[Goose]

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.

Under Shaw, we have recruited well at some positions and poorly at others. The "quite as much strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism" is historically evident. I can accept the argument that "things have changed" in that regard, but to make that argument you would have to agree that Shaw is a major factor (if not the major factor, because there has been turnover elsewhere in the staff) in that change.

The reasons I don't think Alabama, or Georgia, or many other such teams rely on "team chemistry" are many. First, many players who leave the program say that is the case, sometimes in anger and sometimes as just a fact. Second, "team chemistry" is almost impossible to develop when everybody on the team realistically thinks they have a shot ant the NFL and not getting playing time is fatal to that intention. It is a zero-sum game for them. Third, the really successful coaches know that developing "team chemistry" reliably is just too unpredictable. If you are going to win every year, you need to win without everybody loving each other. This is especially true with a significant number of players transferring out each year and a similar number transferring in.

Your argument that we have had "top 25 recruiting classes" would be valid if we had recruited a defensive line most years. It is also quite possible to be way above average in some positions and way below average in others. Putting aside questions about how well the highly rated recruits have/have not performed (which are important questions), Stanford has historically had some really highly ranked players. Under Shaw, they have had more of them than "usual". But we still have had major deficiencies at several positions repeatedly every year and occasionally at some other positions. That often cancels out excellence at other positions. 

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.

Please. The "obvious" difference between Stanford and many of the schools we compete with is that admitting athletes (or anybody else) to Stanford is lots harder. Our recruiting pool is much smaller. Ignoring that fact just isn't credible. The fact that Shaw has done well doesn't mean it is easy, inevitable, or even probable. It means he has done better than the vast majority of his predecessors. We do recruit well enough we always have good talent but often not at all positions. If you want to say "Well, Shaw should have just recruited better at those positions", you can't use the fact he did so at some positions as an argument it is easy. In many cases if we had literally the league average (instead of what we had) on the DL, we would have been markedly better.

That said, I don't think Shaw or the team has an "underdog mentality". I think the fans do. I do think the team has shown signs of no fire in the belly. To get that, you need to recruit the "right" guys, and some of them aren't even 4*. Washington State does that. Sometimes, it works. Often, it doesn't. Shaw and company either need to get lucky and generate some "fire in the belly" or need to get enough athletes in all the required positions that can go out there and execute. The "rah rah" is often used to generate fire in the belly, and it sometimes works. Often, it doesn't. Shaw isn't good at it, and the guys he has recruited probably aren't "the type". Hope for plan B.

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.

I am not sure Jon Gruden Derek Mason had the "chops" either. Humans have a  strong tendency to generate explanations for events based on a naritive that makes them see predictability and causality when there is none. IMHO "Intellectual Brutality" was always a slogan, not a reality. The Stanford OL generated physical dominance by hard work and repeated practice. It was no more "brutal" than anybody else's football. It was "intellectual" only in the sense they didn't miss assignments or reads. It is actually simple stuff. Doing it isn't so simple. There was "fire in the belly" that led to skill.

When you say what we do on offense and defense doesn't resemble "best practices", I think you are greatly overstating the case you have attempted to make. If "best practices" in football were a determined, exact science, maybe your argument would have a chance. They aren't. Consider that the West Coast Offense itself was not considered "best practice" at one point. Some say it still isn't No two teams run the same offense or defense. They borrow from each other but they aren't identical. What Chip Kelly thought was "best practice" at Oregon he basically doesn't do now. Rules change and the available players change. That alone requires changes and many of those changes are not deterministic. It is unclear to me why so many people think our large playbook is an impediment to success. As Shaw points out, Leach only has about 7 plays in his playbook, but every one of them has 20 varients which are sight reads by the players and the QB. How is that simpler than having 140 plays?

Right now, our problems are simpler than that. We can't play defense because we have no DL and despite the fact we have had several highly ranked OL candidates our OL has not played well. Fix those things and maybe the playbook matters. Otherwise, it doesn't.

[Goose]

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.

Under Shaw, we have recruited well at some positions and poorly at others. The "quite as much strength, speed, quickness, other elements of athleticism" is historically evident. I can accept the argument that "things have changed" in that regard, but to make that argument you would have to agree that Shaw is a major factor (if not the major factor, because there has been turnover elsewhere in the staff) in that change.

The reasons I don't think Alabama, or Georgia, or many other such teams rely on "team chemistry" are many. First, many players who leave the program say that is the case, sometimes in anger and sometimes as just a fact. Second, "team chemistry" is almost impossible to develop when everybody on the team realistically thinks they have a shot ant the NFL and not getting playing time is fatal to that intention. It is a zero-sum game for them. Third, the really successful coaches know that developing "team chemistry" reliably is just too unpredictable. If you are going to win every year, you need to win without everybody loving each other. This is especially true with a significant number of players transferring out each year and a similar number transferring in.

Your argument that we have had "top 25 recruiting classes" would be valid if we had recruited a defensive line most years. It is also quite possible to be way above average in some positions and way below average in others. Putting aside questions about how well the highly rated recruits have/have not performed (which are important questions), Stanford has historically had some really highly ranked players. Under Shaw, they have had more of them than "usual". But we still have had major deficiencies at several positions repeatedly every year and occasionally at some other positions. That often cancels out excellence at other positions. 

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.

Please. The "obvious" difference between Stanford and many of the schools we compete with is that admitting athletes (or anybody else) to Stanford is lots harder. Our recruiting pool is much smaller. Ignoring that fact just isn't credible. The fact that Shaw has done well doesn't mean it is easy, inevitable, or even probable. It means he has done better than the vast majority of his predecessors. We do recruit well enough we always have good talent but often not at all positions. If you want to say "Well, Shaw should have just recruited better at those positions", you can't use the fact he did so at some positions as an argument it is easy. In many cases if we had literally the league average (instead of what we had) on the DL, we would have been markedly better.

That said, I don't think Shaw or the team has an "underdog mentality". I think the fans do. I do think the team has shown signs of no fire in the belly. To get that, you need to recruit the "right" guys, and some of them aren't even 4*. Washington State does that. Sometimes, it works. Often, it doesn't. Shaw and company either need to get lucky and generate some "fire in the belly" or need to get enough athletes in all the required positions that can go out there and execute. The "rah rah" is often used to generate fire in the belly, and it sometimes works. Often, it doesn't. Shaw isn't good at it, and the guys he has recruited probably aren't "the type". Hope for plan B.

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.

I am not sure Jon Gruden Derek Mason had the "chops" either. Humans have a  strong tendency to generate explanations for events based on a naritive that makes them see predictability and causality when there is none. IMHO "Intellectual Brutality" was always a slogan, not a reality. The Stanford OL generated physical dominance by hard work and repeated practice. It was no more "brutal" than anybody else's football. It was "intellectual" only in the sense they didn't miss assignments or reads. It is actually simple stuff. Doing it isn't so simple. There was "fire in the belly" that led to skill.

When you say what we do on offense and defense doesn't resemble "best practices", I think you are greatly overstating the case you have attempted to make. If "best practices" in football were a determined, exact science, maybe your argument would have a chance. They aren't. Consider that the West Coast Offense itself was not considered "best practice" at one point. Some say it still isn't No two teams run the same offense or defense. They borrow from each other but they aren't identical. What Chip Kelly thought was "best practice" at Oregon he basically doesn't do now. Rules change and the available players change. That alone requires changes and many of those changes are not deterministic. It is unclear to me why so many people think our large playbook is an impediment to success. As Shaw points out, Leach only has about 7 plays in his playbook, but every one of them has 20 varients which are sight reads by the players and the QB. How is that simpler than having 140 plays?

Right now, our problems are simpler than that. We can't play defense because we have no DL and despite the fact we have had several highly ranked OL candidates our OL has not played well. Fix those things and maybe the playbook matters. Otherwise, it doesn't.