[washingtonismoney]

This discussion/commentary by The Defenders in this thread has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with a pretty straightforward point:  Recruiting Fail this year (hopefully only a blip).  It's as if there just has to be some explanation other than one that questions the strategy/effort of this regime.  The recruitniks on the other site have pretty convincingly set forth the many problems in the recruiting this year, in both strategy and effort.  But whatever, it's water under the bridge now.  And I do think Shaw & Col, overall, have been at least good recruiters, which is why I am cautiously optimistic that this is, in fact, a blip.  But remember, you've got to have an inviting football product to pitch . . . 

Well, look, this is where your theory breaks down in reality. Your theory, as I understand it, is that:
1) the defense has been better than the offense
2) the offense is unattractive
3) this should have impacts on recruiting

Seems reasonable enough insofar as it goes, and I could buy certain elements and predictions. But you need to actually test the predictions against observable reality. The problem for your theory is that, in reality, Stanford's offense has consistently outrecruited the defense for the past few years.

Certain other elements don't quite bear out either. For example, if your theory is correct, Stanford's offensive coaching is the problem. OK, well.... why do Stanford's offensive coaches keep on getting promotions? From Shaw's original coaching staff, his offensive coordinator went on to coordinate offense in the NFL, and two guys have gone on to get head coaching positions. Multiple graduate assistants have moved up to position coaching roles.

So for some reason other coaches keep on promoting Stanford coaches, and for some reason recruits keep on buying what Stanford's selling, and for some reason Stanford keeps on exceeding Vegas over-unders and pre-game lines, but the coaching is somehow bad and defective. Your theory doesn't fit the evidence.

[washingtonismoney]

This discussion/commentary by The Defenders in this thread has nothing to do with that.  It has to do with a pretty straightforward point:  Recruiting Fail this year (hopefully only a blip).  It's as if there just has to be some explanation other than one that questions the strategy/effort of this regime.  The recruitniks on the other site have pretty convincingly set forth the many problems in the recruiting this year, in both strategy and effort.  But whatever, it's water under the bridge now.  And I do think Shaw & Col, overall, have been at least good recruiters, which is why I am cautiously optimistic that this is, in fact, a blip.  But remember, you've got to have an inviting football product to pitch . . . 

Well, look, this is where your theory breaks down in reality. Your theory, as I understand it, is that:
1) the defense has been better than the offense
2) the offense is unattractive
3) this should have impacts on recruiting

Seems reasonable enough insofar as it goes, and I could buy certain elements and predictions. But you need to actually test the predictions against observable reality. The problem for your theory is that, in reality, Stanford's offense has consistently outrecruited the defense for the past few years.

Certain other elements don't quite bear out either. For example, if your theory is correct, Stanford's offensive coaching is the problem. OK, well.... why do Stanford's offensive coaches keep on getting promotions? From Shaw's original coaching staff, his offensive coordinator went on to coordinate offense in the NFL, and two guys have gone on to get head coaching positions. Multiple graduate assistants have moved up to position coaching roles.

So for some reason other coaches keep on promoting Stanford coaches, and for some reason recruits keep on buying what Stanford's selling, and for some reason Stanford keeps on exceeding Vegas over-unders and pre-game lines, but the coaching is somehow bad and defective. Your theory doesn't fit the evidence.