[gailtate]

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.

A good exchange, there. Much appreciated. My own two cents, which I never miss a chance to toss in, is the troubling absence of any evidence for Shaw's ability to "put us back in a sustainable and successful situation". On the contrary, the record suggests and supports an inability--or flat-out unwillingness--to do any such thing. What we now see, and Square has documented, is a steady, years-long, sustained decline since Shaw took the reins in 2011. It does not remain to be seen. It's out there for all to see. You either want to or you don't.

[gailtate]

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.

A good exchange, there. Much appreciated. My own two cents, which I never miss a chance to toss in, is the troubling absence of any evidence for Shaw's ability to "put us back in a sustainable and successful situation". On the contrary, the record suggests and supports an inability--or flat-out unwillingness--to do any such thing. What we now see, and Square has documented, is a steady, years-long, sustained decline since Shaw took the reins in 2011. It does not remain to be seen. It's out there for all to see. You either want to or you don't.