[Goose]

As for an out of the box coach.  Great.  Show me where that has worked over a significant period of time at a major D-1 football program.  

To a certain extent, it worked at Stanford in 2007 with Harbaugh’s hire. We hired an FCS coach from a non-scholarship program who ran a pro-style offense with formations featuring 9 OL. We zigged while everyone else was zagging because we knew we had to be different to succeed. We used our uniqueness to topple the Oregon’s and USC’s of the world even though we couldn’t hold a candle to those programs in terms of resources.

IMO you are exactly correct. EUTM also was a factor. However, it must be said that JH also had the good fortune of already having Toby on his squad and in successfully recruiting some OL that were not merely good players but also good leaders. They helped form the culture.

Fast forward to 2024 and you can make the argument that the institutional disadvantages for Stanford are bigger than they were in 2007 as a result of NIL, the portal, etc.

Agree. Some of these things can be "fixed" through actions Stanford can actually take. Others cannot.

The “zig” of loading up on OL and an elite pocket passing QB is no longer big enough to compensate for those institutional disadvantages.

Disagree. The fact is that Stanford progressively lost the ability to "load up" on OL culminating in the last two years of David Shaw's tenure where our lines were simply not good. Coaching turnover was part of it, but the root cause is still unknown. We are still acutely suffering from this issue. Tanner McKee was the last QB Stanford successfully recruited that can be even remotely considered "elite". What we have playing now is anything but.

For these reasons we can't know if loading up on OL and having an elite passing QB is "enough" because right now we can't do it. The institutional disadvantages may have rendered so doing impossible, but we haven't "proven" that to be the case. The approach itself may still be fine. We would however need to find a coach that can execute that approach. So far TT is definitely not that and schematically doesn't want to be that. However, until he gets an OL it won't matter one whit what he wants to do schematically :-).

The “zig” has to be bigger for us to succeed nowadays. Like Billy Beane’s Moneyball.

Is it guaranteed to work? No. Credit to Presbyterian for hiring the Arkansas HS coach who never punted a few years ago. That failed miserably. But they dared to be great and didn’t settle for the easy way out (e.g. just hiring the coach from up the street who’s had some success at a lower level).

Stanford is an institution that dares to be great. Rather than sell our soul to the NIL gods or sacrifice our academics to slum it in the portal (options which are moot anyway because the powers that be won’t allow it), I’d rather dare to be great in our hiring process. Sadly, Muir is woefully unequipped to handle that task.

I mostly agree that "daring to be great" in the hiring process is what Stanford needs to do. However, be aware that may mean hiring a conservative coach that wants to run the ball and play defense a lot. It may not be flashy. Sometimes hiring a coach from just down the street (in San Diego) who had success at a lower level is the right thing to do. Hiring a coach that can lead a team out of the wilderness isn't easy. Most coaching hires fail to accomplish their goal. I agree Muir isn't the guy to do that hiring. However, "good" ADs don't grow on trees either.

[Goose]

As for an out of the box coach.  Great.  Show me where that has worked over a significant period of time at a major D-1 football program.  

To a certain extent, it worked at Stanford in 2007 with Harbaugh’s hire. We hired an FCS coach from a non-scholarship program who ran a pro-style offense with formations featuring 9 OL. We zigged while everyone else was zagging because we knew we had to be different to succeed. We used our uniqueness to topple the Oregon’s and USC’s of the world even though we couldn’t hold a candle to those programs in terms of resources.

IMO you are exactly correct. EUTM also was a factor. However, it must be said that JH also had the good fortune of already having Toby on his squad and in successfully recruiting some OL that were not merely good players but also good leaders. They helped form the culture.

Fast forward to 2024 and you can make the argument that the institutional disadvantages for Stanford are bigger than they were in 2007 as a result of NIL, the portal, etc.

Agree. Some of these things can be "fixed" through actions Stanford can actually take. Others cannot.

The “zig” of loading up on OL and an elite pocket passing QB is no longer big enough to compensate for those institutional disadvantages.

Disagree. The fact is that Stanford progressively lost the ability to "load up" on OL culminating in the last two years of David Shaw's tenure where our lines were simply not good. Coaching turnover was part of it, but the root cause is still unknown. We are still acutely suffering from this issue. Tanner McKee was the last QB Stanford successfully recruited that can be even remotely considered "elite". What we have playing now is anything but.

For these reasons we can't know if loading up on OL and having an elite passing QB is "enough" because right now we can't do it. The institutional disadvantages may have rendered so doing impossible, but we haven't "proven" that to be the case. The approach itself may still be fine. We would however need to find a coach that can execute that approach. So far TT is definitely not that and schematically doesn't want to be that. However, until he gets an OL it won't matter one whit what he wants to do schematically :-).

The “zig” has to be bigger for us to succeed nowadays. Like Billy Beane’s Moneyball.

Is it guaranteed to work? No. Credit to Presbyterian for hiring the Arkansas HS coach who never punted a few years ago. That failed miserably. But they dared to be great and didn’t settle for the easy way out (e.g. just hiring the coach from up the street who’s had some success at a lower level).

Stanford is an institution that dares to be great. Rather than sell our soul to the NIL gods or sacrifice our academics to slum it in the portal (options which are moot anyway because the powers that be won’t allow it), I’d rather dare to be great in our hiring process. Sadly, Muir is woefully unequipped to handle that task.

I mostly agree that "daring to be great" in the hiring process is what Stanford needs to do. However, be aware that may mean hiring a conservative coach that wants to run the ball and play defense a lot. It may not be flashy. Sometimes hiring a coach from just down the street (in San Diego) who had success at a lower level is the right thing to do. Hiring a coach that can lead a team out of the wilderness isn't easy. Most coaching hires fail to accomplish their goal. I agree Muir isn't the guy to do that hiring. However, "good" ADs don't grow on trees either.