the coaches never got to see him play. My point is that Atherton isn't very far away, and could have seen him play if they wanted to.

And for what it's worth:
Hand-timed 4.49 in the 40 his Junior year, before he hurt his leg.
Struggled to recover, but did.
As a senior rushed for 862 yards on 106 carries, and caught 10 passes for 224 yards.
Played every snap on defense.

Interesting article. Apparently the kid had a lot of heart in high school.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/12/25/s...-the-year/

Oh, and one more interesting tidbit from the article. He was pretty much a year younger than most of the seniors that year, turning 17 during his senior year. Another year certainly would have added some muscle, one would think.

And my question to you is how many guys who never would have panned out would they have had to drive out to to find one Ben Burr Kirven?  How many dead ends would they have had to pursue in order to find one guy who was worthy of a scholarship?

All of this hand wringing would be much more understandable if there was a post here from back in 2013 asking why we weren't offering this guy from M-A who wants to come to Stanford.  But the first mention of Ben Burr Kirven on this board is here: 

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ght=Kirven

You can fill a book with the names of all the players the staff passed over who wound up being contributors and even stars at other teams.  But you can fill an entire library with the names of the players the staff passed over who never amounted to anything, and those never get posted on message boards as "woulda/coulda/shoulda's"

BC

I'm not a recruiting guru. That said, the kid was rated a 5.6 and 26th at ILB by Rivals. So somebody was paying attention to him. With grades good enough to get into Harvard, one would have thought somebody within Stanford's football program might have noticed him, especially with him just a few miles away, with family ties to Stanford to boot. . . .

As for your question, they didn't even have to drive, they could have walked.

[Phogge]

Hubris.

As to the original question you have to care more when things go into the latrine. All you can do is play hard, root hard, criticize hard.

Just imagine that your school gave up football. It was the ultimate surrender monkey thing to do. That is when you give up.

[Phogge]

Hubris.

As to the original question you have to care more when things go into the latrine. All you can do is play hard, root hard, criticize hard.

Just imagine that your school gave up football. It was the ultimate surrender monkey thing to do. That is when you give up.

[2006alum]

Hubris.

As to the original question you have to care more when things go into the latrine. All you can do is play hard, root hard, criticize hard.

Just imagine that your school gave up football. It was the ultimate surrender monkey thing to do. That is when you give up.

I think U Chicago is doing just fine. ;) But yeah, Stanford's not that kind of school.

[2006alum]

Hubris.

As to the original question you have to care more when things go into the latrine. All you can do is play hard, root hard, criticize hard.

Just imagine that your school gave up football. It was the ultimate surrender monkey thing to do. That is when you give up.

I think U Chicago is doing just fine. ;) But yeah, Stanford's not that kind of school.

[CornFed]

I think it adds power to cardcrimson's point when we haven't utilized our entire allowance for scholarships. It seems we've had some success wit 2- and 3-stars.  If he was a rated recruit (26th?) I think it is fair to wonder why we did so little to explore his potential.  

OTOH, it is certainly 20/20 hindsight, especially since we don't know what contact was made other than issuing an invitation to the camp.  Also, it doesn't seem like he had a strong interest in Stanford if he wasn't lobbying in some manner.

[CornFed]

I think it adds power to cardcrimson's point when we haven't utilized our entire allowance for scholarships. It seems we've had some success wit 2- and 3-stars.  If he was a rated recruit (26th?) I think it is fair to wonder why we did so little to explore his potential.  

OTOH, it is certainly 20/20 hindsight, especially since we don't know what contact was made other than issuing an invitation to the camp.  Also, it doesn't seem like he had a strong interest in Stanford if he wasn't lobbying in some manner.

[cardcrimson]

I think it adds power to cardcrimson's point when we haven't utilized our entire allowance for scholarships. It seems we've had some success wit 2- and 3-stars.  If he was a rated recruit (26th?) I think it is fair to wonder why we did so little to explore his potential.  

OTOH, it is certainly 20/20 hindsight, especially since we don't know what contact was made other than issuing an invitation to the camp.  Also, it doesn't seem like he had a strong interest in Stanford if he wasn't lobbying in some manner.

Just wondering aloud. The commentators during the broadcast clearly said he was very interested in Stanford, and I think they mentioned he had a brother at the school. They said that Stanford didn't seem interested and he got a lot of love from Washington. Then late in the game, Stanford started to show interest, but were a day late and an offer short.

I don't follow recruiting, save for one day a year, but scratched my head on this one, especially after listening to the broadcast and doing a few minutes of research.

[cardcrimson]

I think it adds power to cardcrimson's point when we haven't utilized our entire allowance for scholarships. It seems we've had some success wit 2- and 3-stars.  If he was a rated recruit (26th?) I think it is fair to wonder why we did so little to explore his potential.  

OTOH, it is certainly 20/20 hindsight, especially since we don't know what contact was made other than issuing an invitation to the camp.  Also, it doesn't seem like he had a strong interest in Stanford if he wasn't lobbying in some manner.

Just wondering aloud. The commentators during the broadcast clearly said he was very interested in Stanford, and I think they mentioned he had a brother at the school. They said that Stanford didn't seem interested and he got a lot of love from Washington. Then late in the game, Stanford started to show interest, but were a day late and an offer short.

I don't follow recruiting, save for one day a year, but scratched my head on this one, especially after listening to the broadcast and doing a few minutes of research.

[BostonCard]

I think it adds power to cardcrimson's point when we haven't utilized our entire allowance for scholarships. It seems we've had some success wit 2- and 3-stars.  If he was a rated recruit (26th?) I think it is fair to wonder why we did so little to explore his potential.  

OTOH, it is certainly 20/20 hindsight, especially since we don't know what contact was made other than issuing an invitation to the camp.  Also, it doesn't seem like he had a strong interest in Stanford if he wasn't lobbying in some manner.

Just wondering aloud. The commentators during the broadcast clearly said he was very interested in Stanford, and I think they mentioned he had a brother at the school. They said that Stanford didn't seem interested and he got a lot of love from Washington. Then late in the game, Stanford started to show interest, but were a day late and an offer short.

I don't follow recruiting, save for one day a year, but scratched my head on this one, especially after listening to the broadcast and doing a few minutes of research.

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ght=kirven

Read the last post in that thread.  That year we took Mustafa Branch (ironically, from UW's back yard).  Branch and Kirven were rated comparably; if you want to be nitpicky, Kirven was rated numerically better by most services.  Of course, the staff had the advantage of seeing Branch in person during junior day; they wouldn't have been able to see Kirven until the fall.

One of the problems with saying "Palo Alto to Atherton would have been a tough drive for the coaches to see him play" is that most scholarships go out in the spring and summer, when they could have gone out and seen him play... something other than football.  They would have had to either have seen him play as a junior, offered him sight unseen, or seen him and offered him late in the cycle, which it sounds like they did.

I am as frustrated as anyone that there was a player out there that wanted to come to Stanford, and turned out to be an all-American type player at a position of need, and we wound up missing on.  This is especially true because, as others note, we have had spare scholarships.  I think our offer strategy writ large is worth discussing, and while I wasn't a fan of Harbaugh's "offer everyone and clean up the mess later" strategy, I think a good case can be made that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and that we are winding up with too many unfilled scholarships way too frequently.  However, there seems to be excessive pearl clutching over a particular guy we passed on, for which there was a reasonably good explanation for why.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think it adds power to cardcrimson's point when we haven't utilized our entire allowance for scholarships. It seems we've had some success wit 2- and 3-stars.  If he was a rated recruit (26th?) I think it is fair to wonder why we did so little to explore his potential.  

OTOH, it is certainly 20/20 hindsight, especially since we don't know what contact was made other than issuing an invitation to the camp.  Also, it doesn't seem like he had a strong interest in Stanford if he wasn't lobbying in some manner.

Just wondering aloud. The commentators during the broadcast clearly said he was very interested in Stanford, and I think they mentioned he had a brother at the school. They said that Stanford didn't seem interested and he got a lot of love from Washington. Then late in the game, Stanford started to show interest, but were a day late and an offer short.

I don't follow recruiting, save for one day a year, but scratched my head on this one, especially after listening to the broadcast and doing a few minutes of research.

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ght=kirven

Read the last post in that thread.  That year we took Mustafa Branch (ironically, from UW's back yard).  Branch and Kirven were rated comparably; if you want to be nitpicky, Kirven was rated numerically better by most services.  Of course, the staff had the advantage of seeing Branch in person during junior day; they wouldn't have been able to see Kirven until the fall.

One of the problems with saying "Palo Alto to Atherton would have been a tough drive for the coaches to see him play" is that most scholarships go out in the spring and summer, when they could have gone out and seen him play... something other than football.  They would have had to either have seen him play as a junior, offered him sight unseen, or seen him and offered him late in the cycle, which it sounds like they did.

I am as frustrated as anyone that there was a player out there that wanted to come to Stanford, and turned out to be an all-American type player at a position of need, and we wound up missing on.  This is especially true because, as others note, we have had spare scholarships.  I think our offer strategy writ large is worth discussing, and while I wasn't a fan of Harbaugh's "offer everyone and clean up the mess later" strategy, I think a good case can be made that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and that we are winding up with too many unfilled scholarships way too frequently.  However, there seems to be excessive pearl clutching over a particular guy we passed on, for which there was a reasonably good explanation for why.

BC

[ADPinWDC]

I attended Stanford 1975-79, mediocre ball, but we had the two years with Walsh, before the Niners grabbed him to make history. 
After Walsh, we went to one bowl game from 1979 - 1990 (Gator in '86).  
The BCS Era with the onset of the Pac12 has been mostly great.  A bunch of us went to every Rose Bowl, 2012, 2013. 
-- 2015 was INCREDIBLE!  McCaffrey put on a SHOW, even had a beaut called back.  
I CARE about the Team, not about Shaw's PHILOSOPHY.
Since 1960, we've had a DOZEN Head coaches including Shaw, averaging about 4-5 years each, some less. 
There was A TON of 0.500 ball and worse.  Shaw consistently gives us better than that, and Recruiting has NEVER been better.
So keep Shaw, but bring in some New Blood. I agree with AustroTurf that Shaw does not like change; he likes Predictable, "Family". 
But, if we lose to Kal on Nov 17 -- then that might be the Bell Ringer: Bring in a new OffCo or DefCo.  Other teams are adapting.
Who would come as a move up:  Troy Walters from NEBR (OffCo)?  Zach Arnett from SDSU (DefCo)? -- he sees our opponents.

Love's year was WASTED.  KJ and the Receiving Corp had a lot more in 'em. We don't have the right Gameplan half the time.  
This season we have 2500 yards Passing and just 840 Rushing. That's not a "Run First" team.  Coach THE TEAM YOU HAVE.  
Frankly, we could easily be 4-5 (Oregon), scratching for a Bowl, like DaBears. 
But, win 3 and the Bowl: 9-4. Then Shaw = 80 wins in 8 seasons. 
Maybe it HAS TO COME FROM THE TEAM?  Skov, A.Luck, Hogan, Gardner, Marecic, Martinez, Lloyd, Solly, Lloyd, Phillips... 
WHO IS THE WARRIOR SPIRIT Now? 

I grew up in the Bay Area, but living out here in WDC, there is more talk about Football.  Fewer Tech startups. 
Stanford is not embarrassing the way it was in 2005-2006.  I care about the Team; I'm a shareholder in the name.

[ADPinWDC]

I attended Stanford 1975-79, mediocre ball, but we had the two years with Walsh, before the Niners grabbed him to make history. 
After Walsh, we went to one bowl game from 1979 - 1990 (Gator in '86).  
The BCS Era with the onset of the Pac12 has been mostly great.  A bunch of us went to every Rose Bowl, 2012, 2013. 
-- 2015 was INCREDIBLE!  McCaffrey put on a SHOW, even had a beaut called back.  
I CARE about the Team, not about Shaw's PHILOSOPHY.
Since 1960, we've had a DOZEN Head coaches including Shaw, averaging about 4-5 years each, some less. 
There was A TON of 0.500 ball and worse.  Shaw consistently gives us better than that, and Recruiting has NEVER been better.
So keep Shaw, but bring in some New Blood. I agree with AustroTurf that Shaw does not like change; he likes Predictable, "Family". 
But, if we lose to Kal on Nov 17 -- then that might be the Bell Ringer: Bring in a new OffCo or DefCo.  Other teams are adapting.
Who would come as a move up:  Troy Walters from NEBR (OffCo)?  Zach Arnett from SDSU (DefCo)? -- he sees our opponents.

Love's year was WASTED.  KJ and the Receiving Corp had a lot more in 'em. We don't have the right Gameplan half the time.  
This season we have 2500 yards Passing and just 840 Rushing. That's not a "Run First" team.  Coach THE TEAM YOU HAVE.  
Frankly, we could easily be 4-5 (Oregon), scratching for a Bowl, like DaBears. 
But, win 3 and the Bowl: 9-4. Then Shaw = 80 wins in 8 seasons. 
Maybe it HAS TO COME FROM THE TEAM?  Skov, A.Luck, Hogan, Gardner, Marecic, Martinez, Lloyd, Solly, Lloyd, Phillips... 
WHO IS THE WARRIOR SPIRIT Now? 

I grew up in the Bay Area, but living out here in WDC, there is more talk about Football.  Fewer Tech startups. 
Stanford is not embarrassing the way it was in 2005-2006.  I care about the Team; I'm a shareholder in the name.

[cardcrimson]

I think it adds power to cardcrimson's point when we haven't utilized our entire allowance for scholarships. It seems we've had some success wit 2- and 3-stars.  If he was a rated recruit (26th?) I think it is fair to wonder why we did so little to explore his potential.  

OTOH, it is certainly 20/20 hindsight, especially since we don't know what contact was made other than issuing an invitation to the camp.  Also, it doesn't seem like he had a strong interest in Stanford if he wasn't lobbying in some manner.

Just wondering aloud. The commentators during the broadcast clearly said he was very interested in Stanford, and I think they mentioned he had a brother at the school. They said that Stanford didn't seem interested and he got a lot of love from Washington. Then late in the game, Stanford started to show interest, but were a day late and an offer short.

I don't follow recruiting, save for one day a year, but scratched my head on this one, especially after listening to the broadcast and doing a few minutes of research.

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ght=kirven

Read the last post in that thread.  That year we took Mustafa Branch (ironically, from UW's back yard).  Branch and Kirven were rated comparably; if you want to be nitpicky, Kirven was rated numerically better by most services.  Of course, the staff had the advantage of seeing Branch in person during junior day; they wouldn't have been able to see Kirven until the fall.

One of the problems with saying "Palo Alto to Atherton would have been a tough drive for the coaches to see him play" is that most scholarships go out in the spring and summer, when they could have gone out and seen him play... something other than football.  They would have had to either have seen him play as a junior, offered him sight unseen, or seen him and offered him late in the cycle, which it sounds like they did.

I am as frustrated as anyone that there was a player out there that wanted to come to Stanford, and turned out to be an all-American type player at a position of need, and we wound up missing on.  This is especially true because, as others note, we have had spare scholarships.  I think our offer strategy writ large is worth discussing, and while I wasn't a fan of Harbaugh's "offer everyone and clean up the mess later" strategy, I think a good case can be made that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and that we are winding up with too many unfilled scholarships way too frequently.  However, there seems to be excessive pearl clutching over a particular guy we passed on, for which there was a reasonably good explanation for why.

BC

Good grief BC. If we could find, recruit and offer guys from places like Geismer LA, Maryville TN, Bountiful UT, Lake Forest IL, Roebuck SC, and Jackson OH, one would have thought we could have found a kid from Atherton. Did we not offer those guys during the spring and summer and/or see them play as a Junior? Why didn't we do the same for the kid next door?

Pearl clutching. Cute. However you still haven't come close to explaining why we didn't even recruit him, except the lame comment that the coaches never saw him play. If that's truly the case as your inside information suggested, then shame on them.

As for Harbaugh's offer them all and clean up the mess later strategy, it seemed to work for us back in the day and certainly filled the pipeline for Shaw. Probably a better approach than our current strategy of leaving scholarships unfulfilled. As a side note, you do know that Saben offers about 25 or so scholarships every year. While I don't condone that strategy, how's it worked out for the Tide?

[cardcrimson]

I think it adds power to cardcrimson's point when we haven't utilized our entire allowance for scholarships. It seems we've had some success wit 2- and 3-stars.  If he was a rated recruit (26th?) I think it is fair to wonder why we did so little to explore his potential.  

OTOH, it is certainly 20/20 hindsight, especially since we don't know what contact was made other than issuing an invitation to the camp.  Also, it doesn't seem like he had a strong interest in Stanford if he wasn't lobbying in some manner.

Just wondering aloud. The commentators during the broadcast clearly said he was very interested in Stanford, and I think they mentioned he had a brother at the school. They said that Stanford didn't seem interested and he got a lot of love from Washington. Then late in the game, Stanford started to show interest, but were a day late and an offer short.

I don't follow recruiting, save for one day a year, but scratched my head on this one, especially after listening to the broadcast and doing a few minutes of research.

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...ght=kirven

Read the last post in that thread.  That year we took Mustafa Branch (ironically, from UW's back yard).  Branch and Kirven were rated comparably; if you want to be nitpicky, Kirven was rated numerically better by most services.  Of course, the staff had the advantage of seeing Branch in person during junior day; they wouldn't have been able to see Kirven until the fall.

One of the problems with saying "Palo Alto to Atherton would have been a tough drive for the coaches to see him play" is that most scholarships go out in the spring and summer, when they could have gone out and seen him play... something other than football.  They would have had to either have seen him play as a junior, offered him sight unseen, or seen him and offered him late in the cycle, which it sounds like they did.

I am as frustrated as anyone that there was a player out there that wanted to come to Stanford, and turned out to be an all-American type player at a position of need, and we wound up missing on.  This is especially true because, as others note, we have had spare scholarships.  I think our offer strategy writ large is worth discussing, and while I wasn't a fan of Harbaugh's "offer everyone and clean up the mess later" strategy, I think a good case can be made that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and that we are winding up with too many unfilled scholarships way too frequently.  However, there seems to be excessive pearl clutching over a particular guy we passed on, for which there was a reasonably good explanation for why.

BC

Good grief BC. If we could find, recruit and offer guys from places like Geismer LA, Maryville TN, Bountiful UT, Lake Forest IL, Roebuck SC, and Jackson OH, one would have thought we could have found a kid from Atherton. Did we not offer those guys during the spring and summer and/or see them play as a Junior? Why didn't we do the same for the kid next door?

Pearl clutching. Cute. However you still haven't come close to explaining why we didn't even recruit him, except the lame comment that the coaches never saw him play. If that's truly the case as your inside information suggested, then shame on them.

As for Harbaugh's offer them all and clean up the mess later strategy, it seemed to work for us back in the day and certainly filled the pipeline for Shaw. Probably a better approach than our current strategy of leaving scholarships unfulfilled. As a side note, you do know that Saben offers about 25 or so scholarships every year. While I don't condone that strategy, how's it worked out for the Tide?

[slide]

Stanford offered Branch in late September so plenty of time to have watched BBK play his SR year.  Branch was one of ten offers made late September or beyond that year.  Justin Reid was among the late offers (again not sure why wait so long to offer).  

on BBK, 5 miles away and all-CA first team defense as a JR.  4.0 student as well.  surely given our less than full roster, we could have found a use for him?  surely a less risky offer than a Jai Tyler.

fwiw, the BBK miss really wasn't the bad miss that year.  Connor Williams was.  a second round NFL draft pick, camped with Stanford, had the grades, yearning for an offer -- nothing.  Bloom et al preferred Dreyer and Maihen based on what they saw in camp and on film.

[slide]

Stanford offered Branch in late September so plenty of time to have watched BBK play his SR year.  Branch was one of ten offers made late September or beyond that year.  Justin Reid was among the late offers (again not sure why wait so long to offer).  

on BBK, 5 miles away and all-CA first team defense as a JR.  4.0 student as well.  surely given our less than full roster, we could have found a use for him?  surely a less risky offer than a Jai Tyler.

fwiw, the BBK miss really wasn't the bad miss that year.  Connor Williams was.  a second round NFL draft pick, camped with Stanford, had the grades, yearning for an offer -- nothing.  Bloom et al preferred Dreyer and Maihen based on what they saw in camp and on film.

[Stymie]

I care, but I am dismayed.

I tail-gated with 25-30 old friends, most of whom I had not seen since 1968, before the WSU game.  They are intelligent, thoughtful and passionate supporters, but all were dismayed at the decline, in terms of:

1.  Poor and intransigent game plans (e.g. "I wonder which quarter Shaw will realize he does not have a credible running game."
2.  Stupid execution in terms of: delay of game penalties; too many substitutions (the guys that go in and out all the time must be knackered); lack of confidence in Costello (let KJ be KJ and don't over coach him in terms of "in the moment" ability call plays)
3.  "Intellectual Brutality?"  Maybe in the terms of STEM majors, but not in the terms of Football.  Every opponent feels like they are being dissed, mentally, and get up for a game to show the nancy boys from Stanford what football is really about.  Can the slogan.
4.  Lack of two minute drills that work.
5.  Massive number of injuries, many of which are recurrent.  May it be possible that Turley has been promoted above his ability and/or his replacement(s) are not qualified for the unique demands of football?
6.  Massive lack of leadership on the field and off (see 2. above).

I chose to not join my friends in watching the game as I had other commitments, and thus missed out at getting to walk onto the field as a 50th reunion grad, and watching Stanford "coug" it's chances to win.  As it was, the attendance was pathetic, particularly for a "home coming."

I care about all the players, mostly, but not their coaches.  I'll always support Stanford and Stanford Football, but not the bureaucrats who let down the players and the fans (e.g. PAC-12 TV rights, lack of coaching oversight from the Athletic dept., etc.).

End of rant.

[Stymie]

I care, but I am dismayed.

I tail-gated with 25-30 old friends, most of whom I had not seen since 1968, before the WSU game.  They are intelligent, thoughtful and passionate supporters, but all were dismayed at the decline, in terms of:

1.  Poor and intransigent game plans (e.g. "I wonder which quarter Shaw will realize he does not have a credible running game."
2.  Stupid execution in terms of: delay of game penalties; too many substitutions (the guys that go in and out all the time must be knackered); lack of confidence in Costello (let KJ be KJ and don't over coach him in terms of "in the moment" ability call plays)
3.  "Intellectual Brutality?"  Maybe in the terms of STEM majors, but not in the terms of Football.  Every opponent feels like they are being dissed, mentally, and get up for a game to show the nancy boys from Stanford what football is really about.  Can the slogan.
4.  Lack of two minute drills that work.
5.  Massive number of injuries, many of which are recurrent.  May it be possible that Turley has been promoted above his ability and/or his replacement(s) are not qualified for the unique demands of football?
6.  Massive lack of leadership on the field and off (see 2. above).

I chose to not join my friends in watching the game as I had other commitments, and thus missed out at getting to walk onto the field as a 50th reunion grad, and watching Stanford "coug" it's chances to win.  As it was, the attendance was pathetic, particularly for a "home coming."

I care about all the players, mostly, but not their coaches.  I'll always support Stanford and Stanford Football, but not the bureaucrats who let down the players and the fans (e.g. PAC-12 TV rights, lack of coaching oversight from the Athletic dept., etc.).

End of rant.

[slide]

nice post Stymie.  on #5, I'd look less at Turley and more at the trainers.  we don't have a head trainer for football.  a former intern (iirc) was promoted after the AD didn't want to spend market rate for a trainer.

[slide]

nice post Stymie.  on #5, I'd look less at Turley and more at the trainers.  we don't have a head trainer for football.  a former intern (iirc) was promoted after the AD didn't want to spend market rate for a trainer.

[Stymie]

Thanks, slide.

I cannot believe (actually, I CAN believe) that the AD has sacrificed his biggest money maker (and the long term medical interests of his student athletes) for a couple of hundred thousands of dollars/per year (or whatever) for a highly qualified trainer.  If Coach Shaw had a clue, he might have argued passionately with AD Muir and/or paid for this from his $6 million yearly salary.

The players (and their parents) care much more about this issue than any of us, as they have skin in the game.  I care strongly about them, but nobody else.

Stymie

---

To clarify my post above, when I refer to "biggest money maker" I mean Stanford football.

[Stymie]

Thanks, slide.

I cannot believe (actually, I CAN believe) that the AD has sacrificed his biggest money maker (and the long term medical interests of his student athletes) for a couple of hundred thousands of dollars/per year (or whatever) for a highly qualified trainer.  If Coach Shaw had a clue, he might have argued passionately with AD Muir and/or paid for this from his $6 million yearly salary.

The players (and their parents) care much more about this issue than any of us, as they have skin in the game.  I care strongly about them, but nobody else.

Stymie

---

To clarify my post above, when I refer to "biggest money maker" I mean Stanford football.

[slide]

I'm told the money difference was less than you outline, and the situation appears to have a little softball parent type issue presented/bought by Bernie.

not sure if Shaw weighed in or not on head trainer.  he said "it was beyond his pay grade."  

as you may recall, some alums stepped forward when Bernie/Shaw didn't on Turley retention a year+ or so ago.  Turley has the most sustained engagement with the players year-long and would have been a big loss.  former players I know have a much tighter bond with Turley than other staff.

[slide]

I'm told the money difference was less than you outline, and the situation appears to have a little softball parent type issue presented/bought by Bernie.

not sure if Shaw weighed in or not on head trainer.  he said "it was beyond his pay grade."  

as you may recall, some alums stepped forward when Bernie/Shaw didn't on Turley retention a year+ or so ago.  Turley has the most sustained engagement with the players year-long and would have been a big loss.  former players I know have a much tighter bond with Turley than other staff.