[Hulk01]

I posted elsewhere Football Outsiders offensive line rankings/statistics.  These statistic suggest the significant decline in Stanford’s offensive line beginning in 2014.

Football Outsiders also suggests that Stanford’s defensive line has declined dramatically, too, beginning the following season.

Here are FO's ranking for the Stanford’s defensive lines in the category adjusted (for strength of opponent) yards allowed per play:
2014:  15
2015:  88
2016:  22
2017:  74
2018:  89

And our ranking for adjusted sack percentage (sacks as a percentage of all pass attempts, sacks counted as an attempt)
2014:  8
2015:  105
2016:  17
2017:  74
2018:  89

A somewhat related stat, our ranking for percentage of runs stopped for no gain or a loss--"stuffs":
2014:  49
2015:  70
2016:  112
2017:  104
2018:  114

You might call this “harm minimization”—our DL'’s ranking for percentage of runs stopped for less than a four-yard gain:
2014:  18
2015:  71
2016:  83
2017:  108
2018:  97

Our two lines have declined significantly, the OL beginning in 2014 and the DL in 2015, the DL’s drop following the graduations of three-time All Pac Henry Anderson and David Parry, and exacerbated by the graduation of Blake Martinez, 

These collapses in our two lines’ performance predate the arrival of the current OL and DL coaches.  And the pl;ayers who comprise the offensive and defensive line for our two most recent Stanford teams were recruited almost entirely by our two previous line coaches and not the current ones.

Naturally, I welcome all responses, particularly reasonably kind ones.

[Hulk01]

I posted elsewhere Football Outsiders offensive line rankings/statistics.  These statistic suggest the significant decline in Stanford’s offensive line beginning in 2014.

Football Outsiders also suggests that Stanford’s defensive line has declined dramatically, too, beginning the following season.

Here are FO's ranking for the Stanford’s defensive lines in the category adjusted (for strength of opponent) yards allowed per play:
2014:  15
2015:  88
2016:  22
2017:  74
2018:  89

And our ranking for adjusted sack percentage (sacks as a percentage of all pass attempts, sacks counted as an attempt)
2014:  8
2015:  105
2016:  17
2017:  74
2018:  89

A somewhat related stat, our ranking for percentage of runs stopped for no gain or a loss--"stuffs":
2014:  49
2015:  70
2016:  112
2017:  104
2018:  114

You might call this “harm minimization”—our DL'’s ranking for percentage of runs stopped for less than a four-yard gain:
2014:  18
2015:  71
2016:  83
2017:  108
2018:  97

Our two lines have declined significantly, the OL beginning in 2014 and the DL in 2015, the DL’s drop following the graduations of three-time All Pac Henry Anderson and David Parry, and exacerbated by the graduation of Blake Martinez, 

These collapses in our two lines’ performance predate the arrival of the current OL and DL coaches.  And the pl;ayers who comprise the offensive and defensive line for our two most recent Stanford teams were recruited almost entirely by our two previous line coaches and not the current ones.

Naturally, I welcome all responses, particularly reasonably kind ones.

[Mick]

Naturally, I welcome all responses, particularly reasonably kind ones.

The cacaphony of silence suggests that your study has been met with incredulity and despair.  Or indifference.  Hard to tell the difference, some days.

[Mick]

Naturally, I welcome all responses, particularly reasonably kind ones.

The cacaphony of silence suggests that your study has been met with incredulity and despair.  Or indifference.  Hard to tell the difference, some days.

[Hulk01]

Okay, here's the good news.

The DL is slowly improving and doing it with puppies.  Next year's DL could actually be above average and trending upward as the season progresses.

Booker, a true freshman, has shown enough that he replaced a third-year player, Swann, at starting DE.
Thomas can move
Andres Fox has shown enough explosiveness as a true freshman that the staff is throwing him in sack situations.
Fox can really move.
Williams has improved significantly this year, even dramatically.
Swann and Jackson will be a year smarter and stronger, and know they will have to push to get many reps.
Wade-Perry will be in his third year and could push for playing time. 
We will be able to confidently rotate five DLs, which is all you need in a 3-5 that plays a good amount of 2-4 nickels,
That should keep us fresher and stronger in second halves.

The DL will be significantly better next year.  The pass rush, supplimented by Toohill, Reid, and Fox, could be very good.

[Hulk01]

Okay, here's the good news.

The DL is slowly improving and doing it with puppies.  Next year's DL could actually be above average and trending upward as the season progresses.

Booker, a true freshman, has shown enough that he replaced a third-year player, Swann, at starting DE.
Thomas can move
Andres Fox has shown enough explosiveness as a true freshman that the staff is throwing him in sack situations.
Fox can really move.
Williams has improved significantly this year, even dramatically.
Swann and Jackson will be a year smarter and stronger, and know they will have to push to get many reps.
Wade-Perry will be in his third year and could push for playing time. 
We will be able to confidently rotate five DLs, which is all you need in a 3-5 that plays a good amount of 2-4 nickels,
That should keep us fresher and stronger in second halves.

The DL will be significantly better next year.  The pass rush, supplimented by Toohill, Reid, and Fox, could be very good.

[2006alum]

Naturally, I welcome all responses, particularly reasonably kind ones.

The cacaphony of silence suggests that your study has been met with incredulity and despair.  Or indifference.  Hard to tell the difference, some days.

Monday morning is a hard sell for deep, thoughtful responses. And I often read silence in response to especially persuasive posts as implying tacit agreement. As Senator Moynihan once said, and contra everything that is our current political environment, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Hard to argue with the facts Hulk laid out.

[2006alum]

Naturally, I welcome all responses, particularly reasonably kind ones.

The cacaphony of silence suggests that your study has been met with incredulity and despair.  Or indifference.  Hard to tell the difference, some days.

Monday morning is a hard sell for deep, thoughtful responses. And I often read silence in response to especially persuasive posts as implying tacit agreement. As Senator Moynihan once said, and contra everything that is our current political environment, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Hard to argue with the facts Hulk laid out.

[Austroturf]

Good analysis.  

I read this as an implicit indictment of the prior O-line and D-line coaches.  As I stated in a different thread, it is legitimate to conclude that Randy Hart's recruiting was not as good as recruiting under Anderson/Durkin.  But for the six years he was in charge (2010-2015), the D-line was a strength of the team.  I also noted the drop-off between 2014 and 2015; but we didn't really notice so much because our offense with Hogan and McCaffrey overshadowed this defect on the other side of the ball.  Still, Hart's D-lines performed very well through our "stretch of excellence", which included five BCS bowls in six years.  

Bloomgren joined in 2011 during Shaw's first year.  I am not sure whether you have done a year-by-year recruiting analysis of the players Bloomgren recruited vs. the ones he inherited and whether there has been a significant fall-off from the pre-Bloomgren recruiting years.  He seemed to be able to attract strong talent (Sarrell and Little were both 5-star in their class), but I don't have the complete overview.  Nonetheless, the performance of the O-line, as you note, was strong through 2013, then began to soften.  The part I don't understand is that we had a reasonably functional O-line last year that was opening up running lanes for Love.  As you note elsewhere, Love's explosiveness masked some O-line issues we were having, because we had a lot of big runs and a bunch of nothing runs.  This year, we have almost only nothing runs, which indicates a further deterioration in O-line play with basically the same players.  If Carberry is better than Bloomgren, then he should have been able to make more out of this unit (accepting, of course, that there have been more injuries this year).  In my view, the jury is still out on Carberry, but it is not an auspicious beginning; and I will be curious to see what kind of recruiting class he produces.  

Bottom-line: we have a problem on both lines; and the Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football has some work to do.  Ultimately, the buck stops with him.

[Austroturf]

Good analysis.  

I read this as an implicit indictment of the prior O-line and D-line coaches.  As I stated in a different thread, it is legitimate to conclude that Randy Hart's recruiting was not as good as recruiting under Anderson/Durkin.  But for the six years he was in charge (2010-2015), the D-line was a strength of the team.  I also noted the drop-off between 2014 and 2015; but we didn't really notice so much because our offense with Hogan and McCaffrey overshadowed this defect on the other side of the ball.  Still, Hart's D-lines performed very well through our "stretch of excellence", which included five BCS bowls in six years.  

Bloomgren joined in 2011 during Shaw's first year.  I am not sure whether you have done a year-by-year recruiting analysis of the players Bloomgren recruited vs. the ones he inherited and whether there has been a significant fall-off from the pre-Bloomgren recruiting years.  He seemed to be able to attract strong talent (Sarrell and Little were both 5-star in their class), but I don't have the complete overview.  Nonetheless, the performance of the O-line, as you note, was strong through 2013, then began to soften.  The part I don't understand is that we had a reasonably functional O-line last year that was opening up running lanes for Love.  As you note elsewhere, Love's explosiveness masked some O-line issues we were having, because we had a lot of big runs and a bunch of nothing runs.  This year, we have almost only nothing runs, which indicates a further deterioration in O-line play with basically the same players.  If Carberry is better than Bloomgren, then he should have been able to make more out of this unit (accepting, of course, that there have been more injuries this year).  In my view, the jury is still out on Carberry, but it is not an auspicious beginning; and I will be curious to see what kind of recruiting class he produces.  

Bottom-line: we have a problem on both lines; and the Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football has some work to do.  Ultimately, the buck stops with him.

[ChicagoCard]

Okay, here's the good news.

The DL is slowly improving and doing it with puppies.  Next year's DL could actually be above average and trending upward as the season progresses.

Booker, a true freshman, has shown enough that he replaced a third-year player, Swann, at starting DE.
Thomas can move
Andres Fox has shown enough explosiveness as a true freshman that the staff is throwing him in sack situations.
Fox can really move.
Williams has improved significantly this year, even dramatically.
Swann and Jackson will be a year smarter and stronger, and know they will have to push to get many reps.
Wade-Perry will be in his third year and could push for playing time. 
We will be able to confidently rotate five DLs, which is all you need in a 3-5 that plays a good amount of 2-4 nickels,
That should keep us fresher and stronger in second halves.

The DL will be significantly better next year.  The pass rush, supplimented by Toohill, Reid, and Fox, could be very good.

I've been thinking and hoping what you lay out here... It's great to see this post. Let's hope there's not a problem at ILB.

[ChicagoCard]

Okay, here's the good news.

The DL is slowly improving and doing it with puppies.  Next year's DL could actually be above average and trending upward as the season progresses.

Booker, a true freshman, has shown enough that he replaced a third-year player, Swann, at starting DE.
Thomas can move
Andres Fox has shown enough explosiveness as a true freshman that the staff is throwing him in sack situations.
Fox can really move.
Williams has improved significantly this year, even dramatically.
Swann and Jackson will be a year smarter and stronger, and know they will have to push to get many reps.
Wade-Perry will be in his third year and could push for playing time. 
We will be able to confidently rotate five DLs, which is all you need in a 3-5 that plays a good amount of 2-4 nickels,
That should keep us fresher and stronger in second halves.

The DL will be significantly better next year.  The pass rush, supplimented by Toohill, Reid, and Fox, could be very good.

I've been thinking and hoping what you lay out here... It's great to see this post. Let's hope there's not a problem at ILB.

[BostonCard]

Okay, here's the good news.

The DL is slowly improving and doing it with puppies.  Next year's DL could actually be above average and trending upward as the season progresses.

Booker, a true freshman, has shown enough that he replaced a third-year player, Swann, at starting DE.
Thomas can move
Andres Fox has shown enough explosiveness as a true freshman that the staff is throwing him in sack situations.
Fox can really move.
Williams has improved significantly this year, even dramatically.
Swann and Jackson will be a year smarter and stronger, and know they will have to push to get many reps.
Wade-Perry will be in his third year and could push for playing time. 
We will be able to confidently rotate five DLs, which is all you need in a 3-5 that plays a good amount of 2-4 nickels,
That should keep us fresher and stronger in second halves.

The DL will be significantly better next year.  The pass rush, supplimented by Toohill, Reid, and Fox, could be very good.

I've been thinking and hoping what you lay out here... It's great to see this post. Let's hope there's not a problem at ILB.

For there not to be a problem with ILB, we will need contributions from true freshmen or redshirt freshmen next year.  And by “contributions”, I mean “they may need to start”.

BC

[BostonCard]

Okay, here's the good news.

The DL is slowly improving and doing it with puppies.  Next year's DL could actually be above average and trending upward as the season progresses.

Booker, a true freshman, has shown enough that he replaced a third-year player, Swann, at starting DE.
Thomas can move
Andres Fox has shown enough explosiveness as a true freshman that the staff is throwing him in sack situations.
Fox can really move.
Williams has improved significantly this year, even dramatically.
Swann and Jackson will be a year smarter and stronger, and know they will have to push to get many reps.
Wade-Perry will be in his third year and could push for playing time. 
We will be able to confidently rotate five DLs, which is all you need in a 3-5 that plays a good amount of 2-4 nickels,
That should keep us fresher and stronger in second halves.

The DL will be significantly better next year.  The pass rush, supplimented by Toohill, Reid, and Fox, could be very good.

I've been thinking and hoping what you lay out here... It's great to see this post. Let's hope there's not a problem at ILB.

For there not to be a problem with ILB, we will need contributions from true freshmen or redshirt freshmen next year.  And by “contributions”, I mean “they may need to start”.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

You don't see deterioration on both lines, injuries piling up, and record getting worse for any other reason than the guy in charge is slipping, or couldn't sustain what his predecessor built. There were many people who claimed Shaw's success was a product of what Harbaugh put in place, and when there were no Harbaugh connections, Shaw would not be able to sustain Stanford's football success.  I doubted those people, but it's starting to look like they may have been correct. Another real worry is nobody is coming after Stanford for coaches any longer.  Sure Bloomgren got Rice, but I don't see any Stanford coaches being hot commodities, nor do I see any young up and coming coordinators or assistants. And not only has Stanford started slipping under Shaw, but Harbaugh got the Niners to 3 straight NFC Championship Games, and now has Michigan poised for the CFP.  

Shaw needs to hire new coordinators and get out of their way. The way you do this, is yes, do what Harbaugh would do. He would not at all be satisfied with his team's defensive performance and would look at this:
http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/nati...ort01.html and he would hire the most available guy closest to the top of the list.

This is how Don Brown got to Michigan. Harbaugh had no clue who he was and didn't know him until offering him a job after looking at this: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/leader/nati...ort01.html and said "I'm gonna hire the BC DC." The good news is 3/6 of the top teams in fewest points allowed in 2018 are at G5 schools, and conceivably available.  Shaw needs to hire one of them. UAB, Fresno, and Cincinnati all have DCs who would gladly take a job at Stanford.

I understand Lance Anderson has done a lot for Stanford, but the head coach has to make tough decisions, and more importantly, hold coaches accountable when they don't perform. Parting with Anderson would be tough, but his unit has been steadily declining. This is what elite coaches do because they are so driven to win. Bringing in a new OC to challenge Shaw's thinking can also be beneficial, because it would show he is less concerned about his own comfort than he wants to win.

As far as the DL specifically goes, I thought getting Booker and Fox last year was absolutely essential for Stanford to have any chance at competing for future championships. Ryan Johnson, Thomas Booker, Andres Fox, Stephon Herron Jr., and Josh Pakola provide Stanford some depth of athletes at the DL position it sorely needs, and with Williams, DWP, Swann, and Peek returning next year, the DL material looks promising. But they must be coached up and put in positions to maximize their ability.

[OutsiderFan]

You don't see deterioration on both lines, injuries piling up, and record getting worse for any other reason than the guy in charge is slipping, or couldn't sustain what his predecessor built. There were many people who claimed Shaw's success was a product of what Harbaugh put in place, and when there were no Harbaugh connections, Shaw would not be able to sustain Stanford's football success.  I doubted those people, but it's starting to look like they may have been correct. Another real worry is nobody is coming after Stanford for coaches any longer.  Sure Bloomgren got Rice, but I don't see any Stanford coaches being hot commodities, nor do I see any young up and coming coordinators or assistants. And not only has Stanford started slipping under Shaw, but Harbaugh got the Niners to 3 straight NFC Championship Games, and now has Michigan poised for the CFP.  

Shaw needs to hire new coordinators and get out of their way. The way you do this, is yes, do what Harbaugh would do. He would not at all be satisfied with his team's defensive performance and would look at this:
http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/nati...ort01.html and he would hire the most available guy closest to the top of the list.

This is how Don Brown got to Michigan. Harbaugh had no clue who he was and didn't know him until offering him a job after looking at this: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/leader/nati...ort01.html and said "I'm gonna hire the BC DC." The good news is 3/6 of the top teams in fewest points allowed in 2018 are at G5 schools, and conceivably available.  Shaw needs to hire one of them. UAB, Fresno, and Cincinnati all have DCs who would gladly take a job at Stanford.

I understand Lance Anderson has done a lot for Stanford, but the head coach has to make tough decisions, and more importantly, hold coaches accountable when they don't perform. Parting with Anderson would be tough, but his unit has been steadily declining. This is what elite coaches do because they are so driven to win. Bringing in a new OC to challenge Shaw's thinking can also be beneficial, because it would show he is less concerned about his own comfort than he wants to win.

As far as the DL specifically goes, I thought getting Booker and Fox last year was absolutely essential for Stanford to have any chance at competing for future championships. Ryan Johnson, Thomas Booker, Andres Fox, Stephon Herron Jr., and Josh Pakola provide Stanford some depth of athletes at the DL position it sorely needs, and with Williams, DWP, Swann, and Peek returning next year, the DL material looks promising. But they must be coached up and put in positions to maximize their ability.

[winflop]

You don't see deterioration on both lines, injuries piling up, and record getting worse for any other reason than the guy in charge is slipping, or couldn't sustain what his predecessor built. There were many people who claimed Shaw's success was a product of what Harbaugh put in place, and when there were no Harbaugh connections, Shaw would not be able to sustain Stanford's football success.  I doubted those people, but it's starting to look like they may have been correct. Another real worry is nobody is coming after Stanford for coaches any longer.  Sure Bloomgren got Rice, but I don't see any Stanford coaches being hot commodities, nor do I see any young up and coming coordinators or assistants. And not only has Stanford started slipping under Shaw, but Harbaugh got the Niners to 3 straight NFC Championship Games, and now has Michigan poised for the CFP.  

Shaw needs to hire new coordinators and get out of their way. The way you do this, is yes, do what Harbaugh would do. He would not at all be satisfied with his team's defensive performance and would look at this:
http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/nati...ort01.html and he would hire the most available guy closest to the top of the list.

This is how Don Brown got to Michigan. Harbaugh had no clue who he was and didn't know him until offering him a job after looking at this: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/leader/nati...ort01.html and said "I'm gonna hire the BC DC." The good news is 3/6 of the top teams in fewest points allowed in 2018 are at G5 schools, and conceivably available.  Shaw needs to hire one of them. UAB, Fresno, and Cincinnati all have DCs who would gladly take a job at Stanford.

I understand Lance Anderson has done a lot for Stanford, but the head coach has to make tough decisions, and more importantly, hold coaches accountable when they don't perform.  Parting with Anderson would be tough, but his unit has been steadily declining. This is what elite coaches do because they are so driven to win. Bringing in a new OC to challenge Shaw's thinking can also be beneficial, because it would show he is less concerned about his own comfort than he wants to win.

As far as the DL specifically goes, I thought getting Booker and Fox last year was absolutely essential for Stanford to have any chance at competing for future championships. Ryan Johnson, Thomas Booker, Andres Fox, Stephon Herron Jr., and Josh Pakola provide Stanford some depth of athletes at the DL position it sorely needs, and with Williams, DWP, Swann, and Peek returning next year, the DL material looks promising. But they must be coached up and put in positions to maximize their ability.

I am less worried about the D than I am about the O. If any coordinator needs to go, it's the fanboy hero. Shaw probably won't get rid of either one, but there's no way he gets rid of both.

The decline in OL performance somewhat coincides with Bloomgren's promotion to the dual OC/OL role. I never understood that one. OL is the lynchpin of the offense, and to have it coached on a part-time basis was always a big issue for me. Thanks Hulk for clarifying the impact with stats.

[winflop]

You don't see deterioration on both lines, injuries piling up, and record getting worse for any other reason than the guy in charge is slipping, or couldn't sustain what his predecessor built. There were many people who claimed Shaw's success was a product of what Harbaugh put in place, and when there were no Harbaugh connections, Shaw would not be able to sustain Stanford's football success.  I doubted those people, but it's starting to look like they may have been correct. Another real worry is nobody is coming after Stanford for coaches any longer.  Sure Bloomgren got Rice, but I don't see any Stanford coaches being hot commodities, nor do I see any young up and coming coordinators or assistants. And not only has Stanford started slipping under Shaw, but Harbaugh got the Niners to 3 straight NFC Championship Games, and now has Michigan poised for the CFP.  

Shaw needs to hire new coordinators and get out of their way. The way you do this, is yes, do what Harbaugh would do. He would not at all be satisfied with his team's defensive performance and would look at this:
http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/nati...ort01.html and he would hire the most available guy closest to the top of the list.

This is how Don Brown got to Michigan. Harbaugh had no clue who he was and didn't know him until offering him a job after looking at this: http://www.cfbstats.com/2015/leader/nati...ort01.html and said "I'm gonna hire the BC DC." The good news is 3/6 of the top teams in fewest points allowed in 2018 are at G5 schools, and conceivably available.  Shaw needs to hire one of them. UAB, Fresno, and Cincinnati all have DCs who would gladly take a job at Stanford.

I understand Lance Anderson has done a lot for Stanford, but the head coach has to make tough decisions, and more importantly, hold coaches accountable when they don't perform.  Parting with Anderson would be tough, but his unit has been steadily declining. This is what elite coaches do because they are so driven to win. Bringing in a new OC to challenge Shaw's thinking can also be beneficial, because it would show he is less concerned about his own comfort than he wants to win.

As far as the DL specifically goes, I thought getting Booker and Fox last year was absolutely essential for Stanford to have any chance at competing for future championships. Ryan Johnson, Thomas Booker, Andres Fox, Stephon Herron Jr., and Josh Pakola provide Stanford some depth of athletes at the DL position it sorely needs, and with Williams, DWP, Swann, and Peek returning next year, the DL material looks promising. But they must be coached up and put in positions to maximize their ability.

I am less worried about the D than I am about the O. If any coordinator needs to go, it's the fanboy hero. Shaw probably won't get rid of either one, but there's no way he gets rid of both.

The decline in OL performance somewhat coincides with Bloomgren's promotion to the dual OC/OL role. I never understood that one. OL is the lynchpin of the offense, and to have it coached on a part-time basis was always a big issue for me. Thanks Hulk for clarifying the impact with stats.

[Goose]

I am less worried about the D than I am about the O. If any coordinator needs to go, it's the fanboy hero. Shaw probably won't get rid of either one, but there's no way he gets rid of both.

The decline in OL performance somewhat coincides with Bloomgren's promotion to the dual OC/OL role. I never understood that one. OL is the lynchpin of the offense, and to have it coached on a part-time basis was always a big issue for me. Thanks Hulk for clarifying the impact with stats.

Hulk provided the statement of the problem. It is up to Shaw (and the people on the staff) to figure out how to fix it. However, I see no evidence whatsoever  that the current OC is significantly responsible for the OL declining over a time period where he had essentially no input into it's coaching. That is, IMHO, simply not logical.
If you want to blame Pritchard for something, it would have to be the Burns/Chryst situation. That was on his watch as QB coach, at least to a large degree. At the same time, you would have to give him credit for KJ Costello developing pretty nicely. It seems from your "fanboy" reference that you think that Pritchard lacks the credentials to be Stanford's OC. That is a reasonable argument, IMHO. His experience is all at Stanford and is limited. However, I would say that given the fact that he has been OC for a very short time, and given the fact he has been forced by having no run game to change the offensive focus of the team, it is hard to say he has done a "bad" job. One could ask why the change in focus didn't come earlier. For all we know, Pritchard told Shaw that they had big problems running the ball back in the spring and Shaw simply didn't believe it. I didn't see anybody on this board, myself included, arguing that in July. In fact, the OL was supposed to be great. So, maybe we do need somebody with more experience and better credentials. But not because that person didn't fix the OL two years ago.

[Goose]

I am less worried about the D than I am about the O. If any coordinator needs to go, it's the fanboy hero. Shaw probably won't get rid of either one, but there's no way he gets rid of both.

The decline in OL performance somewhat coincides with Bloomgren's promotion to the dual OC/OL role. I never understood that one. OL is the lynchpin of the offense, and to have it coached on a part-time basis was always a big issue for me. Thanks Hulk for clarifying the impact with stats.

Hulk provided the statement of the problem. It is up to Shaw (and the people on the staff) to figure out how to fix it. However, I see no evidence whatsoever  that the current OC is significantly responsible for the OL declining over a time period where he had essentially no input into it's coaching. That is, IMHO, simply not logical.
If you want to blame Pritchard for something, it would have to be the Burns/Chryst situation. That was on his watch as QB coach, at least to a large degree. At the same time, you would have to give him credit for KJ Costello developing pretty nicely. It seems from your "fanboy" reference that you think that Pritchard lacks the credentials to be Stanford's OC. That is a reasonable argument, IMHO. His experience is all at Stanford and is limited. However, I would say that given the fact that he has been OC for a very short time, and given the fact he has been forced by having no run game to change the offensive focus of the team, it is hard to say he has done a "bad" job. One could ask why the change in focus didn't come earlier. For all we know, Pritchard told Shaw that they had big problems running the ball back in the spring and Shaw simply didn't believe it. I didn't see anybody on this board, myself included, arguing that in July. In fact, the OL was supposed to be great. So, maybe we do need somebody with more experience and better credentials. But not because that person didn't fix the OL two years ago.

[Austroturf]

I am less worried about the D than I am about the O. If any coordinator needs to go, it's the fanboy hero. Shaw probably won't get rid of either one, but there's no way he gets rid of both.

The decline in OL performance somewhat coincides with Bloomgren's promotion to the dual OC/OL role. I never understood that one. OL is the lynchpin of the offense, and to have it coached on a part-time basis was always a big issue for me. Thanks Hulk for clarifying the impact with stats.

Hulk provided the statement of the problem. It is up to Shaw (and the people on the staff) to figure out how to fix it. However, I see no evidence whatsoever  that the current OC is significantly responsible for the OL declining over a time period where he had essentially no input into it's coaching. That is, IMHO, simply not logical.
If you want to blame Pritchard for something, it would have to be the Burns/Chryst situation. That was on his watch as QB coach, at least to a large degree. At the same time, you would have to give him credit for KJ Costello developing pretty nicely. It seems from your "fanboy" reference that you think that Pritchard lacks the credentials to be Stanford's OC. That is a reasonable argument, IMHO. His experience is all at Stanford and is limited. However, I would say that given the fact that he has been OC for a very short time, and given the fact he has been forced by having no run game to change the offensive focus of the team, it is hard to say he has done a "bad" job. One could ask why the change in focus didn't come earlier. For all we know, Pritchard told Shaw that they had big problems running the ball back in the spring and Shaw simply didn't believe it. I didn't see anybody on this board, myself included, arguing that in July. In fact, the OL was supposed to be great. So, maybe we do need somebody with more experience and better credentials. But not because that person didn't fix the OL two years ago.

I also would not indict Pritchard for our woes on the O-line.  The history of the decline is too long for Pritchard to be responsible.  That said, as Goose notes above, Pritchard was already in the cross-hairs for what appeared to be poor development of Burns and Chryst.  As QB coach, it was his job to accelerate the performance curve of these two 4-star recruits; and yet we struggled at this position for a year-and-a-half until the switch to KJ.  Before there was any indication that Bloomgren would leave, there were many voices calling for Pritchard's removal from the QB-coach position.  That he would then be promoted to OC in the wake of Bloomgren's departure shocked many Cardinal faithful (me included).  My gripe vis-a-vis the selection of Pritchard as OC is that he had scarcely proven himself a good QB coach and was then handed the keys to the entire offense.  He is a home-grown product with no experience outside the Stanford system.  Shaw had the opportunity to go out and hire a seasoned OC that would bring fresh blood into the system.  Instead, he promoted the familiar face from within and ensured that nothing would rock the boat.  Missed opportunity.  And this is nothing against Pritchard personally (indeed, he may have a bright future as a coach in NCAA football).  But he does not have the track record or the credentials to lead an entire offensive unit at a Power-Five school such as Stanford.

[Austroturf]

I am less worried about the D than I am about the O. If any coordinator needs to go, it's the fanboy hero. Shaw probably won't get rid of either one, but there's no way he gets rid of both.

The decline in OL performance somewhat coincides with Bloomgren's promotion to the dual OC/OL role. I never understood that one. OL is the lynchpin of the offense, and to have it coached on a part-time basis was always a big issue for me. Thanks Hulk for clarifying the impact with stats.

Hulk provided the statement of the problem. It is up to Shaw (and the people on the staff) to figure out how to fix it. However, I see no evidence whatsoever  that the current OC is significantly responsible for the OL declining over a time period where he had essentially no input into it's coaching. That is, IMHO, simply not logical.
If you want to blame Pritchard for something, it would have to be the Burns/Chryst situation. That was on his watch as QB coach, at least to a large degree. At the same time, you would have to give him credit for KJ Costello developing pretty nicely. It seems from your "fanboy" reference that you think that Pritchard lacks the credentials to be Stanford's OC. That is a reasonable argument, IMHO. His experience is all at Stanford and is limited. However, I would say that given the fact that he has been OC for a very short time, and given the fact he has been forced by having no run game to change the offensive focus of the team, it is hard to say he has done a "bad" job. One could ask why the change in focus didn't come earlier. For all we know, Pritchard told Shaw that they had big problems running the ball back in the spring and Shaw simply didn't believe it. I didn't see anybody on this board, myself included, arguing that in July. In fact, the OL was supposed to be great. So, maybe we do need somebody with more experience and better credentials. But not because that person didn't fix the OL two years ago.

I also would not indict Pritchard for our woes on the O-line.  The history of the decline is too long for Pritchard to be responsible.  That said, as Goose notes above, Pritchard was already in the cross-hairs for what appeared to be poor development of Burns and Chryst.  As QB coach, it was his job to accelerate the performance curve of these two 4-star recruits; and yet we struggled at this position for a year-and-a-half until the switch to KJ.  Before there was any indication that Bloomgren would leave, there were many voices calling for Pritchard's removal from the QB-coach position.  That he would then be promoted to OC in the wake of Bloomgren's departure shocked many Cardinal faithful (me included).  My gripe vis-a-vis the selection of Pritchard as OC is that he had scarcely proven himself a good QB coach and was then handed the keys to the entire offense.  He is a home-grown product with no experience outside the Stanford system.  Shaw had the opportunity to go out and hire a seasoned OC that would bring fresh blood into the system.  Instead, he promoted the familiar face from within and ensured that nothing would rock the boat.  Missed opportunity.  And this is nothing against Pritchard personally (indeed, he may have a bright future as a coach in NCAA football).  But he does not have the track record or the credentials to lead an entire offensive unit at a Power-Five school such as Stanford.

[Hulk01]

Lost in this discussion--losses do that to us fans--is our defensive line's improvement over the last month.

Williams looks better by the game.  Getting a strong push.  Jackson has more good moments. 

Our last three opponents have averaged 4.59 per carry (excluding sacks as rush attempts) this season.  Against us, they averaged 4.32.  That's a yard short of dominance--~45th in the country--but it's encouraging with a DL so young.  Factor in our current sack percentage ranking--31st--and it's possible to envision a strong front seven next fall.

[Hulk01]

Lost in this discussion--losses do that to us fans--is our defensive line's improvement over the last month.

Williams looks better by the game.  Getting a strong push.  Jackson has more good moments. 

Our last three opponents have averaged 4.59 per carry (excluding sacks as rush attempts) this season.  Against us, they averaged 4.32.  That's a yard short of dominance--~45th in the country--but it's encouraging with a DL so young.  Factor in our current sack percentage ranking--31st--and it's possible to envision a strong front seven next fall.

[slide]

some schedule benefits too over the last 3 games, including facing the 129th ranked rushing team in the country (Wazzu).  some progress by DL (and I liked the flip of 97 to the left side for a few snaps) but to me it is more a WIP.

[slide]

some schedule benefits too over the last 3 games, including facing the 129th ranked rushing team in the country (Wazzu).  some progress by DL (and I liked the flip of 97 to the left side for a few snaps) but to me it is more a WIP.

[Hulk01]

There is no schedule benefit here--these stats are relative--opponent adjusted--rather than absolute,  If we are holding opponents to fewer yards per carry than their average, we are performing better than average. The fact one of teams isn't very good at rushing isn't material.

[Hulk01]

There is no schedule benefit here--these stats are relative--opponent adjusted--rather than absolute,  If we are holding opponents to fewer yards per carry than their average, we are performing better than average. The fact one of teams isn't very good at rushing isn't material.

[slide]

great.  can you provide a link to your stats?  I am using cfbstats

[slide]

great.  can you provide a link to your stats?  I am using cfbstats

[BostonCard]

I've heard from more than one person that Pritchard is considered future head coaching material, and his rapid rise within the program is a testament to that. Yeah, some of that may be Shaw's reluctance to look externally (though he has done so for other positions, notably Akina (CB), Kennedy (WR), Alamar (special teams), Ron Gould (RB), as guys who have come in from outside). But a lot of it is that Pritchard is a hard worker, good recruiter, a good teacher, a football smart guy, and someone who exudes leadership (as was apparent back when he was a player).  I am long-term bullish on Pritchard's future.

HOWEVER, I am in agreement with others that for both Pritchard's and Stanford's benefit, it would be best if he "cross-polinated".  He's had a very insular exposure to football and coaching, serving as a QB, GA, QB/WR coach, and OC in the same system.  That means he's been exposed to a limited amount of offensive philosophies and has not really had an opportunity to be exposed to new concepts that he can then fold into his own approach to coaching.  So I think it would benefit him to go to a different system, where he can both learn and teach, expand his approach, and then come back to Stanford if the opportunity arises .  So, while I am long-term bullish on Pritchard, I am somewhat bearish on him in the short term, and I worry a bit that he's been promoted too fast and he is too tied to Stanford for him to be successful in the next few years.

BC

[BostonCard]

I've heard from more than one person that Pritchard is considered future head coaching material, and his rapid rise within the program is a testament to that. Yeah, some of that may be Shaw's reluctance to look externally (though he has done so for other positions, notably Akina (CB), Kennedy (WR), Alamar (special teams), Ron Gould (RB), as guys who have come in from outside). But a lot of it is that Pritchard is a hard worker, good recruiter, a good teacher, a football smart guy, and someone who exudes leadership (as was apparent back when he was a player).  I am long-term bullish on Pritchard's future.

HOWEVER, I am in agreement with others that for both Pritchard's and Stanford's benefit, it would be best if he "cross-polinated".  He's had a very insular exposure to football and coaching, serving as a QB, GA, QB/WR coach, and OC in the same system.  That means he's been exposed to a limited amount of offensive philosophies and has not really had an opportunity to be exposed to new concepts that he can then fold into his own approach to coaching.  So I think it would benefit him to go to a different system, where he can both learn and teach, expand his approach, and then come back to Stanford if the opportunity arises .  So, while I am long-term bullish on Pritchard, I am somewhat bearish on him in the short term, and I worry a bit that he's been promoted too fast and he is too tied to Stanford for him to be successful in the next few years.

BC

[Austroturf]

I've heard from more than one person that Pritchard is considered future head coaching material, and his rapid rise within the program is a testament to that. Yeah, some of that may be Shaw's reluctance to look externally (though he has done so for other positions, notably Akina (CB), Kennedy (WR), Alamar (special teams), Ron Gould (RB), as guys who have come in from outside). But a lot of it is that Pritchard is a hard worker, good recruiter, a good teacher, a football smart guy, and someone who exudes leadership (as was apparent back when he was a player).  I am long-term bullish on Pritchard's future.

HOWEVER, I am in agreement with others that for both Pritchard's and Stanford's benefit, it would be best if he "cross-polinated".  He's had a very insular exposure to football and coaching, serving as a QB, GA, QB/WR coach, and OC in the same system.  That means he's been exposed to a limited amount of offensive philosophies and has not really had an opportunity to be exposed to new concepts that he can then fold into his own approach to coaching.  So I think it would benefit him to go to a different system, where he can both learn and teach, expand his approach, and then come back to Stanford if the opportunity arises .  So, while I am long-term bullish on Pritchard, I am somewhat bearish on him in the short term, and I worry a bit that he's been promoted too fast and he is too tied to Stanford for him to be successful in the next few years.

BC

Your assessment is spot on.  If he is high potential, he needs to earn additional stripes at a different program and go get experience outside the hallowed halls of Shaw's kingdom.  I don't know anything about Pritchard's overall potential, but if he is really such a hot commodity, then he needs to go prove he can coach outside of Stanford and prepare himself for future, bigger opportunities.  The gentleman is in his early thirties and has only one university on his coaching resume.  Not enough.

[Austroturf]

I've heard from more than one person that Pritchard is considered future head coaching material, and his rapid rise within the program is a testament to that. Yeah, some of that may be Shaw's reluctance to look externally (though he has done so for other positions, notably Akina (CB), Kennedy (WR), Alamar (special teams), Ron Gould (RB), as guys who have come in from outside). But a lot of it is that Pritchard is a hard worker, good recruiter, a good teacher, a football smart guy, and someone who exudes leadership (as was apparent back when he was a player).  I am long-term bullish on Pritchard's future.

HOWEVER, I am in agreement with others that for both Pritchard's and Stanford's benefit, it would be best if he "cross-polinated".  He's had a very insular exposure to football and coaching, serving as a QB, GA, QB/WR coach, and OC in the same system.  That means he's been exposed to a limited amount of offensive philosophies and has not really had an opportunity to be exposed to new concepts that he can then fold into his own approach to coaching.  So I think it would benefit him to go to a different system, where he can both learn and teach, expand his approach, and then come back to Stanford if the opportunity arises .  So, while I am long-term bullish on Pritchard, I am somewhat bearish on him in the short term, and I worry a bit that he's been promoted too fast and he is too tied to Stanford for him to be successful in the next few years.

BC

Your assessment is spot on.  If he is high potential, he needs to earn additional stripes at a different program and go get experience outside the hallowed halls of Shaw's kingdom.  I don't know anything about Pritchard's overall potential, but if he is really such a hot commodity, then he needs to go prove he can coach outside of Stanford and prepare himself for future, bigger opportunities.  The gentleman is in his early thirties and has only one university on his coaching resume.  Not enough.

[Hulk01]

Use CFB, but you have to do a lot of your own math.

For each game, you have to take the opponent's listed runs and yards per run and then deduct sacks from the number of runs and add the lost sack yardage..  So you end up with fewer run attempts and more yards gained.

Then you have to do something similar with the opponents' season stats.  Take the total number of runs and yards gained, then go to sacks, look under opponent sacks, deduct the sacks from total runs and add the lost sack yardage into the running yardage.  And then, of course, divide the new yards gained by the new runs actually attempted.

Note that two of our three games before the last three weren't too bad.  We held Oregon and Utah below their season averages (by 0.15 and 0.22 yards per play), but got rolled by Notre Dame.  They averaged 5.30 against us but just 4.67 on the season.

[Hulk01]

Use CFB, but you have to do a lot of your own math.

For each game, you have to take the opponent's listed runs and yards per run and then deduct sacks from the number of runs and add the lost sack yardage..  So you end up with fewer run attempts and more yards gained.

Then you have to do something similar with the opponents' season stats.  Take the total number of runs and yards gained, then go to sacks, look under opponent sacks, deduct the sacks from total runs and add the lost sack yardage into the running yardage.  And then, of course, divide the new yards gained by the new runs actually attempted.

Note that two of our three games before the last three weren't too bad.  We held Oregon and Utah below their season averages (by 0.15 and 0.22 yards per play), but got rolled by Notre Dame.  They averaged 5.30 against us but just 4.67 on the season.

[ChicagoCard]

Can't wait to see the defensive line next year. If current verbally committed recruits stick, any prospects for one or two true freshmen to get snaps next yr? Altho maybe that isn't something to hope for.

[ChicagoCard]

Can't wait to see the defensive line next year. If current verbally committed recruits stick, any prospects for one or two true freshmen to get snaps next yr? Altho maybe that isn't something to hope for.

[slide]

HOWEVER, I am in agreement with others that for both Pritchard's and Stanford's benefit, it would be best if he "cross-polinated".  He's had a very insular exposure to football and coaching, serving as a QB, GA, QB/WR coach, and OC in the same system.  That means he's been exposed to a limited amount of offensive philosophies and has not really had an opportunity to be exposed to new concepts that he can then fold into his own approach to coaching.  So I think it would benefit him to go to a different system, where he can both learn and teach, expand his approach, and then come back to Stanford if the opportunity arises .  So, while I am long-term bullish on Pritchard, I am somewhat bearish on him in the short term, and I worry a bit that he's been promoted too fast and he is too tied to Stanford for him to be successful in the next few years.

BC

other than Gould, very limited offensive exposure to any other D-1 program, starting with Shaw.  same is true for recruiting as well.

[slide]

HOWEVER, I am in agreement with others that for both Pritchard's and Stanford's benefit, it would be best if he "cross-polinated".  He's had a very insular exposure to football and coaching, serving as a QB, GA, QB/WR coach, and OC in the same system.  That means he's been exposed to a limited amount of offensive philosophies and has not really had an opportunity to be exposed to new concepts that he can then fold into his own approach to coaching.  So I think it would benefit him to go to a different system, where he can both learn and teach, expand his approach, and then come back to Stanford if the opportunity arises .  So, while I am long-term bullish on Pritchard, I am somewhat bearish on him in the short term, and I worry a bit that he's been promoted too fast and he is too tied to Stanford for him to be successful in the next few years.

BC

other than Gould, very limited offensive exposure to any other D-1 program, starting with Shaw.  same is true for recruiting as well.