[Goose]

I also think there are very few "career" OL and DL coaches in the college ranks. Most guys in that job expect to become coordinators in a "few years".

This is incorrect. OL and DL coaches are by far the most likely to coach those units for a long time without ascending to coordinator. Because of the proliferation of passing offenses QB coach is the most common path to being an OC and LB or DB coach the most common to being a DC. Check out the bios for current top-20 coordinators, you will be hard pressed to find coaches who moved up from coaching the line.

I don't disagree that OL and DL guys usually don't move up the list. However, my point was they generally expect to do so. They coach OL and DL for a while, move around a lot, and then realize they aren't getting anywhere. Then they go do something else. If you know of any Randy Hart types out there that made a career of it, by all means suggest their names and we can at least discuss attracting them.

---

What you can do is recruit guys who are fundamentally good athletes AND temperamentally nasty and edgy (think DeCastro or Skov, Thomas, Murphy, et, al.), with chips on their shoulders. Then coach them up one-star. You want football players with in-your-face, game-long tenacity. Not thugs, studs inculcated with discipline. You need a staff that drills it and grades it everyday.  Where did I learn this? Building A Champion, by Bill Walsh.

This I totally agree with. However, I would conjecture that just about everybody coaching at Stanford has read Building a Champion. They undoubtedly agree with it as well. I think that possibly what you are getting at is that Stanford, particularly on the OL, has been focusing on recruiting 4* and up players without paying adequate attention to how much desire to be a "winner" these guys had, and how they could play together. The whole seems to be less than the sum of the parts. I feel that way myself. The will to win can be expressed in many ways. It doesn't necessarily mean being vocal, but it does mean giving your 110%. My feeling is just based on an impression however. I don't know the guys personally. I couldn't identify who has "it" and who does not. The chemistry just seems to be missing, and has been for a while. I don't know how to fix that. Obviously, Walsh didn't either in 1993 and 1994.

[Goose]

I also think there are very few "career" OL and DL coaches in the college ranks. Most guys in that job expect to become coordinators in a "few years".

This is incorrect. OL and DL coaches are by far the most likely to coach those units for a long time without ascending to coordinator. Because of the proliferation of passing offenses QB coach is the most common path to being an OC and LB or DB coach the most common to being a DC. Check out the bios for current top-20 coordinators, you will be hard pressed to find coaches who moved up from coaching the line.

I don't disagree that OL and DL guys usually don't move up the list. However, my point was they generally expect to do so. They coach OL and DL for a while, move around a lot, and then realize they aren't getting anywhere. Then they go do something else. If you know of any Randy Hart types out there that made a career of it, by all means suggest their names and we can at least discuss attracting them.

---

What you can do is recruit guys who are fundamentally good athletes AND temperamentally nasty and edgy (think DeCastro or Skov, Thomas, Murphy, et, al.), with chips on their shoulders. Then coach them up one-star. You want football players with in-your-face, game-long tenacity. Not thugs, studs inculcated with discipline. You need a staff that drills it and grades it everyday.  Where did I learn this? Building A Champion, by Bill Walsh.

This I totally agree with. However, I would conjecture that just about everybody coaching at Stanford has read Building a Champion. They undoubtedly agree with it as well. I think that possibly what you are getting at is that Stanford, particularly on the OL, has been focusing on recruiting 4* and up players without paying adequate attention to how much desire to be a "winner" these guys had, and how they could play together. The whole seems to be less than the sum of the parts. I feel that way myself. The will to win can be expressed in many ways. It doesn't necessarily mean being vocal, but it does mean giving your 110%. My feeling is just based on an impression however. I don't know the guys personally. I couldn't identify who has "it" and who does not. The chemistry just seems to be missing, and has been for a while. I don't know how to fix that. Obviously, Walsh didn't either in 1993 and 1994.