[Goose]

That is a devastating analysis. As I asked earlier, why would TAt have brought Lamson in as a transfer, just to run an occasional QB sneak.

At that point in history it was not obvious that Lamson couldn't be an effective passer. Remember that last year Lamson and Daniels both got a shot at the starting position. It wasn't a one game only thing. Both QBs at times throw very good on target passes into tight windows. Unfortunately both QBs throw more passes that are barely in the right zip code (or directly into the wrong zip code). Daniels was and is a better passer, but he also has received the benefit of lots more reps after he won the starting job. TT needed a QB. Patu was never the answer. TT took what he could get. It wasn't perfect.

My analysis of Lamson was in response to the argument that, almost two years after he left the job, somehow David Shaw is at fault for the state of affairs. If people are going to criticize a 3-time Pac-12 winning coach and the winningest coach in program history two years after he left for the current state of the program, then I think it is completely fair to criticize TT for either his evaluation and/or development of Lamson. GMs don't pick players, nor coaches recruit players, that they think will not be able to perform. The GMs and coaches are evaluated on the results regardless. At a program like Stanford, you get at most one bite of the transfer portal apple. Neither may not be fair, but both are the reality of college football and coaching at Stanford respectively.

The QB room became rather empty pretty quickly.  Northwestern has been relying on transfer QBs in recent years.  Some work out well, most do not.  Stanford is probably better off recruiting HS QBs.

IMO Stanford is better off doing both. Relying on transfers is going to be difficult for programs that are not "football destinations", which right now Stanford clearly is not. "Can't miss" prospects will go elsewhere. The transfer also has to get admitted. Stanford needed a "quick fix" when TT arrived. He didn't have a wide selection of possibilities available to him. He did the best he could with what was available. I can't fault him for his "talent evaluation" at this point because I have no idea what it actually was. What did he forgo by taking Lamson? Who would have gotten those reps and started yesterday instead and why would that have been better? I have no idea.

Recruiting HS players is also a difficult task but at least in that case you have a much wider set of targets. Choosing which set of targets to pursue is indeed an important task for the head coach and the program. One can indeed evaluate and potentially criticize TTs performance in that area. Brown may turn out to be a great choice or anything but. We don't yet know. Right now, Stanford is attempting to work its way up the food chain from a very bad initial position. So far, TT hasn't clearly excelled in recruiting HS players but he also hasn't totally failed at it either. We will know more about that next year.

We clearly have holes that need filling. We clearly need to "play better". One attribute of sports is that you are who your record says you are. Lots of criticism coaches receive is unfair and simply incorrect. IMO Shaw was the target of lots of that. However, Shaw did quit "winning" and clearly did have problems getting the players he needed to have even a winning record, let alone a "great" record year over year.  So far TT has the same if not worse problem. We are all looking for "improvement" and sometimes see it when it arguably isn't really there. Criticizing the coach is always allowed, even when said coach is winning. If the coach isn't "winning" or at least on an upward trajectory it may indeed be possible to find "real" reasons why that is the case. IMO TT hasn't been here long enough for us casual fans to do that yet. Maybe some of the Cardboarders that are close to the program and have much more information can. We all can criticize results. Coaches are replaced for "not winning enough". Lets hope we don't have that problem going forward.

[Goose]

That is a devastating analysis. As I asked earlier, why would TAt have brought Lamson in as a transfer, just to run an occasional QB sneak.

At that point in history it was not obvious that Lamson couldn't be an effective passer. Remember that last year Lamson and Daniels both got a shot at the starting position. It wasn't a one game only thing. Both QBs at times throw very good on target passes into tight windows. Unfortunately both QBs throw more passes that are barely in the right zip code (or directly into the wrong zip code). Daniels was and is a better passer, but he also has received the benefit of lots more reps after he won the starting job. TT needed a QB. Patu was never the answer. TT took what he could get. It wasn't perfect.

My analysis of Lamson was in response to the argument that, almost two years after he left the job, somehow David Shaw is at fault for the state of affairs. If people are going to criticize a 3-time Pac-12 winning coach and the winningest coach in program history two years after he left for the current state of the program, then I think it is completely fair to criticize TT for either his evaluation and/or development of Lamson. GMs don't pick players, nor coaches recruit players, that they think will not be able to perform. The GMs and coaches are evaluated on the results regardless. At a program like Stanford, you get at most one bite of the transfer portal apple. Neither may not be fair, but both are the reality of college football and coaching at Stanford respectively.

The QB room became rather empty pretty quickly.  Northwestern has been relying on transfer QBs in recent years.  Some work out well, most do not.  Stanford is probably better off recruiting HS QBs.

IMO Stanford is better off doing both. Relying on transfers is going to be difficult for programs that are not "football destinations", which right now Stanford clearly is not. "Can't miss" prospects will go elsewhere. The transfer also has to get admitted. Stanford needed a "quick fix" when TT arrived. He didn't have a wide selection of possibilities available to him. He did the best he could with what was available. I can't fault him for his "talent evaluation" at this point because I have no idea what it actually was. What did he forgo by taking Lamson? Who would have gotten those reps and started yesterday instead and why would that have been better? I have no idea.

Recruiting HS players is also a difficult task but at least in that case you have a much wider set of targets. Choosing which set of targets to pursue is indeed an important task for the head coach and the program. One can indeed evaluate and potentially criticize TTs performance in that area. Brown may turn out to be a great choice or anything but. We don't yet know. Right now, Stanford is attempting to work its way up the food chain from a very bad initial position. So far, TT hasn't clearly excelled in recruiting HS players but he also hasn't totally failed at it either. We will know more about that next year.

We clearly have holes that need filling. We clearly need to "play better". One attribute of sports is that you are who your record says you are. Lots of criticism coaches receive is unfair and simply incorrect. IMO Shaw was the target of lots of that. However, Shaw did quit "winning" and clearly did have problems getting the players he needed to have even a winning record, let alone a "great" record year over year.  So far TT has the same if not worse problem. We are all looking for "improvement" and sometimes see it when it arguably isn't really there. Criticizing the coach is always allowed, even when said coach is winning. If the coach isn't "winning" or at least on an upward trajectory it may indeed be possible to find "real" reasons why that is the case. IMO TT hasn't been here long enough for us casual fans to do that yet. Maybe some of the Cardboarders that are close to the program and have much more information can. We all can criticize results. Coaches are replaced for "not winning enough". Lets hope we don't have that problem going forward.