05-03-2022, 10:09 AM
Good stuff, thanks BC! My comment was based on a similar breakdown of three cohorts. To the extent we are talking about a decline in the last five years of on-field results compared to the period before, what's really salient is comparing the pre-2015 group with what followed. We were bullies in 2015 and then haven't been bullies at all since. The recruiting results show a clear drop-off at OL after 2014, and then the on-field results show a decline in play that corresponds with what one would expect based on that.
That recruiting decline is the first thing going on in explaining the decline in our OL performance during the last half decade. The second thing is player retention. The engine of the three dominant Stanford lines Shaw coached have been very senior NFL OL, without exception. In 2011, we had DeCastro and Martin in their fourth years (Fleming as a second year player). In 2013, we had Yankey and Fleming in their fourth years (Peat as a second year player). In 2015, we had Garnett and Murphy in their fourth year. That's what you need - studs who are grown ass men.
The story of our ineffectual OL play in recent years is the aforementioned decline in on-paper recruiting but also, extremely importantly, that neither the on-paper studs or the actual NFL studs have stayed on campus nearly reliably enough for us to benefit from studs who are grown ass men. Tucker sat out his fourth year and transferred for his fifth year. Little skipped his fourth year to sit out the pandemic and then departed for the NFL before his fifth year. Sarell skipped his fifth year just to go undrafted. In addition to these three on-paper studs Stanford got massively less than they got out of Peat, Garnett, and Murphy in terms of performance and less in terms of years of service (10 years for the recent group and 11 years for the former group), despite Peat and Garnett being first round NFL draft prospects (unlike any of the recent three). And then on top of the three disappointing on-paper studs from the 2014-2017 classes, those classes produced two surprising actual studs. Alas, Herbig only played three seasons and Dalman only played four seasons. That seven years of service paled compared to overall production and service of the two actual studs who powered Shaw's 2011 juggernaut (DeCastro and Martin) as well as that of the two studs who powered Shaw's 2011 juggernaut (Yankey and Fleming).
This combination of not recruiting studs (either on-paper or actual) like we did when Shaw's offensive lines were dominant and not getting players to stick around has been devastating. In 2016, we had one starting lineman who made the NFL and he was a true freshman. In 2017, we had one starting lineman and one sometimes-starter who made the NFL and both were in their first two years. In 2018, we had two starting linemen who made the NFL and they were in their second and third years. In 2019, we had two starting linemen who made the NFL and they were both in their third years and one of them only played one game before missing the entire season. In 2020, we FINALLY had an NFL lineman in his fourth year plus whoever from the group of second year players eventually makes the NFL and finally had a pretty good offense. In 2021, we were back to the dearth of grown ass men and anybody who eventually makes the NFL would have been in their second or third year.
The single biggest reason for optimism for the 2022 team is that we finally have a line of grown ass men. What we don't know is if any of them are studs. My bet is that we have 1-2 (among Bragg, Nugent, and Rouse) and that will lead to an offense on the caliber of the 2020 offense if one of them is a stud and probably the best offense we've had in half a decade if multiple are studs.
The single biggest reason for pessimism beyond 2022 is that we have no reason to think a) recruiting on-paper studs or b) retaining players long enough to benefit from their fourth and fifth years in the way we did during the dominant years will be the case going forward. On the on-paper recruiting front, Hinton is the only on-paper stud we have recruited in the last five years and it is not looking good this year (in the six year stretch from 2012-2017 we recruited SIX on-paper studs). Going from six to one is a gargantuan decrease in our OL recruiting that is vastly understated when we focus on average star rating or volume. Our OL recruiting right now is much worse than it was when Shaw succeeded. On the player retention front, the propensity of players in recent years to transfer for greener pastures (Hamilton, Hattis) or declare for the NFL despite middling prospects (Little, Herbig, Dalman, Sarell) before their best years is highly suggestive in a change to the Stanford culture and the mentality of today's players. We should expect that if any of Nugent, Rouse, Bragg, Miller, or Hornibrook is a stud this will be the last year they play for Stanford, and it might be the last year regardless given that several of them will have played four years and there is a strong pull these days to transfer for greener pastures or get on with your professional life.
Importantly, these trends coincide with a broader trend over time in which Stanford has dramatically failed to keep linemen on both sides of the ball - the exact positions where experience, savvy, and old man strength matter the most - on campus for their fifth years. I did a very detailed analysis last year that looked into the fifth year prevalence at every position, comparing the pre-Shaw era 2004-2010) with the Shaw era (2011-2017, which at the time was the last fifth year class to cycle through). I would be happy to share those results in their entirety here if you are interested. For the purposes of this post, the important and disturbing thing to know is that between 2004-2010 54 percent of OL and 71 percent of DL played a fifth year at Stanford whereas between 2011-2017 only 21 percent of OL and 28 percent of DL played a fifth year at Stanford. You would very reasonably say this is a problem for Stanford's competitive prospects but simply a sign of the times. After all, 2011-2017 is a period in which transfers could happen without losing a year of eligibility, the transfer portal changed the game, the four year redshirt rule/Stanford players taking summer school/other factors accelerated players' football and academic progress, and NIL/other changes in the zeitgeist fed a mentality in which players view football more as a transactional job than as a five year commitment. That would be an extremely reasonable argument. But what was so interesting about the analysis I did was that these trends happened at OL and DL in a way that was dramatically different than at other positions. At QB, 22 percent of players pre-Shaw stayed five years whereas 33 percent did under Shaw. At RB/FB, 33 percent pre-Shaw stayed compared to 31 percent under Shaw. At WR, it was 13 percent pre-Shaw and 20 percent under Shaw. At TE it was 38 percent pre-Shaw and 25 percent under Shaw. At LB it was 61 percent pre-Shaw and 67 percent under Shaw. At DB it was 33 percent pre-Shaw and 36 percent under Shaw. It kills us in the trenches, which have always been a game of old man strength and savvy, that linemen aren't staying at Stanford five years any more.
Unless we reverse these trends, I don't see Intellectual Brutality or Party in the Backfield returning. We need to recruit top 100 OL studs regularly or get players to stick around five years. Without both I don't think you see the sublime dominance of 2011, 2013, and 2015. I think one of them can get you good offense like what we saw in 2017 or 2020. Without either, you see what has become the status quo for Stanford.
That recruiting decline is the first thing going on in explaining the decline in our OL performance during the last half decade. The second thing is player retention. The engine of the three dominant Stanford lines Shaw coached have been very senior NFL OL, without exception. In 2011, we had DeCastro and Martin in their fourth years (Fleming as a second year player). In 2013, we had Yankey and Fleming in their fourth years (Peat as a second year player). In 2015, we had Garnett and Murphy in their fourth year. That's what you need - studs who are grown ass men.
The story of our ineffectual OL play in recent years is the aforementioned decline in on-paper recruiting but also, extremely importantly, that neither the on-paper studs or the actual NFL studs have stayed on campus nearly reliably enough for us to benefit from studs who are grown ass men. Tucker sat out his fourth year and transferred for his fifth year. Little skipped his fourth year to sit out the pandemic and then departed for the NFL before his fifth year. Sarell skipped his fifth year just to go undrafted. In addition to these three on-paper studs Stanford got massively less than they got out of Peat, Garnett, and Murphy in terms of performance and less in terms of years of service (10 years for the recent group and 11 years for the former group), despite Peat and Garnett being first round NFL draft prospects (unlike any of the recent three). And then on top of the three disappointing on-paper studs from the 2014-2017 classes, those classes produced two surprising actual studs. Alas, Herbig only played three seasons and Dalman only played four seasons. That seven years of service paled compared to overall production and service of the two actual studs who powered Shaw's 2011 juggernaut (DeCastro and Martin) as well as that of the two studs who powered Shaw's 2011 juggernaut (Yankey and Fleming).
This combination of not recruiting studs (either on-paper or actual) like we did when Shaw's offensive lines were dominant and not getting players to stick around has been devastating. In 2016, we had one starting lineman who made the NFL and he was a true freshman. In 2017, we had one starting lineman and one sometimes-starter who made the NFL and both were in their first two years. In 2018, we had two starting linemen who made the NFL and they were in their second and third years. In 2019, we had two starting linemen who made the NFL and they were both in their third years and one of them only played one game before missing the entire season. In 2020, we FINALLY had an NFL lineman in his fourth year plus whoever from the group of second year players eventually makes the NFL and finally had a pretty good offense. In 2021, we were back to the dearth of grown ass men and anybody who eventually makes the NFL would have been in their second or third year.
The single biggest reason for optimism for the 2022 team is that we finally have a line of grown ass men. What we don't know is if any of them are studs. My bet is that we have 1-2 (among Bragg, Nugent, and Rouse) and that will lead to an offense on the caliber of the 2020 offense if one of them is a stud and probably the best offense we've had in half a decade if multiple are studs.
The single biggest reason for pessimism beyond 2022 is that we have no reason to think a) recruiting on-paper studs or b) retaining players long enough to benefit from their fourth and fifth years in the way we did during the dominant years will be the case going forward. On the on-paper recruiting front, Hinton is the only on-paper stud we have recruited in the last five years and it is not looking good this year (in the six year stretch from 2012-2017 we recruited SIX on-paper studs). Going from six to one is a gargantuan decrease in our OL recruiting that is vastly understated when we focus on average star rating or volume. Our OL recruiting right now is much worse than it was when Shaw succeeded. On the player retention front, the propensity of players in recent years to transfer for greener pastures (Hamilton, Hattis) or declare for the NFL despite middling prospects (Little, Herbig, Dalman, Sarell) before their best years is highly suggestive in a change to the Stanford culture and the mentality of today's players. We should expect that if any of Nugent, Rouse, Bragg, Miller, or Hornibrook is a stud this will be the last year they play for Stanford, and it might be the last year regardless given that several of them will have played four years and there is a strong pull these days to transfer for greener pastures or get on with your professional life.
Importantly, these trends coincide with a broader trend over time in which Stanford has dramatically failed to keep linemen on both sides of the ball - the exact positions where experience, savvy, and old man strength matter the most - on campus for their fifth years. I did a very detailed analysis last year that looked into the fifth year prevalence at every position, comparing the pre-Shaw era 2004-2010) with the Shaw era (2011-2017, which at the time was the last fifth year class to cycle through). I would be happy to share those results in their entirety here if you are interested. For the purposes of this post, the important and disturbing thing to know is that between 2004-2010 54 percent of OL and 71 percent of DL played a fifth year at Stanford whereas between 2011-2017 only 21 percent of OL and 28 percent of DL played a fifth year at Stanford. You would very reasonably say this is a problem for Stanford's competitive prospects but simply a sign of the times. After all, 2011-2017 is a period in which transfers could happen without losing a year of eligibility, the transfer portal changed the game, the four year redshirt rule/Stanford players taking summer school/other factors accelerated players' football and academic progress, and NIL/other changes in the zeitgeist fed a mentality in which players view football more as a transactional job than as a five year commitment. That would be an extremely reasonable argument. But what was so interesting about the analysis I did was that these trends happened at OL and DL in a way that was dramatically different than at other positions. At QB, 22 percent of players pre-Shaw stayed five years whereas 33 percent did under Shaw. At RB/FB, 33 percent pre-Shaw stayed compared to 31 percent under Shaw. At WR, it was 13 percent pre-Shaw and 20 percent under Shaw. At TE it was 38 percent pre-Shaw and 25 percent under Shaw. At LB it was 61 percent pre-Shaw and 67 percent under Shaw. At DB it was 33 percent pre-Shaw and 36 percent under Shaw. It kills us in the trenches, which have always been a game of old man strength and savvy, that linemen aren't staying at Stanford five years any more.
Unless we reverse these trends, I don't see Intellectual Brutality or Party in the Backfield returning. We need to recruit top 100 OL studs regularly or get players to stick around five years. Without both I don't think you see the sublime dominance of 2011, 2013, and 2015. I think one of them can get you good offense like what we saw in 2017 or 2020. Without either, you see what has become the status quo for Stanford.