Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, Goose. I'm enjoying this.
I think you have a bad read of chemistry at Alabama/Georgia compared to Stanford. Those teams have many more players return to the team rather than declare for the draft than Stanford does and many fewer key contributors transfer out. You can argue that it's hard to have chemistry with malcontents not happy about their role, but chemistry among players who actually play is far more important than Kumbaya across the entire roster and we have ample evidence of Stanford players talking with their feet. Our guys bolt once they have NFL prospects or a degree. At the factories the key guys stay until they have great NFL prospects, or sometimes even longer (which Shaw has hardly been able to accomplish at all in recent years). To the extent this chemistry discussion is about football effectiveness, I think we need to recognize that Shaw is not building a culture any better than at these factories. I'd argue it's worse from a football standpoint. He's building a culture where people respect each other as individuals, take pride in the complete individual, and prioritize the 40 year decision. Saban and Smart build cultures where football and teamwork are paramount and the goals are very specific, impatient, and football-focused. For a football team, the latter is more effective.
My biggest disagreement with you is my view that you are asserting without evidence that "we have recruited well at some positions and poorly at others." You cite defensive line several times. While our 2022 DL situation is a horrifying freak show, historically Shaw has had talented defensive lines by Pac-12 standards whether judging by pre-matriculation (recruiting rankings) or post-career (NFL placement) metrics. Here are the Pac-12 schools ranked by drafted DL since 2015:
1. Utah (Nate Orchard, Pita Taumoepenu, Kylie Fitts, Leki Fotu, Bradlee Anae, John Penisini)
1. Washington (Danny Shelton, Elijah Qualls, Vita Vea, Greg Gaines, Joe Tryon-Shoyinka, Levi Onwuzurike)
1. USC (Leonard Williams, Stevie Tu'ikolovatu, Rasheem Green, Jay Tufele, Marlon Tuipulotu, Drake Jackson)
1. UCLA (Owa Odighizuwa, Kenny Clark, Takkarist McKinley, Eddie Vanderdoes, Osa Odighizuwa, Otito Ogbonnia)
5. Stanford (Henry Anderson, David Parry, Solomon Thomas, Harrison Phillips, Thomas Booker)
6. Oregon (Arik Armstead, DeForest Buckner, Jalen Jelks, Kayvon Thibodeaux)
7. Arizona State (Marcus Hardison, Renell Wren, DJ Davidson)
8. Washington State (Xavier Cooper)
8. Oregon State (Obum Gwacham)
8. Colorado (Jordan Carrell)
8. Cal (James Looney)
8. Arizona (Roy Lopez)
Using the same approach of using an eight year span, here are the Pac-12 schools as ranked by number of composite 4-star DL recruits, including JC transfers:
1. USC: 14
2. Stanford: 9
2. UCLA: 9
2. Washington: 9
5. Oregon: 6
6. Arizona State: 4
7. Utah: 3
8. Colorado: 1
8. Washington State: 1
10. Arizona: 0
11. Cal: 0
12. Oregon State: 0
The reality is that we recruit DL extremely well and produce NFL DL regularly. If you think we have below average DL play, that's not because of talent.
I don't think there's a single position at which you'd be right that Stanford has recruited worse than average in the Pac-12. There have been short bursts of time at which we've completely fallen down in recruiting a position group (OL, ILB) and that can mean that in particular years we may have one or two positions that are below average by Pac-12 standards, but that's true of almost the entire conference (maybe Oregon would be immune from that dynamic?). But over multi-year sweeps we recruit well pretty much everywhere. The fact that you picked DL as the egregious case and your perception is so far from the reality is telling. It's just not true that Stanford recruits certain positions poorly. Compared to our competition we recruit everything at least averagely and, in general, are above-average.
And yes, I do acknowledge this is different than much of Stanford history and that Shaw is the major factor why. He is, empirically, by far the greatest recruiter in Stanford history. I am including Ralston, Walsh, Green, and Harbaugh in that statement. When you look at volume and longevity Shaw easily takes the cake. Easily. Shaw gets credit for that, but it puts in even starker relief the failings in certain areas despite having the talent, as validated not only by recruiting rankings but by NFL teams as well. In particular, our front seven performance has been a complete joke given the talent that has played there. I become a broken record on this and it's sad because Lance Anderson seems like a prince of a man, but our defensive coordinator has a pathetic track record at Stanford. Just execrable, considering talent.
When I talk about "best practices" I'm not trying to be overly scientific or prescriptive about it. I'm just saying that being dead last in the country in plays per game over a however many year period, which is where I suspect Shaw would be but certainly in the bottom few, is not something associated with good offenses. Related, the best offenses aren't checking/changing the playcall practically every play. The best defenses have linebackers who try to move toward ballcarriers rather than engaging blockers. I take your point that I may be succumbing to a cognitive bias trying to fit these observations into a narrative, but it has been striking to me to observe how much our coaches and players always emphasize cerebral things and then how much of our problems on both sides of the ball appear, at least to my naked eye, to look like players are thinking too much and not just playing.
Regardless, the results speak for themselves. Whatever it is Shaw thinks he's doing or whatever identity he's seeking to impart, it hasn't worked for years. He's been on a steady decline his whole tenure and, in particular, his lack of accountability for the defense has given us a situation in which we have top half of the Pac-12 talent, despite your mistaken impression of our DL, and consistently play like one of the two worst defenses in the conference. Your impression of the DL can be forgiven because it's based on how ineffective they've been. But that's not recruiting. That's coaching and scheme. My hypothesis is that our coaching emphases deserve some of that blame. But surely there are lots of reasons we suck so much at defense despite all the 4-star recruits we get and the players we send to the NFL.
I think you have a bad read of chemistry at Alabama/Georgia compared to Stanford. Those teams have many more players return to the team rather than declare for the draft than Stanford does and many fewer key contributors transfer out. You can argue that it's hard to have chemistry with malcontents not happy about their role, but chemistry among players who actually play is far more important than Kumbaya across the entire roster and we have ample evidence of Stanford players talking with their feet. Our guys bolt once they have NFL prospects or a degree. At the factories the key guys stay until they have great NFL prospects, or sometimes even longer (which Shaw has hardly been able to accomplish at all in recent years). To the extent this chemistry discussion is about football effectiveness, I think we need to recognize that Shaw is not building a culture any better than at these factories. I'd argue it's worse from a football standpoint. He's building a culture where people respect each other as individuals, take pride in the complete individual, and prioritize the 40 year decision. Saban and Smart build cultures where football and teamwork are paramount and the goals are very specific, impatient, and football-focused. For a football team, the latter is more effective.
My biggest disagreement with you is my view that you are asserting without evidence that "we have recruited well at some positions and poorly at others." You cite defensive line several times. While our 2022 DL situation is a horrifying freak show, historically Shaw has had talented defensive lines by Pac-12 standards whether judging by pre-matriculation (recruiting rankings) or post-career (NFL placement) metrics. Here are the Pac-12 schools ranked by drafted DL since 2015:
1. Utah (Nate Orchard, Pita Taumoepenu, Kylie Fitts, Leki Fotu, Bradlee Anae, John Penisini)
1. Washington (Danny Shelton, Elijah Qualls, Vita Vea, Greg Gaines, Joe Tryon-Shoyinka, Levi Onwuzurike)
1. USC (Leonard Williams, Stevie Tu'ikolovatu, Rasheem Green, Jay Tufele, Marlon Tuipulotu, Drake Jackson)
1. UCLA (Owa Odighizuwa, Kenny Clark, Takkarist McKinley, Eddie Vanderdoes, Osa Odighizuwa, Otito Ogbonnia)
5. Stanford (Henry Anderson, David Parry, Solomon Thomas, Harrison Phillips, Thomas Booker)
6. Oregon (Arik Armstead, DeForest Buckner, Jalen Jelks, Kayvon Thibodeaux)
7. Arizona State (Marcus Hardison, Renell Wren, DJ Davidson)
8. Washington State (Xavier Cooper)
8. Oregon State (Obum Gwacham)
8. Colorado (Jordan Carrell)
8. Cal (James Looney)
8. Arizona (Roy Lopez)
Using the same approach of using an eight year span, here are the Pac-12 schools as ranked by number of composite 4-star DL recruits, including JC transfers:
1. USC: 14
2. Stanford: 9
2. UCLA: 9
2. Washington: 9
5. Oregon: 6
6. Arizona State: 4
7. Utah: 3
8. Colorado: 1
8. Washington State: 1
10. Arizona: 0
11. Cal: 0
12. Oregon State: 0
The reality is that we recruit DL extremely well and produce NFL DL regularly. If you think we have below average DL play, that's not because of talent.
I don't think there's a single position at which you'd be right that Stanford has recruited worse than average in the Pac-12. There have been short bursts of time at which we've completely fallen down in recruiting a position group (OL, ILB) and that can mean that in particular years we may have one or two positions that are below average by Pac-12 standards, but that's true of almost the entire conference (maybe Oregon would be immune from that dynamic?). But over multi-year sweeps we recruit well pretty much everywhere. The fact that you picked DL as the egregious case and your perception is so far from the reality is telling. It's just not true that Stanford recruits certain positions poorly. Compared to our competition we recruit everything at least averagely and, in general, are above-average.
And yes, I do acknowledge this is different than much of Stanford history and that Shaw is the major factor why. He is, empirically, by far the greatest recruiter in Stanford history. I am including Ralston, Walsh, Green, and Harbaugh in that statement. When you look at volume and longevity Shaw easily takes the cake. Easily. Shaw gets credit for that, but it puts in even starker relief the failings in certain areas despite having the talent, as validated not only by recruiting rankings but by NFL teams as well. In particular, our front seven performance has been a complete joke given the talent that has played there. I become a broken record on this and it's sad because Lance Anderson seems like a prince of a man, but our defensive coordinator has a pathetic track record at Stanford. Just execrable, considering talent.
When I talk about "best practices" I'm not trying to be overly scientific or prescriptive about it. I'm just saying that being dead last in the country in plays per game over a however many year period, which is where I suspect Shaw would be but certainly in the bottom few, is not something associated with good offenses. Related, the best offenses aren't checking/changing the playcall practically every play. The best defenses have linebackers who try to move toward ballcarriers rather than engaging blockers. I take your point that I may be succumbing to a cognitive bias trying to fit these observations into a narrative, but it has been striking to me to observe how much our coaches and players always emphasize cerebral things and then how much of our problems on both sides of the ball appear, at least to my naked eye, to look like players are thinking too much and not just playing.
Regardless, the results speak for themselves. Whatever it is Shaw thinks he's doing or whatever identity he's seeking to impart, it hasn't worked for years. He's been on a steady decline his whole tenure and, in particular, his lack of accountability for the defense has given us a situation in which we have top half of the Pac-12 talent, despite your mistaken impression of our DL, and consistently play like one of the two worst defenses in the conference. Your impression of the DL can be forgiven because it's based on how ineffective they've been. But that's not recruiting. That's coaching and scheme. My hypothesis is that our coaching emphases deserve some of that blame. But surely there are lots of reasons we suck so much at defense despite all the 4-star recruits we get and the players we send to the NFL.