[TrumpCard]

I think recruiting has been a big factor in 3-9, 4-2, and 4-8. Others (Samuel McF, Boston Card?) can do a better job than I of explaining in detail re: how recruiting--rankings aside--has been woefully inadequate for the past 4 or 5 cycles.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but recruiting, while not my only concern, is still my number one concern with this team. Having said that, it looks like 2023 is off to a great start. Maybe Jaxon Howard will deliver an early Christmas surprise.

Recruiting has been woefully REACTIVE and LACKING DEPTH AT KEY POSITIONS for the past 4 or 5 cycles. I would not say "inadequate" considering the on-paper talent we've been signing.

When on-paper talent dictates this team should be at least pushing for a top-25 ranking but it's one of the worst in the country on both sides of the ball, you blame recruiting (the actual act of landing recruits) and not development or roster management?

It depends how you want to frame it.  Was Stanford "reactive" to add finally spring official visits and early enrollment last year, and to finally start making more offers than known scholarship slots?  Obviously, yes.  (In fact, some of that might have been even more delayed if not for COVID.  Hopefully, those changes remain in place indefinitely, now that they've proven to be helpful.)  But is it also correct to say that the prospects for recruiting going forward appear good, if Shaw can right the product on the field?  I think the answer there is yes too, in part because Shaw and Stanford ultimately did fix those problems.  Now, if you all see additional problems brewing where Stanford and Shaw are not being sufficiently proactive, then it's a different story.  But I'm not sure I see that, and I don't know that I've seen enough to say that "reactive" is a character trait of Shaw or Stanford.  

As far as depth goes, you're obviously right that Shaw should not take "gap years" at QB.  Maybe he's learned that lesson now?  We do know that he's taken a QB each of the last two years and that he's planning to take one in 2023 as well, so that's why I'm not griping about QB recruiting at the moment.  

The roster this year had a number of other weaknesses, but I would not say that most resulted from recruiting insufficient numbers at specific positions.  Didn't the team use all 85 scholarships for the first time in a while, or at least close to it?  That suggests more overall depth than usual (though not all of it high quality depth, and obviously not even across the roster).  To me, when a team uses all its scholarships and the team still has major problems at position groups across the field, that doesn't reflect a problem with recruiting insufficient depth.  Now, it's true that the DL was thinner than most position groups for sure, but I don't think that situation is as much an indictment of recruiting depth as you do.  The fact that Andres Fox, Lance Keneley, and Josh Pakola did not contribute on the DL in 2021 is due primarily to factors other than decisions by Shaw regarding the number of DL offers to make.  Those were all credible DL recruits, even if the first two were a little on the skinny side in high school.

[TrumpCard]

I think recruiting has been a big factor in 3-9, 4-2, and 4-8. Others (Samuel McF, Boston Card?) can do a better job than I of explaining in detail re: how recruiting--rankings aside--has been woefully inadequate for the past 4 or 5 cycles.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but recruiting, while not my only concern, is still my number one concern with this team. Having said that, it looks like 2023 is off to a great start. Maybe Jaxon Howard will deliver an early Christmas surprise.

Recruiting has been woefully REACTIVE and LACKING DEPTH AT KEY POSITIONS for the past 4 or 5 cycles. I would not say "inadequate" considering the on-paper talent we've been signing.

When on-paper talent dictates this team should be at least pushing for a top-25 ranking but it's one of the worst in the country on both sides of the ball, you blame recruiting (the actual act of landing recruits) and not development or roster management?

It depends how you want to frame it.  Was Stanford "reactive" to add finally spring official visits and early enrollment last year, and to finally start making more offers than known scholarship slots?  Obviously, yes.  (In fact, some of that might have been even more delayed if not for COVID.  Hopefully, those changes remain in place indefinitely, now that they've proven to be helpful.)  But is it also correct to say that the prospects for recruiting going forward appear good, if Shaw can right the product on the field?  I think the answer there is yes too, in part because Shaw and Stanford ultimately did fix those problems.  Now, if you all see additional problems brewing where Stanford and Shaw are not being sufficiently proactive, then it's a different story.  But I'm not sure I see that, and I don't know that I've seen enough to say that "reactive" is a character trait of Shaw or Stanford.  

As far as depth goes, you're obviously right that Shaw should not take "gap years" at QB.  Maybe he's learned that lesson now?  We do know that he's taken a QB each of the last two years and that he's planning to take one in 2023 as well, so that's why I'm not griping about QB recruiting at the moment.  

The roster this year had a number of other weaknesses, but I would not say that most resulted from recruiting insufficient numbers at specific positions.  Didn't the team use all 85 scholarships for the first time in a while, or at least close to it?  That suggests more overall depth than usual (though not all of it high quality depth, and obviously not even across the roster).  To me, when a team uses all its scholarships and the team still has major problems at position groups across the field, that doesn't reflect a problem with recruiting insufficient depth.  Now, it's true that the DL was thinner than most position groups for sure, but I don't think that situation is as much an indictment of recruiting depth as you do.  The fact that Andres Fox, Lance Keneley, and Josh Pakola did not contribute on the DL in 2021 is due primarily to factors other than decisions by Shaw regarding the number of DL offers to make.  Those were all credible DL recruits, even if the first two were a little on the skinny side in high school.