[Goose]

That is always the case.  I think broadly speaking, the problem is that although the recruiting rankings have only mildly declined, the bigger issue is that we’ve been getting more Hinton’s and fewer Nugents.  Walker Little and Foster Sarell did not have 5* careers. On the other hand, David DeCastro (4*) and Jonathan Martin (3*) did.

This to me suggests that the if we are to assign responsibility for the dip in performance, it’s probably 10% recruiting and 90% player development (both S&C and technique).  Maybe it’s a bit higher on the recruiting if you give credit for being able to spot underrated recruits (your Ben Gardners of the world that don’t get love from the recruiting services but are better than their star rating); however that is hard to distinguish from player development easily.

BC

I think the 10% 90% breakdown has to include a third category. It involves "who the player is" and is often difficult to quantify. In the case of Sarell for example, he played his entire career standing up. He wasn't a three-point stance fire out at the guy across from you tackle from day one. OK for pass blocking, not OK for run blocking. One may say the coaches thought that could be corrected, but if you recruit such a guy, no matter how many stars he has, it is a risk. Player development is difficult at best if the player involved just doesn't want to do/can't do it it. As Stanford became a better destination for OL players, more highly rated recruits became available. We took those guys apparently assuming their high rating was all that mattered and didn't worry about "who they were".

Back when Stanford didn't have that cachet the coaches had to ferret out guys who weren't as highly rated but could do the job and would do what it takes. It is perfectly possible for a 5* player to be eminently coachable and have "fire in the belly". It is also possible that they don't, and when that happens the results are not good.  IMHO 80% of the 90% is the players, not the coaches. S&C regimes are pretty standard. There are no trade secrets out there, and Colorado didn't suddenly become supermen when Turley showed up. While there are technical issues in playing the OL that are important, the fact a Nugent exists demonstrates that coaching is available at Stanford.

This situation is exacerbated IMHO by the team culture Shaw and his assistants foster at Stanford. In a moment of candor, Shaw slipped and said it was not his job to motivate players. He then walked it back, but in reality I believe that is how he feels. He expects the players to behave like men and take responsibility for their own development on the field just as they do in the classroom. It is assumed to be a group of "responsible professionals" who are self-motivated and self-policing. When he has those kind of recruits, it works. When he doesn't, there is nobody who is going to go scream at people and try to get them going. That may be just fine, as we all know screamers who don't get results because many players (probably especially Stanford players) don't respond to that either. However, you need to recruit guys who are capable of operating (at least mostly) as responsible professionals, and if you don't, they won't develop. And then you will be 3-9.

[Goose]

That is always the case.  I think broadly speaking, the problem is that although the recruiting rankings have only mildly declined, the bigger issue is that we’ve been getting more Hinton’s and fewer Nugents.  Walker Little and Foster Sarell did not have 5* careers. On the other hand, David DeCastro (4*) and Jonathan Martin (3*) did.

This to me suggests that the if we are to assign responsibility for the dip in performance, it’s probably 10% recruiting and 90% player development (both S&C and technique).  Maybe it’s a bit higher on the recruiting if you give credit for being able to spot underrated recruits (your Ben Gardners of the world that don’t get love from the recruiting services but are better than their star rating); however that is hard to distinguish from player development easily.

BC

I think the 10% 90% breakdown has to include a third category. It involves "who the player is" and is often difficult to quantify. In the case of Sarell for example, he played his entire career standing up. He wasn't a three-point stance fire out at the guy across from you tackle from day one. OK for pass blocking, not OK for run blocking. One may say the coaches thought that could be corrected, but if you recruit such a guy, no matter how many stars he has, it is a risk. Player development is difficult at best if the player involved just doesn't want to do/can't do it it. As Stanford became a better destination for OL players, more highly rated recruits became available. We took those guys apparently assuming their high rating was all that mattered and didn't worry about "who they were".

Back when Stanford didn't have that cachet the coaches had to ferret out guys who weren't as highly rated but could do the job and would do what it takes. It is perfectly possible for a 5* player to be eminently coachable and have "fire in the belly". It is also possible that they don't, and when that happens the results are not good.  IMHO 80% of the 90% is the players, not the coaches. S&C regimes are pretty standard. There are no trade secrets out there, and Colorado didn't suddenly become supermen when Turley showed up. While there are technical issues in playing the OL that are important, the fact a Nugent exists demonstrates that coaching is available at Stanford.

This situation is exacerbated IMHO by the team culture Shaw and his assistants foster at Stanford. In a moment of candor, Shaw slipped and said it was not his job to motivate players. He then walked it back, but in reality I believe that is how he feels. He expects the players to behave like men and take responsibility for their own development on the field just as they do in the classroom. It is assumed to be a group of "responsible professionals" who are self-motivated and self-policing. When he has those kind of recruits, it works. When he doesn't, there is nobody who is going to go scream at people and try to get them going. That may be just fine, as we all know screamers who don't get results because many players (probably especially Stanford players) don't respond to that either. However, you need to recruit guys who are capable of operating (at least mostly) as responsible professionals, and if you don't, they won't develop. And then you will be 3-9.