[msqueri]

Ultimately, football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc., not brainpower. It's just not helpful to build a football team's identity around "intelligence."


P.S. I want folks to perhaps dwell on the fact that Stanford's greatest football prior to Shaw came with terms like Thunder Chickens, Tunnel Workers Union, Party in the Backfield. From Ralston to Green to Harbaugh we've hit on something when we've tried to tap into grittiness and/or swagger, not intellect. The "Stanford Men" and our self-flattery that our players are just different than elsewhere have been constant across all eras. What unlocks greatness is getting your hands dirty and digging deeper.

What unlocks greatness is variable and ephemeral. Themes like Tunnel Workers Union are just a manifestation of a chemistry that is being built. How that all works is not well understood or easily replicated. You are correct that football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc. What you point out above is that Stanford has needed an "extra dose" of chemistry to compensate for not having quite as much of the other things. Alabama can get by with "average" team chemistry. Sometimes they do just fine when they have QB controversies and half the team hates the other half. Their self-interest and talent overcomes the other issues.

Stanford likes the role of being "different", being the underdog, punching above their weight. In general, they have had to do those things to succeed. However, as Chip Kelly pointed out, "Shane Skov is a very good football player...". Stanford has only succeeded when it had "enough" such players who did get their hands dirty and were just a little bit crazy. Most of the team wasn't "like that", but just enough were to make it "work". You are correct that Shaw is not that kind of person and probably doesn't attract that kind of recruit. He also doesn't tend to hire that kind of person as an assistant. This does have consequences.

However, it is not for certain that a "professional" approach to developing a team at Stanford, where people "do their jobs" because that is who they are and that is what is expected of them can't work. In the past, it has not. Obviously, having adequate talent is a requirement in any case. Unfortunately, in the past the "chemistry" was always ephemeral and we went back to the about 0.500 (or worse) team we historically have been. Shaw has shown signs that he can sustain success for longer periods than others have without so much "rah rah". It remains to be seen if he can put us back in a sustainable and successful situation.

Who says Stanford hasn't/won't/can't have quite as much strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, etc.? We've been among the most prolific producers of NFL talent for many years now. Shaw has had top 25 classes in eight of 11 years. As a result, by objective measures he's had top 25 talent every single season he's ever coached. Compared to Alabama, sure, we don't have as much talent and would have to compensate in other ways (actually, we couldn't even compete with them, and why one would think Alabama has less chemistry than Stanford I do no understand), but compared to the teams we actually play we don't need to compensate or punch above our weight. Our weight should be a perennial bowl team that is top 25 as often as it isn't.

The plucky underdog thing doesn't work for me. Maybe Stanford likes that role because it lowers expectations, but it's an awkward fit for a coach who has been to four New Year's Six bowls (legendary), touts getting players to the NFL with the best of them (at least in our conference), and recruits well enough that we always have good talent. What we need more of rather than an underdog mentality is some pride and fire in our belly.

It sounds like you and I agree that Shaw isn't the type to recruit or hire the maniacs. That doesn't mean our only option is the mentality/identity Shaw cultivates. I'm not calling on him to be rah rah. There are aspects of his even keel, sensibilities, broad-minded perspective, and other aspects of his personality I find attractive. But you can be even keel and also incentivize certain types of play more likely to be successful, in line with the best coaches in the sport. My hypothesis, maybe wrong but I don't think so, is that Intellectual without the Brutality ain't it.

It also bears mentioning that there's a distinct possibility that we could throw out the complex playbooks/never-ending list of reads players on both sides of the ball are asked to make and that could lead to improvement independent of there being any increase in intensity/brutality. I laid out earlier how what we do on offense and defense doesn't resemble best practices. To be blunt I fear that our focus on the cerebral aspects amounts to Shaw play acting Jon Gruden/Greg Roman and Anderson play acting Vic Fangio/Derek Mason without actually having the schematic chops.

[msqueri]

Ultimately, football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc., not brainpower. It's just not helpful to build a football team's identity around "intelligence."


P.S. I want folks to perhaps dwell on the fact that Stanford's greatest football prior to Shaw came with terms like Thunder Chickens, Tunnel Workers Union, Party in the Backfield. From Ralston to Green to Harbaugh we've hit on something when we've tried to tap into grittiness and/or swagger, not intellect. The "Stanford Men" and our self-flattery that our players are just different than elsewhere have been constant across all eras. What unlocks greatness is getting your hands dirty and digging deeper.

What unlocks greatness is variable and ephemeral. Themes like Tunnel Workers Union are just a manifestation of a chemistry that is being built. How that all works is not well understood or easily replicated. You are correct that football is about strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, coordination/chemistry with teammates, etc. What you point out above is that Stanford has needed an "extra dose" of chemistry to compensate for not having quite as much of the other things. Alabama can get by with "average" team chemistry. Sometimes they do just fine when they have QB controversies and half the team hates the other half. Their self-interest and talent overcomes the other issues.

Stanford likes the role of being "different", being the underdog, punching above their weight. In general, they have had to do those things to succeed. However, as Chip Kelly pointed out, "Shane Skov is a very good football player...". Stanford has only succeeded when it had "enough" such players who did get their hands dirty and were just a little bit crazy. Most of the team wasn't "like that", but just enough were to make it "work". You are correct that Shaw is not that kind of person and probably doesn't attract that kind of recruit. He also doesn't tend to hire that kind of person as an assistant. This does have consequences.

However, it is not for certain that a "professional" approach to developing a team at Stanford, where people "do their jobs" because that is who they are and that is what is expected of them can't work. In the past, it has not. Obviously, having adequate talent is a requirement in any case. Unfortunately, in the past the "chemistry" was always ephemeral and we went back to the about 0.500 (or worse) team we historically have been. Shaw has shown signs that he can sustain success for longer periods than others have without so much "rah rah". It remains to be seen if he can put us back in a sustainable and successful situation.

Who says Stanford hasn't/won't/can't have quite as much strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism, intensity, etc.? We've been among the most prolific producers of NFL talent for many years now. Shaw has had top 25 classes in eight of 11 years. As a result, by objective measures he's had top 25 talent every single season he's ever coached. Compared to Alabama, sure, we don't have as much talent and would have to compensate in other ways (actually, we couldn't even compete with them, and why one would think Alabama has less chemistry than Stanford I do no understand), but compared to the teams we actually play we don't need to compensate or punch above our weight. Our weight should be a perennial bowl team that is top 25 as often as it isn't.

The plucky underdog thing doesn't work for me. Maybe Stanford likes that role because it lowers expectations, but it's an awkward fit for a coach who has been to four New Year's Six bowls (legendary), touts getting players to the NFL with the best of them (at least in our conference), and recruits well enough that we always have good talent. What we need more of rather than an underdog mentality is some pride and fire in our belly.

It sounds like you and I agree that Shaw isn't the type to recruit or hire the maniacs. That doesn't mean our only option is the mentality/identity Shaw cultivates. I'm not calling on him to be rah rah. There are aspects of his even keel, sensibilities, broad-minded perspective, and other aspects of his personality I find attractive. But you can be even keel and also incentivize certain types of play more likely to be successful, in line with the best coaches in the sport. My hypothesis, maybe wrong but I don't think so, is that Intellectual without the Brutality ain't it.

It also bears mentioning that there's a distinct possibility that we could throw out the complex playbooks/never-ending list of reads players on both sides of the ball are asked to make and that could lead to improvement independent of there being any increase in intensity/brutality. I laid out earlier how what we do on offense and defense doesn't resemble best practices. To be blunt I fear that our focus on the cerebral aspects amounts to Shaw play acting Jon Gruden/Greg Roman and Anderson play acting Vic Fangio/Derek Mason without actually having the schematic chops.