[Goose]

I'm late to the BC-Goose exchange but a comment: I think Stanford fans kid themselves if they think Andrew Luck, AJ Tarpley, Bryce Love, Jonathan Martin, Ben Gardner, etc. are "football first" guys in the sense that the NFL wants.

Usually when you and I disagree, I can see some merit in your position. This time, I really can't. I think it is absolutely clear that the NFL wants above all things guys that can play football. They have/are tolerating guys that are basically known criminals. They give guys who have had drug problems chance after chance. However, you are arguing basically that they would prefer not to take guys who have a "neuroatypical brain" because they might retire after 7 years and four pro bowls? I am sure Luck's retirement greatly influenced the Texans decision to take Mills. Obviously nobody would take an Elway (who was so "neuroatypical" he forced the Colts to trade him) because they wouldn't want to risk he would have a 16 year career and go to the HOF if they did. Dave DeCastro obviously had no real desire to play football and nobody would want him. Richard Sherman never cared about football. And of course Jim Plunkett quit football at the first opportunity". These "neuroatypical" guys just have no desire and quit on you.

But it's just self-delusion to think that having, shall we say, a neuroatypical brain compared to the NFL norm and having options beyond football make you just as likely to be in it for the long haul. I bet there are NFL teams that after Luck and Tarpley will prefer an Arizona State player to a Stanford player, all things being equal, to get a return on their investment. I bet the Colts would have rather had Andrew Luck with Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers' mentality than what they did get.

I think the many, many, many, counter-examples speak for themselves. The NFL wants players. I actually suspect they are kind of happy when they get somebody who can play and at the same time can remember the snap count. OTOH, they can live with some "issues" if they must. I seriously doubt any NFL team would consider the risk somebody will quit the sport early in a successful career as a factor in not drafting them. They just want a successful career to happen. Retention is very secondary and will be handled if/when it becomes an issue, just like it is with guys who aren't  "neuroatypical" but have agents that are. Virtually any team would sell their soul (assuming they haven't already) to have an Andrew Luck. The fact the Colts didn't win multiple super bowls on his watch certainly wasn't his fault.

It's less clear what this means for us on the college level. As is evident from the spectacular football accomplishments of the guys I mentioned, you don't need to be a Trent Murphy/Vontaze Burfict maniac to be great in college. There's a sweet spot for Stanford where guys who are neuroatypical from the NFL norm and/or have much better non-football professional prospects can still do great things in college football. Nonetheless, I think there are cumulative, cultural, and law of averages effects at play where a roster full of this mentality has an adverse competitive effect.

I think it is also abundantly clear you don't have to be a Vontaze Burfict maniac to be great in the NFL, as fortunately many players demonstrate. It does help to be a bit of a maniac though. There are many different ways to be a maniac. DeCastro for example was reportedly a maniac. I think I do understand your concern about the culture at Stanford. I am guessing that some of it is misplaced, in that all of us kind of like to see guys get emotional and yell a lot. However, I think that is a fans thing. What I fear is missing at Stanford is guys who are leaders, hold themselves accountable, and expect their teammates to do the same, and will, if necessary, let their teammates know about it very, very clearly.

In the past, we had some guys who maybe us fans never saw yelling about something, but did it when necessary. It was a "us" thing that didn't make the public often, but was there. It was a "team" thing that came from the culture, not the coaches. The TWU wasn't created by the coaching staff. That can work just fine, but I fear Stanford has created a culture where the "us" factor isn't there anymore. When you lose it, it is hard to get back. We have recruited lots of guys who can play football but don't feel the need/aren't compelled to lead. Obviously I am not in the locker room, so I can't really know what is happening. However, the teams recently have left the impression they go out there, do their best, and if that isn't enough they accept it. Nobody seems to feel it is their duty to "fix it". They are waiting for somebody else to do that. It didn't used to be that way.

[Goose]

I'm late to the BC-Goose exchange but a comment: I think Stanford fans kid themselves if they think Andrew Luck, AJ Tarpley, Bryce Love, Jonathan Martin, Ben Gardner, etc. are "football first" guys in the sense that the NFL wants.

Usually when you and I disagree, I can see some merit in your position. This time, I really can't. I think it is absolutely clear that the NFL wants above all things guys that can play football. They have/are tolerating guys that are basically known criminals. They give guys who have had drug problems chance after chance. However, you are arguing basically that they would prefer not to take guys who have a "neuroatypical brain" because they might retire after 7 years and four pro bowls? I am sure Luck's retirement greatly influenced the Texans decision to take Mills. Obviously nobody would take an Elway (who was so "neuroatypical" he forced the Colts to trade him) because they wouldn't want to risk he would have a 16 year career and go to the HOF if they did. Dave DeCastro obviously had no real desire to play football and nobody would want him. Richard Sherman never cared about football. And of course Jim Plunkett quit football at the first opportunity". These "neuroatypical" guys just have no desire and quit on you.

But it's just self-delusion to think that having, shall we say, a neuroatypical brain compared to the NFL norm and having options beyond football make you just as likely to be in it for the long haul. I bet there are NFL teams that after Luck and Tarpley will prefer an Arizona State player to a Stanford player, all things being equal, to get a return on their investment. I bet the Colts would have rather had Andrew Luck with Tom Brady/Aaron Rodgers' mentality than what they did get.

I think the many, many, many, counter-examples speak for themselves. The NFL wants players. I actually suspect they are kind of happy when they get somebody who can play and at the same time can remember the snap count. OTOH, they can live with some "issues" if they must. I seriously doubt any NFL team would consider the risk somebody will quit the sport early in a successful career as a factor in not drafting them. They just want a successful career to happen. Retention is very secondary and will be handled if/when it becomes an issue, just like it is with guys who aren't  "neuroatypical" but have agents that are. Virtually any team would sell their soul (assuming they haven't already) to have an Andrew Luck. The fact the Colts didn't win multiple super bowls on his watch certainly wasn't his fault.

It's less clear what this means for us on the college level. As is evident from the spectacular football accomplishments of the guys I mentioned, you don't need to be a Trent Murphy/Vontaze Burfict maniac to be great in college. There's a sweet spot for Stanford where guys who are neuroatypical from the NFL norm and/or have much better non-football professional prospects can still do great things in college football. Nonetheless, I think there are cumulative, cultural, and law of averages effects at play where a roster full of this mentality has an adverse competitive effect.

I think it is also abundantly clear you don't have to be a Vontaze Burfict maniac to be great in the NFL, as fortunately many players demonstrate. It does help to be a bit of a maniac though. There are many different ways to be a maniac. DeCastro for example was reportedly a maniac. I think I do understand your concern about the culture at Stanford. I am guessing that some of it is misplaced, in that all of us kind of like to see guys get emotional and yell a lot. However, I think that is a fans thing. What I fear is missing at Stanford is guys who are leaders, hold themselves accountable, and expect their teammates to do the same, and will, if necessary, let their teammates know about it very, very clearly.

In the past, we had some guys who maybe us fans never saw yelling about something, but did it when necessary. It was a "us" thing that didn't make the public often, but was there. It was a "team" thing that came from the culture, not the coaches. The TWU wasn't created by the coaching staff. That can work just fine, but I fear Stanford has created a culture where the "us" factor isn't there anymore. When you lose it, it is hard to get back. We have recruited lots of guys who can play football but don't feel the need/aren't compelled to lead. Obviously I am not in the locker room, so I can't really know what is happening. However, the teams recently have left the impression they go out there, do their best, and if that isn't enough they accept it. Nobody seems to feel it is their duty to "fix it". They are waiting for somebody else to do that. It didn't used to be that way.