[Goose]

That's just not true. There are dozens of long-tenured line coaches in FBS. Coaches who get into the profession understand that it's probably not a path to being an OC. Whether Stanford is willing to do what it takes to bring them here is another matter but there are lots of Randy Hart types. The long-tenured OL or DL coach has some degree of stability and often survives a coaching change, so it's not that realistic for a lateral move to be enticing unless a big raise is involved. Names: Larry Johnson, Bill Bedenbaugh, Robbie Caldwell, Glen Elarbee, Chris Kapilovic, Greg Studrawa, Greg Adkins, Brent Key, Brad Davis, James Cregg, Josh Henson ... I could go on. But they're not coming to Stanford at present, they make upwards of $500k/year living in places with low cost of living, they have job security (for the most part, not all) and many have roots where they played or have been coaching. It's QB coaches who are usually the young hotshots who move around a lot and quit if they don't move up.

OK, I stand corrected. There are Randy Hart types but they aren't coming to Stanford. You seem to think some might if we pay them enough. That may be, perhaps we should try. I suspect most of them won't come a) because of the money (correctable) b) because they have stability and "tenure" where they are (maybe correctable), and c) because their recruiting pool will be so small they can't use their tried and true methods to succeed (not correctable). But there may be somebody out there that will and wants to do so. If you know who that might be, lets take a look.



If we can get a great experienced DL coach, even if it costs money, it seems it would be well worth it. I am aware that things that look good in theory sometimes don't work out in practice, but if we can identify a guy who wants to come, has a good track record in college, and understands the challenges, I think it is worth a shot. This approach directly attacks a problem I think everybody, including Shaw, would concede exists.



The OL situation is similar IMHO. Many would say we haven't given the current "new" guy enough time, but if we can find somebody with a  great college track record, I would go for it. Heffernan's resume doesn't wow me. If the new guy has a significantly longer and more impressive track record, we should make the move. We shouldn't replace like with like however. It needs to be a clear upgrade.

[Goose]

That's just not true. There are dozens of long-tenured line coaches in FBS. Coaches who get into the profession understand that it's probably not a path to being an OC. Whether Stanford is willing to do what it takes to bring them here is another matter but there are lots of Randy Hart types. The long-tenured OL or DL coach has some degree of stability and often survives a coaching change, so it's not that realistic for a lateral move to be enticing unless a big raise is involved. Names: Larry Johnson, Bill Bedenbaugh, Robbie Caldwell, Glen Elarbee, Chris Kapilovic, Greg Studrawa, Greg Adkins, Brent Key, Brad Davis, James Cregg, Josh Henson ... I could go on. But they're not coming to Stanford at present, they make upwards of $500k/year living in places with low cost of living, they have job security (for the most part, not all) and many have roots where they played or have been coaching. It's QB coaches who are usually the young hotshots who move around a lot and quit if they don't move up.

OK, I stand corrected. There are Randy Hart types but they aren't coming to Stanford. You seem to think some might if we pay them enough. That may be, perhaps we should try. I suspect most of them won't come a) because of the money (correctable) b) because they have stability and "tenure" where they are (maybe correctable), and c) because their recruiting pool will be so small they can't use their tried and true methods to succeed (not correctable). But there may be somebody out there that will and wants to do so. If you know who that might be, lets take a look.



If we can get a great experienced DL coach, even if it costs money, it seems it would be well worth it. I am aware that things that look good in theory sometimes don't work out in practice, but if we can identify a guy who wants to come, has a good track record in college, and understands the challenges, I think it is worth a shot. This approach directly attacks a problem I think everybody, including Shaw, would concede exists.



The OL situation is similar IMHO. Many would say we haven't given the current "new" guy enough time, but if we can find somebody with a  great college track record, I would go for it. Heffernan's resume doesn't wow me. If the new guy has a significantly longer and more impressive track record, we should make the move. We shouldn't replace like with like however. It needs to be a clear upgrade.