[msqueri]

1729480606[/url]']


I do agree with you totally that the good OLs in college football are populated by "old men". Freshmen/Sophomores (18/19 year olds mostly) just aren't physically mature/strong enough to compete with "upperclassmen". Most "really good" teams have a mixture of 21-23 year olds, with more on the older end. Of course there are exceptions, but in general that is the case.

I would like to know why you are so certain that TT doesn't in general value mature players and doesn't want to do the things necessary to keep them. Given how poorly the OL has played in the past two years I would guess that retaining upperclassman has not been a priority. You say that TT believes his assistants can identify and recruit OL that can be developed into good college players. You identify that belief as arrogant and ignorant. Since the job description of his assistants is to do exactly those things (which you believe they cannot) should they be replaced forthwith? If TT is so misguided in believing they can in fact do their job should he meet the same fate? It seems to me that is the only possible logical conclusion of your evaluation.

Benching a "proven" fifth year lineman has been discussed on this board a bit. I guess the question is whether his replacement(s) are "worse". If so, that is another "error" by TT. If not, why shouldn't he play the best players? Right now we are all endorsing replacing the junior Daniels with the freshman Brown, at least to evaluate which player is more effective. Why is that different? In both cases the answer may not be immediately obvious or a simple "yes/no".

I was quite encouraged in the off-season when we got Rogers, McLaughlin, and Phillips to come back and Patterson to transfer in for super senior years. That was a major development and I hoped a signal that we got it that competing in the trenches fundamentally depends on such anchors. It has been discouraging this season to see McLaughlin buried on the depth chart in favor of a younger and clearly worse player. I don’t believe there is a credible case that second year Baklenko can do the job like fifth year McLaughlin. [PFF is not infallible but the delta between the two is significant enough that in my view it’s incontrovertible: among 854 OL McLaughlin is #469 and Baklenko is #759; last year in a bigger data set and without McLaughlin benched, among 848 OL McLaughlin was #378 and Baklenko was #781.] I believe Baklenko is playing BECAUSE he is a second year player. We are falling in love with the idea of this “young” (by our own making) OL developing and being better in future years than they are now. The problem is that the guys we’re building around - Pale, Baklenko, House - likely won’t be at Stanford long enough for it to really pay off because we’ve (by our own making) shaved years off their careers by burning the redshirts. And that’s not to even mention that Pale and Baklenko aren’t improving enough that one should have confidence they will ever be great under this coaching. I am really struggling to see what the theory or trajectory is that will give us a competitive OL in 2025, 2026, 2027, unless it’s transfer ex machina. 

Yes, I do think we should talk about whether Netter and Talamaivao and, yes, Taylor, should keep their jobs. Not showing much. But for what it’s worth my point on trusting in the coaches being an arrogant and ignorant view wasn’t about these coaches per se. Rather, the idea you can develop a good OL as a reliable and sustainable strategy is itself arrogant and ignorant. What happens is players get old enough to be good and coaches then take credit for that “development.” I’d rather have a line studded with seniors and super seniors than have a “good” coach. You have to be pretty damn good to overcome the overwhelming effect sheer age has in the trenches.

[msqueri]

1729480606[/url]']


I do agree with you totally that the good OLs in college football are populated by "old men". Freshmen/Sophomores (18/19 year olds mostly) just aren't physically mature/strong enough to compete with "upperclassmen". Most "really good" teams have a mixture of 21-23 year olds, with more on the older end. Of course there are exceptions, but in general that is the case.

I would like to know why you are so certain that TT doesn't in general value mature players and doesn't want to do the things necessary to keep them. Given how poorly the OL has played in the past two years I would guess that retaining upperclassman has not been a priority. You say that TT believes his assistants can identify and recruit OL that can be developed into good college players. You identify that belief as arrogant and ignorant. Since the job description of his assistants is to do exactly those things (which you believe they cannot) should they be replaced forthwith? If TT is so misguided in believing they can in fact do their job should he meet the same fate? It seems to me that is the only possible logical conclusion of your evaluation.

Benching a "proven" fifth year lineman has been discussed on this board a bit. I guess the question is whether his replacement(s) are "worse". If so, that is another "error" by TT. If not, why shouldn't he play the best players? Right now we are all endorsing replacing the junior Daniels with the freshman Brown, at least to evaluate which player is more effective. Why is that different? In both cases the answer may not be immediately obvious or a simple "yes/no".

I was quite encouraged in the off-season when we got Rogers, McLaughlin, and Phillips to come back and Patterson to transfer in for super senior years. That was a major development and I hoped a signal that we got it that competing in the trenches fundamentally depends on such anchors. It has been discouraging this season to see McLaughlin buried on the depth chart in favor of a younger and clearly worse player. I don’t believe there is a credible case that second year Baklenko can do the job like fifth year McLaughlin. [PFF is not infallible but the delta between the two is significant enough that in my view it’s incontrovertible: among 854 OL McLaughlin is #469 and Baklenko is #759; last year in a bigger data set and without McLaughlin benched, among 848 OL McLaughlin was #378 and Baklenko was #781.] I believe Baklenko is playing BECAUSE he is a second year player. We are falling in love with the idea of this “young” (by our own making) OL developing and being better in future years than they are now. The problem is that the guys we’re building around - Pale, Baklenko, House - likely won’t be at Stanford long enough for it to really pay off because we’ve (by our own making) shaved years off their careers by burning the redshirts. And that’s not to even mention that Pale and Baklenko aren’t improving enough that one should have confidence they will ever be great under this coaching. I am really struggling to see what the theory or trajectory is that will give us a competitive OL in 2025, 2026, 2027, unless it’s transfer ex machina. 

Yes, I do think we should talk about whether Netter and Talamaivao and, yes, Taylor, should keep their jobs. Not showing much. But for what it’s worth my point on trusting in the coaches being an arrogant and ignorant view wasn’t about these coaches per se. Rather, the idea you can develop a good OL as a reliable and sustainable strategy is itself arrogant and ignorant. What happens is players get old enough to be good and coaches then take credit for that “development.” I’d rather have a line studded with seniors and super seniors than have a “good” coach. You have to be pretty damn good to overcome the overwhelming effect sheer age has in the trenches.