[msqueri]

Shaw left a disaster in his wake but so did Harris. Personally I think Harbaugh had a harder job than Taylor, but there are reasonable arguments both ways. Taylor inherits more notable top end talent and Stanford has been slightly more relevant in recent years than when Harbaugh came on board, but differences are modest and debatable. On the other hand, the landscape in 2007 was probably more amenable to a new coach being a disruptor (whereas in 2023 it's the landscape that's disrupting new coaches). Competitively, the Pac-10 was stronger in Harbaugh's era than the Pac-12 is in Taylor's, but it's not clear what that means for this discussion because some would argue a tougher conference makes competing tougher while others would argue a rising tide lifts all boats and I think there's truth to both.

Whenever this comparison comes up I want to be clear that me saying Harbaugh had a tougher job is not meant as a statement of optimism (or pessimism or anything) regarding the likelihood of Taylor succeeding. What Harbaugh did was a miracle. Taylor could have an easier job, be a pretty good coach, and still fail. That's not what this discussion is about to me. I just like to be faithful to the history when talking about the mid-2000s in Stanford football, and Harbaugh inherited a real doozy.

Agreed making a bowl this year would be a miracle. I will say, though, in the spirit of the above, making a bowl this year would be less of a miracle than if Harbaugh had made a bowl in 2007. Our 2023 schedule is really, really easy. Maybe the easiest in the entire history of the program. Harbaugh didn't make a bowl until his third year. Taylor could make a bowl in his second, or even first, year and still not be on a trajectory to transform the program like Harbaugh was. Honestly, that's an obvious comment. Harbaugh's ultimate accomplishment is sui generis in our history and not a fair standard to compare Taylor by.

[msqueri]

Shaw left a disaster in his wake but so did Harris. Personally I think Harbaugh had a harder job than Taylor, but there are reasonable arguments both ways. Taylor inherits more notable top end talent and Stanford has been slightly more relevant in recent years than when Harbaugh came on board, but differences are modest and debatable. On the other hand, the landscape in 2007 was probably more amenable to a new coach being a disruptor (whereas in 2023 it's the landscape that's disrupting new coaches). Competitively, the Pac-10 was stronger in Harbaugh's era than the Pac-12 is in Taylor's, but it's not clear what that means for this discussion because some would argue a tougher conference makes competing tougher while others would argue a rising tide lifts all boats and I think there's truth to both.

Whenever this comparison comes up I want to be clear that me saying Harbaugh had a tougher job is not meant as a statement of optimism (or pessimism or anything) regarding the likelihood of Taylor succeeding. What Harbaugh did was a miracle. Taylor could have an easier job, be a pretty good coach, and still fail. That's not what this discussion is about to me. I just like to be faithful to the history when talking about the mid-2000s in Stanford football, and Harbaugh inherited a real doozy.

Agreed making a bowl this year would be a miracle. I will say, though, in the spirit of the above, making a bowl this year would be less of a miracle than if Harbaugh had made a bowl in 2007. Our 2023 schedule is really, really easy. Maybe the easiest in the entire history of the program. Harbaugh didn't make a bowl until his third year. Taylor could make a bowl in his second, or even first, year and still not be on a trajectory to transform the program like Harbaugh was. Honestly, that's an obvious comment. Harbaugh's ultimate accomplishment is sui generis in our history and not a fair standard to compare Taylor by.