[msqueri]

Thanks Goose. Thoughtful stuff, but we do disagree.

My analysis does not assume that class ranking should be absolutely predictive of expected performance for at least two reasons.

First, my observations of Stanford having at least average Pac-12 DL talent throughout Shaw's tenure are not based solely on recruiting rankings but also on the ultimate output of NFL players. We continue to send DL to the NFL, we just don't have line play at the college level that reflects the talent on the roster. Even Tucker Fisk, who you lament us having to play (and in any case wasn't a DL starter for us) is on an NFL roster. There's nothing below average about him as a third or fourth DL. Thomas Booker being a 4-star recruit, being all-conference twice, and then being drafted to the NFL are three different evaluations at four different points in time that all point to him being above-average for a number one DL on a Pac-12 team. I get the sense you think Dalyn Wade-Perry and Ryan Johnson had below-average talent and/or fit for second or third DL on a Pac-12 team, but there isn't much evidence for that either. They were 4-star recruits and, in Johnson's case, transferred elsewhere at the Power Five scholarship level. Whether you look at recruiting rankings or NFL evaluations, evidence does not point to Stanford having below-average DL talent. The one thing that arguably does is performance at Stanford. If that doesn't speak to coaching and scheme I don't know what does. 

Second, my observations on this point are not based on aggregate recruiting rankings, so many of your points about averaging across recruits/lower-ranked guys being obscured by higher-ranked guys, variance (why would Stanford have higher DL performance variance than other schools?), etc. are moot. Rather, I'm observing based on the individual guys we have. To use your frame, the weak links. Look at the non-Booker guys we have to play. Wade-Perry and Johnson were 4-star recruits and the last couple of years were extremely veteran former 4-star recruits. Nothing Plan B or Plan C about that.

In fact, this argument you're making about Stanford resorting to Plan B or Plan C DL does not reflect the reality of our roster ever under Shaw. Let's look at the DL in the years in which Anderson's defenses dropped off. The DL who have played 200 snaps for us between 2017-2021 have been Harrison Phillips, Dylan Jackson, Eric Cotton, Mike Williams, Jovan Swann, Thomas Booker, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Thomas Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, and Tucker Fisk. Four of the ten were 4-star recruits and the rest were high 3-stars. I don't spot a single Plan B or Plan C in the bunch. Really not sure where that trope is coming from. The closest you can get is Cotton and Fisk as position switches but they were coveted recruits whose future utility at DL was obvious at the time of initial recruitment.

Trying to give the weakest link argument some credence, the guys who have torpedoed our line play most egregiously have been Johnson, Jackson, and Cotton. Johnson had offers from Alabama, Auburn, Texas, Clemson, Georgia, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, LSU, Michigan - everybody. Jackson had offers from Alabama, LSU, Miami, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, etc. Cotton had offers from Washington State, Missouri, and the service academies. Not a single one was a Power Five reach or a Plan B and Johnson and Jackson were a level of recruit the majority of the Pac-12 would welcome as DL1, to say nothing of the DL3 we relied on them to be.

I think those who argue that something is below-average need to think systematically about what "average" means. All the arguments about weak links, variance, difficulty recruiting depth that allows DL to rotate, etc. apply to the majority of the Pac-12 as well. There is no way you can slice it - other than actual performance in college - that supports the idea Stanford has had below-average DL talent at any point under Shaw. Half the conference would trade for our DL room at the time of recruitment and NFL evaluators would pick Stanford's DL over half the conference at the NFL combine stage. That's really the bottom line.

While brevity is not my thing, if I had to summarize my view of our DL situation it would go like this: without talent like Solomon Thomas/Aziz Shittu and without coaching like Randy Hart, we fell off a cliff; the recruiting drop-off should not be ignored, but it's about not getting the difference makers (i.e., DL1) rather than the volume/variance arguments you're making (i.e., DL3/DL4). If you look at other Pac-12 teams the "average" DL3/DL4 situation is no prettier than ours; regardless of how much stock one puts in the recruiting, the evidence is overwhelming that our defense massively under-performs its talent, whether you look at recruiting or NFL evaluations.

[msqueri]

Thanks Goose. Thoughtful stuff, but we do disagree.

My analysis does not assume that class ranking should be absolutely predictive of expected performance for at least two reasons.

First, my observations of Stanford having at least average Pac-12 DL talent throughout Shaw's tenure are not based solely on recruiting rankings but also on the ultimate output of NFL players. We continue to send DL to the NFL, we just don't have line play at the college level that reflects the talent on the roster. Even Tucker Fisk, who you lament us having to play (and in any case wasn't a DL starter for us) is on an NFL roster. There's nothing below average about him as a third or fourth DL. Thomas Booker being a 4-star recruit, being all-conference twice, and then being drafted to the NFL are three different evaluations at four different points in time that all point to him being above-average for a number one DL on a Pac-12 team. I get the sense you think Dalyn Wade-Perry and Ryan Johnson had below-average talent and/or fit for second or third DL on a Pac-12 team, but there isn't much evidence for that either. They were 4-star recruits and, in Johnson's case, transferred elsewhere at the Power Five scholarship level. Whether you look at recruiting rankings or NFL evaluations, evidence does not point to Stanford having below-average DL talent. The one thing that arguably does is performance at Stanford. If that doesn't speak to coaching and scheme I don't know what does. 

Second, my observations on this point are not based on aggregate recruiting rankings, so many of your points about averaging across recruits/lower-ranked guys being obscured by higher-ranked guys, variance (why would Stanford have higher DL performance variance than other schools?), etc. are moot. Rather, I'm observing based on the individual guys we have. To use your frame, the weak links. Look at the non-Booker guys we have to play. Wade-Perry and Johnson were 4-star recruits and the last couple of years were extremely veteran former 4-star recruits. Nothing Plan B or Plan C about that.

In fact, this argument you're making about Stanford resorting to Plan B or Plan C DL does not reflect the reality of our roster ever under Shaw. Let's look at the DL in the years in which Anderson's defenses dropped off. The DL who have played 200 snaps for us between 2017-2021 have been Harrison Phillips, Dylan Jackson, Eric Cotton, Mike Williams, Jovan Swann, Thomas Booker, Dalyn Wade-Perry, Thomas Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, and Tucker Fisk. Four of the ten were 4-star recruits and the rest were high 3-stars. I don't spot a single Plan B or Plan C in the bunch. Really not sure where that trope is coming from. The closest you can get is Cotton and Fisk as position switches but they were coveted recruits whose future utility at DL was obvious at the time of initial recruitment.

Trying to give the weakest link argument some credence, the guys who have torpedoed our line play most egregiously have been Johnson, Jackson, and Cotton. Johnson had offers from Alabama, Auburn, Texas, Clemson, Georgia, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, LSU, Michigan - everybody. Jackson had offers from Alabama, LSU, Miami, Tennessee, Georgia Tech, etc. Cotton had offers from Washington State, Missouri, and the service academies. Not a single one was a Power Five reach or a Plan B and Johnson and Jackson were a level of recruit the majority of the Pac-12 would welcome as DL1, to say nothing of the DL3 we relied on them to be.

I think those who argue that something is below-average need to think systematically about what "average" means. All the arguments about weak links, variance, difficulty recruiting depth that allows DL to rotate, etc. apply to the majority of the Pac-12 as well. There is no way you can slice it - other than actual performance in college - that supports the idea Stanford has had below-average DL talent at any point under Shaw. Half the conference would trade for our DL room at the time of recruitment and NFL evaluators would pick Stanford's DL over half the conference at the NFL combine stage. That's really the bottom line.

While brevity is not my thing, if I had to summarize my view of our DL situation it would go like this: without talent like Solomon Thomas/Aziz Shittu and without coaching like Randy Hart, we fell off a cliff; the recruiting drop-off should not be ignored, but it's about not getting the difference makers (i.e., DL1) rather than the volume/variance arguments you're making (i.e., DL3/DL4). If you look at other Pac-12 teams the "average" DL3/DL4 situation is no prettier than ours; regardless of how much stock one puts in the recruiting, the evidence is overwhelming that our defense massively under-performs its talent, whether you look at recruiting or NFL evaluations.