11-13-2021, 05:06 AM
I see some comments that seem to imply that being concerned about Hambly is akin to wanting to replace Tara after 2001. DO you actually think this is a fair analogy? I assume you're referring to the 2001-2002 season.
Tara took over as coach after the team had seasons of 5-23 and 9-19. Hamby took over as coach after a team went 23-7 and 27-7 plus a national championship.
Tara built her team from a middle of the road Pac10 team to a national champion in 5 years. Hambly inherited an amazing squad and did very well keeping them together for 3 great seasons to his credit, but the squads primarily led by his players have declined.
In the 2001-2002 season, Tara's team went 32-3 but lost in the sweet 16 after her stop player was injured. Hambly went 2-8 last year and is currently 13-10 with very highly ranked players.
I just don't see how you can draw any connection between those two situations.
We all know Stanford isn't for everyone and that success can be fleeting. And that coaches can be great for one situation a program faces but not for another situation at the same program. For example, I think the idea that Shaw benefited greatly from the culture that Harbaugh created has basis in reality. He was able to build on what Harbaugh built in ways Harbaugh wasn't, but he hasn't been able to "top up" the culture as Harbaugh players left and those they mentored left. So Shaw was the perfect many to take what Harbaugh built and get the most out of it for a few years, but he may not have rebuilding skills.
Hambly may be the same. He may have been good at maintaining a solid program at Illinois that he inherited and have just the right skills to maximize the extraordinary talent and culture he inherited at Stanford, but he may not have what it takes to keep Stanford on the elite level.
Tara took over as coach after the team had seasons of 5-23 and 9-19. Hamby took over as coach after a team went 23-7 and 27-7 plus a national championship.
Tara built her team from a middle of the road Pac10 team to a national champion in 5 years. Hambly inherited an amazing squad and did very well keeping them together for 3 great seasons to his credit, but the squads primarily led by his players have declined.
In the 2001-2002 season, Tara's team went 32-3 but lost in the sweet 16 after her stop player was injured. Hambly went 2-8 last year and is currently 13-10 with very highly ranked players.
I just don't see how you can draw any connection between those two situations.
We all know Stanford isn't for everyone and that success can be fleeting. And that coaches can be great for one situation a program faces but not for another situation at the same program. For example, I think the idea that Shaw benefited greatly from the culture that Harbaugh created has basis in reality. He was able to build on what Harbaugh built in ways Harbaugh wasn't, but he hasn't been able to "top up" the culture as Harbaugh players left and those they mentored left. So Shaw was the perfect many to take what Harbaugh built and get the most out of it for a few years, but he may not have rebuilding skills.
Hambly may be the same. He may have been good at maintaining a solid program at Illinois that he inherited and have just the right skills to maximize the extraordinary talent and culture he inherited at Stanford, but he may not have what it takes to keep Stanford on the elite level.