[BostonCard]

why don't we allow official visits in the spring?

Someone more knowledgeable than I please answer that.     

Yet another structural disadvantage for Stanford, however, is going to be the transfer portal.    Our competition gets a way to make up for a recruiting mistake or shortfall by taking in a transfer player.      E.g., Minshew at WSU or this years qb at UW.    With the notable exception of Brennan Scarlett, this is an option that we can rarely utilize to find an impact player.   

We may start finding that we’re sending Coach Shaw to play a golf match using a persimmon driver.

Coach's decision.

There is no institutional reason we can't bring players out in the spring for official visits.  The official reason that Shaw has given is that he wants the official visit to be an opportunity for future teammates to bond before coming to Stanford.

I think this is a mistake.  I think we lose out on players, particularly players outside of California and especially those of lower socioeconomic status.  Keeping "big visit" in the winter of players senior years made sense back in the day when there was a February signing day.  Now that most recruits sign in the fall, it no longer makes sense, and I think having recruits come out in the Spring of their Junior year to get them excited and improve our ability to sign them.  At least two players I know of have publicly lamented the fact that they could not take a visit before the fall signing, and I think at least (very highly rated) recruit eliminated us from consideration at least in part because he could not afford to take an unofficial visit.

I think there are a few relatively simple things that Shaw can and should do to improve recruiting:
1) Allow spring official visits
2) Increase the number of simultaneous offers; we still tend to offer our top target(s) and then move on to a back-up.  Often by the time the top target eliminates us, most of the highest quality back-ups have already committed elsewhere
3) Sign more players total

BC

[BostonCard]

why don't we allow official visits in the spring?

Someone more knowledgeable than I please answer that.     

Yet another structural disadvantage for Stanford, however, is going to be the transfer portal.    Our competition gets a way to make up for a recruiting mistake or shortfall by taking in a transfer player.      E.g., Minshew at WSU or this years qb at UW.    With the notable exception of Brennan Scarlett, this is an option that we can rarely utilize to find an impact player.   

We may start finding that we’re sending Coach Shaw to play a golf match using a persimmon driver.

Coach's decision.

There is no institutional reason we can't bring players out in the spring for official visits.  The official reason that Shaw has given is that he wants the official visit to be an opportunity for future teammates to bond before coming to Stanford.

I think this is a mistake.  I think we lose out on players, particularly players outside of California and especially those of lower socioeconomic status.  Keeping "big visit" in the winter of players senior years made sense back in the day when there was a February signing day.  Now that most recruits sign in the fall, it no longer makes sense, and I think having recruits come out in the Spring of their Junior year to get them excited and improve our ability to sign them.  At least two players I know of have publicly lamented the fact that they could not take a visit before the fall signing, and I think at least (very highly rated) recruit eliminated us from consideration at least in part because he could not afford to take an unofficial visit.

I think there are a few relatively simple things that Shaw can and should do to improve recruiting:
1) Allow spring official visits
2) Increase the number of simultaneous offers; we still tend to offer our top target(s) and then move on to a back-up.  Often by the time the top target eliminates us, most of the highest quality back-ups have already committed elsewhere
3) Sign more players total

BC

[Phogge]

I loved Red Sanders approach. Just give them cash in unmarked envelopes. Much less sordid than bringing in hookers like Louisville did.

[Phogge]

I loved Red Sanders approach. Just give them cash in unmarked envelopes. Much less sordid than bringing in hookers like Louisville did.

[Mick]

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I think a large part of what's gone wrong is a general shift in college football that massively disadvantages Stanford. We've touched on this before, but the 2011 NFL CBA that created the rookie wage scale made early entry smart for basically every player who can make a roster. It took a few seasons for everyone to realize that, but eventually they did. 

I wonder if Kaden Smith feels that way now?  Forewent his senior season, sixth round pick, waived by 49ers.  Current free agent.

---

I think there are a few relatively simple things that Shaw can and should do to improve recruiting:
1) Allow spring official visits
2) Increase the number of simultaneous offers; we still tend to offer our top target(s) and then move on to a back-up.  Often by the time the top target eliminates us, most of the highest quality back-ups have already committed elsewhere
3) Sign more players total.

I wonder if Coach Shaw has independently come to these same conclusions.

[Mick]

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I think a large part of what's gone wrong is a general shift in college football that massively disadvantages Stanford. We've touched on this before, but the 2011 NFL CBA that created the rookie wage scale made early entry smart for basically every player who can make a roster. It took a few seasons for everyone to realize that, but eventually they did. 

I wonder if Kaden Smith feels that way now?  Forewent his senior season, sixth round pick, waived by 49ers.  Current free agent.

---

I think there are a few relatively simple things that Shaw can and should do to improve recruiting:
1) Allow spring official visits
2) Increase the number of simultaneous offers; we still tend to offer our top target(s) and then move on to a back-up.  Often by the time the top target eliminates us, most of the highest quality back-ups have already committed elsewhere
3) Sign more players total.

I wonder if Coach Shaw has independently come to these same conclusions.

[qwerty49]

Ben Muth’s comment about not using the officials as a post-commit bonding tool is telling. I agree we shouldn’t spend that important energy on already-committed, largely self-selected recruits.

[qwerty49]

Ben Muth’s comment about not using the officials as a post-commit bonding tool is telling. I agree we shouldn’t spend that important energy on already-committed, largely self-selected recruits.

[slide]

Coach's decision.

There is no institutional reason we can't bring players out in the spring for official visits.  The official reason that Shaw has given is that he wants the official visit to be an opportunity for future teammates to bond before coming to Stanford.

this is Shaw's third take the spring OV question.  first, he was in favor of them.  then next he was still in favor of them, but logistically we were not prepared for them because of only 2 years notice.  now he opposes them to favor the committed January bonding OV track.  

good add on concurrent offers and play them out.  we lose a few recruits when discussions reach 6th and 7th semester class choices.

[slide]

Coach's decision.

There is no institutional reason we can't bring players out in the spring for official visits.  The official reason that Shaw has given is that he wants the official visit to be an opportunity for future teammates to bond before coming to Stanford.

this is Shaw's third take the spring OV question.  first, he was in favor of them.  then next he was still in favor of them, but logistically we were not prepared for them because of only 2 years notice.  now he opposes them to favor the committed January bonding OV track.  

good add on concurrent offers and play them out.  we lose a few recruits when discussions reach 6th and 7th semester class choices.

[oldalum]

The official reason that Shaw has given is that he wants the official visit to be an opportunity for future teammates to bond before coming to Stanford.

Thanks.
Bonding during the weeks of practices and games before school starts in the fall seems to work for the other fall sports.

[oldalum]

The official reason that Shaw has given is that he wants the official visit to be an opportunity for future teammates to bond before coming to Stanford.

Thanks.
Bonding during the weeks of practices and games before school starts in the fall seems to work for the other fall sports.

[BostonCard]

I wonder if Coach Shaw has independently come to these same conclusions.

I hope so, but I don’t see any evidence on the ground that this is so. As I’ve said before, I hope this year, if as bad as it is looking, will serve as a wake-up call.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wonder if Coach Shaw has independently come to these same conclusions.

I hope so, but I don’t see any evidence on the ground that this is so. As I’ve said before, I hope this year, if as bad as it is looking, will serve as a wake-up call.

BC

[SamuelMcF]

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I think a large part of what's gone wrong is a general shift in college football that massively disadvantages Stanford. We've touched on this before, but the 2011 NFL CBA that created the rookie wage scale made early entry smart for basically every player who can make a roster. It took a few seasons for everyone to realize that, but eventually they did. 

I wonder if Kaden Smith feels that way now?  Forewent his senior season, sixth round pick, waived by 49ers.  Current free agent.

I'm sure he felt great about it until he ran a 4.92 official 40 and his draft stock tanked multiple rounds. Teams usually keep mid-round picks who need development time. Not late-round ones.

Early draft entrants have continued to rise year after year, so it follows that more and more aren't going to stick.

[SamuelMcF]

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I think a large part of what's gone wrong is a general shift in college football that massively disadvantages Stanford. We've touched on this before, but the 2011 NFL CBA that created the rookie wage scale made early entry smart for basically every player who can make a roster. It took a few seasons for everyone to realize that, but eventually they did. 

I wonder if Kaden Smith feels that way now?  Forewent his senior season, sixth round pick, waived by 49ers.  Current free agent.

I'm sure he felt great about it until he ran a 4.92 official 40 and his draft stock tanked multiple rounds. Teams usually keep mid-round picks who need development time. Not late-round ones.

Early draft entrants have continued to rise year after year, so it follows that more and more aren't going to stick.

[yvonne]

I'm having a hard time taking some of the most sweeping criticism of Shaw seriously.  It reminds me of what was being said on this board after the Northwestern loss a couple of years ago.  Let me remind everyone:

1) Shaw has won more games than any other coach in 127 years of Stanford football history.

2) Shaw has been Pac 12 coach of the year 4 times.  Walsh and Willingham managed once, Harbaugh none.

3) Under Shaw, Stanford has won the Rose Bowl twice, after a 31 year drought.  

4) Shaw has managed all this while apparently upholding high academic standards and avoiding (or weeding out, in the case of Turley?) corruption in the program.

5) Shaw is an alum of our program and school, whose ability to personify the value of a Stanford education gives him a major advantage over nearly any possible replacement.

Shaw has certainly made mistakes, probably in recruiting, in trusting assistant coaches he should not have trusted (Bloomgren), in some game plans (MSU), in some play calls (numerous.)   I have no problem with criticizing particular mistakes--and I imagine Shaw doesn't either.  Does anyone here really believe that external criticism of Shaw is any harsher than the criticism he makes of himself? 

I'm reminded of the 2000s with Tara.  Was Tara a lesser coach during those years, when her team was not flying as high as it did in the decade earlier or the decade after?  Of course not.  The truth that fans don't want to hear is that at Stanford, coaches do not have complete control.  Recruiting is an imprecise science, there are unpredictable ups and downs, injuries take a toll.  A couple of unheralded recruits can prove to be special talents, or a couple of heralded recruits can turn out to be duds, and the whole complexion of a season changes.

Two bad games against rising star quarterbacks, in hostile territory and hostile weather, during a spate of injuries, does not convince me that Shaw is anything less that the same terrific coach we have watched perform miracles with the program for years.  A couple of losing seasons would be necessary to do that.  Let's keep things in perspective.

I'm as pro-Shaw as anyone, but changes need to be made: expand the brain trust and recruit for the style that brought you here. It's as though he's forgotten what he, himself said. Also, it's hard for me to look across the Bay and see the other team winning using that style while we've moved to "throw and hope." I don't want to return to the "cycle of suckage" in which we'd have a couple of 8-5 seasons in between 4-8 seasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBCkec9csdo

[yvonne]

I'm having a hard time taking some of the most sweeping criticism of Shaw seriously.  It reminds me of what was being said on this board after the Northwestern loss a couple of years ago.  Let me remind everyone:

1) Shaw has won more games than any other coach in 127 years of Stanford football history.

2) Shaw has been Pac 12 coach of the year 4 times.  Walsh and Willingham managed once, Harbaugh none.

3) Under Shaw, Stanford has won the Rose Bowl twice, after a 31 year drought.  

4) Shaw has managed all this while apparently upholding high academic standards and avoiding (or weeding out, in the case of Turley?) corruption in the program.

5) Shaw is an alum of our program and school, whose ability to personify the value of a Stanford education gives him a major advantage over nearly any possible replacement.

Shaw has certainly made mistakes, probably in recruiting, in trusting assistant coaches he should not have trusted (Bloomgren), in some game plans (MSU), in some play calls (numerous.)   I have no problem with criticizing particular mistakes--and I imagine Shaw doesn't either.  Does anyone here really believe that external criticism of Shaw is any harsher than the criticism he makes of himself? 

I'm reminded of the 2000s with Tara.  Was Tara a lesser coach during those years, when her team was not flying as high as it did in the decade earlier or the decade after?  Of course not.  The truth that fans don't want to hear is that at Stanford, coaches do not have complete control.  Recruiting is an imprecise science, there are unpredictable ups and downs, injuries take a toll.  A couple of unheralded recruits can prove to be special talents, or a couple of heralded recruits can turn out to be duds, and the whole complexion of a season changes.

Two bad games against rising star quarterbacks, in hostile territory and hostile weather, during a spate of injuries, does not convince me that Shaw is anything less that the same terrific coach we have watched perform miracles with the program for years.  A couple of losing seasons would be necessary to do that.  Let's keep things in perspective.

I'm as pro-Shaw as anyone, but changes need to be made: expand the brain trust and recruit for the style that brought you here. It's as though he's forgotten what he, himself said. Also, it's hard for me to look across the Bay and see the other team winning using that style while we've moved to "throw and hope." I don't want to return to the "cycle of suckage" in which we'd have a couple of 8-5 seasons in between 4-8 seasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBCkec9csdo

[Mick]

Early draft entrants have continued to rise year after year, so it follows that more and more aren't going to stick.

There were 106 in the 2018 draft and 135 in the 2019 draft.  That's quite a few.

[Mick]

Early draft entrants have continued to rise year after year, so it follows that more and more aren't going to stick.

There were 106 in the 2018 draft and 135 in the 2019 draft.  That's quite a few.

[cardcrimson]

The official reason that Shaw has given is that he wants the official visit to be an opportunity for future teammates to bond before coming to Stanford.

Thanks.
Bonding during the weeks of practices and games before school starts in the fall seems to work for the other fall sports.

Bonding?!? What a stupid reason! 

We redshirt freshmen-it's what we do. They have a year to bond. . . .unless the lack of a strength and conditioning program forces us to burn shirts. Even then Bondo will help more than bonding.

[cardcrimson]

The official reason that Shaw has given is that he wants the official visit to be an opportunity for future teammates to bond before coming to Stanford.

Thanks.
Bonding during the weeks of practices and games before school starts in the fall seems to work for the other fall sports.

Bonding?!? What a stupid reason! 

We redshirt freshmen-it's what we do. They have a year to bond. . . .unless the lack of a strength and conditioning program forces us to burn shirts. Even then Bondo will help more than bonding.

[OutsiderFan]

Before we get lost in the bigger picture recruiting stuff, let's not forget the need to overhaul the coaching staff. That is the first step to take that will demonstrate Shaw can make hard decisions.

If there is one thing I have learned from following the most successful coaches in college football, it is that they are willing to make themselves uncomfortable to get better.

On Defense: Fangio -> Mason -> Anderson were all internal promotion Defensive Coordinators.
On Offense: Shaw -> Bloomgren -> Pritchard were all internal promotion Offensive Coordinators.  

Shaw needs to make himself a little uncomfortable with some outside the family coordinators. If he isn't willing to make the most standard managerial decisions to improve performance, he isn't going to make the harder ones.

Vic Fangio once coached at Stanford. Where is the next Fangio level DC? Please hire an OC off of Kyle Shanahan's staff. He really knows how to scheme an offense and keep defenses off balance. I want someone from that coaching tree.

[OutsiderFan]

Before we get lost in the bigger picture recruiting stuff, let's not forget the need to overhaul the coaching staff. That is the first step to take that will demonstrate Shaw can make hard decisions.

If there is one thing I have learned from following the most successful coaches in college football, it is that they are willing to make themselves uncomfortable to get better.

On Defense: Fangio -> Mason -> Anderson were all internal promotion Defensive Coordinators.
On Offense: Shaw -> Bloomgren -> Pritchard were all internal promotion Offensive Coordinators.  

Shaw needs to make himself a little uncomfortable with some outside the family coordinators. If he isn't willing to make the most standard managerial decisions to improve performance, he isn't going to make the harder ones.

Vic Fangio once coached at Stanford. Where is the next Fangio level DC? Please hire an OC off of Kyle Shanahan's staff. He really knows how to scheme an offense and keep defenses off balance. I want someone from that coaching tree.

[SamuelMcF]

Before we get lost in the bigger picture recruiting stuff, let's not forget the need to overhaul the coaching staff. That is the first step to take that will demonstrate Shaw can make hard decisions.

If there is one thing I have learned from following the most successful coaches in college football, it is that they are willing to make themselves uncomfortable to get better.

On Defense: Fangio -> Mason -> Anderson were all internal promotion Defensive Coordinators.
On Offense: Shaw -> Bloomgren -> Pritchard were all internal promotion Offensive Coordinators.  

Shaw needs to make himself a little uncomfortable with some outside the family coordinators. If he isn't willing to make the most standard managerial decisions to improve performance, he isn't going to make the harder ones.

Vic Fangio once coached at Stanford. Where is the next Fangio level DC? Please hire an OC off of Kyle Shanahan's staff. He really knows how to scheme an offense and keep defenses off balance. I want someone from that coaching tree.

I suppose it's a start that all the newer position coaches come from outside the program.

Gould ('17): Cal RB/UC Davis HC (I LOVED this hire; Cal fans were furious)
Kennedy ('18): Iowa WR
Carberry ('18): Washington Redskins offensive asst.

Others...
Turner: internal (Stanford offensive asst.)
Alamar: Fresno State ST/TE
Reynolds: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was the DL coach at Oklahoma for a year before he came back)
Hansen: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was a SF 49ers defensive asst. under Harbaugh for a couple years before he came back)
Akina: Texas

[SamuelMcF]

Before we get lost in the bigger picture recruiting stuff, let's not forget the need to overhaul the coaching staff. That is the first step to take that will demonstrate Shaw can make hard decisions.

If there is one thing I have learned from following the most successful coaches in college football, it is that they are willing to make themselves uncomfortable to get better.

On Defense: Fangio -> Mason -> Anderson were all internal promotion Defensive Coordinators.
On Offense: Shaw -> Bloomgren -> Pritchard were all internal promotion Offensive Coordinators.  

Shaw needs to make himself a little uncomfortable with some outside the family coordinators. If he isn't willing to make the most standard managerial decisions to improve performance, he isn't going to make the harder ones.

Vic Fangio once coached at Stanford. Where is the next Fangio level DC? Please hire an OC off of Kyle Shanahan's staff. He really knows how to scheme an offense and keep defenses off balance. I want someone from that coaching tree.

I suppose it's a start that all the newer position coaches come from outside the program.

Gould ('17): Cal RB/UC Davis HC (I LOVED this hire; Cal fans were furious)
Kennedy ('18): Iowa WR
Carberry ('18): Washington Redskins offensive asst.

Others...
Turner: internal (Stanford offensive asst.)
Alamar: Fresno State ST/TE
Reynolds: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was the DL coach at Oklahoma for a year before he came back)
Hansen: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was a SF 49ers defensive asst. under Harbaugh for a couple years before he came back)
Akina: Texas

[qwerty49]

Before we get lost in the bigger picture recruiting stuff, let's not forget the need to overhaul the coaching staff. That is the first step to take that will demonstrate Shaw can make hard decisions.

If there is one thing I have learned from following the most successful coaches in college football, it is that they are willing to make themselves uncomfortable to get better.

On Defense: Fangio -> Mason -> Anderson were all internal promotion Defensive Coordinators.
On Offense: Shaw -> Bloomgren -> Pritchard were all internal promotion Offensive Coordinators.  

Shaw needs to make himself a little uncomfortable with some outside the family coordinators. If he isn't willing to make the most standard managerial decisions to improve performance, he isn't going to make the harder ones.

Vic Fangio once coached at Stanford. Where is the next Fangio level DC? Please hire an OC off of Kyle Shanahan's staff. He really knows how to scheme an offense and keep defenses off balance. I want someone from that coaching tree.

I suppose it's a start that all the newer position coaches come from outside the program.

Gould ('17): Cal RB/UC Davis HC (I LOVED this hire; Cal fans were furious)
Kennedy ('18): Iowa WR
Carberry ('18): Washington Redskins offensive asst.

Others...
Turner: internal (Stanford offensive asst.)
Alamar: Fresno State ST/TE
Reynolds: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was the DL coach at Oklahoma for a year before he came back)
Hansen: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was a SF 49ers defensive asst. under Harbaugh for a couple years before he came back)
Akina: Texas

Well, everyone has to come from outside, unless they are an ex-player like Tavita.

One advantage of having Tavita as the OC is, I suppose, that he "knows the system." You know -- the 10,000,000-page playbook that it takes a hundred years and an implanted CPU to master. But even that system is Harbs' system more than Shaw's, and, as people have pointed out, things have changed since 2007.

I hope the "complex playbook" BS is exploded in all its entirely soon. We get beat by true frosh QBs running simpler systems. And by experienced QBs running complex systems. We don't have an advantage consisting of a half-dozen secret plays. We do have a disadvantage of a predictable offense that stubbornly insists the players fill situation roles when sometimes the matchups just won't work.

I'm sure we will try to run as much as possible against Oregon, if only to try to limit their touches on offense. But after the first two times Scarlett gets caught behind the LOS by the edge defender on our pack-em-in-the-middle short-yardage play, I really want to see what Shaw does then.

[qwerty49]

Before we get lost in the bigger picture recruiting stuff, let's not forget the need to overhaul the coaching staff. That is the first step to take that will demonstrate Shaw can make hard decisions.

If there is one thing I have learned from following the most successful coaches in college football, it is that they are willing to make themselves uncomfortable to get better.

On Defense: Fangio -> Mason -> Anderson were all internal promotion Defensive Coordinators.
On Offense: Shaw -> Bloomgren -> Pritchard were all internal promotion Offensive Coordinators.  

Shaw needs to make himself a little uncomfortable with some outside the family coordinators. If he isn't willing to make the most standard managerial decisions to improve performance, he isn't going to make the harder ones.

Vic Fangio once coached at Stanford. Where is the next Fangio level DC? Please hire an OC off of Kyle Shanahan's staff. He really knows how to scheme an offense and keep defenses off balance. I want someone from that coaching tree.

I suppose it's a start that all the newer position coaches come from outside the program.

Gould ('17): Cal RB/UC Davis HC (I LOVED this hire; Cal fans were furious)
Kennedy ('18): Iowa WR
Carberry ('18): Washington Redskins offensive asst.

Others...
Turner: internal (Stanford offensive asst.)
Alamar: Fresno State ST/TE
Reynolds: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was the DL coach at Oklahoma for a year before he came back)
Hansen: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was a SF 49ers defensive asst. under Harbaugh for a couple years before he came back)
Akina: Texas

Well, everyone has to come from outside, unless they are an ex-player like Tavita.

One advantage of having Tavita as the OC is, I suppose, that he "knows the system." You know -- the 10,000,000-page playbook that it takes a hundred years and an implanted CPU to master. But even that system is Harbs' system more than Shaw's, and, as people have pointed out, things have changed since 2007.

I hope the "complex playbook" BS is exploded in all its entirely soon. We get beat by true frosh QBs running simpler systems. And by experienced QBs running complex systems. We don't have an advantage consisting of a half-dozen secret plays. We do have a disadvantage of a predictable offense that stubbornly insists the players fill situation roles when sometimes the matchups just won't work.

I'm sure we will try to run as much as possible against Oregon, if only to try to limit their touches on offense. But after the first two times Scarlett gets caught behind the LOS by the edge defender on our pack-em-in-the-middle short-yardage play, I really want to see what Shaw does then.

[Spiny_Norman]

Has DShaw fired an assistant in 8 years? Or have they all left of their own accord for other positions or retired?

From what I can tell, the assistants who have left are:
Derek Mason (left after 2013 season to be HC at Vanderbilt)
Pep Hamilton (left after 2012 season to be OC for Indianapolis Colts)
Jason Tarver (left after 2011 season to be DC for Oakland Raiders)
Randy Hart (retired)
Mike Bloomgren (left after 2017 season to be HC at Rice)
Mike Sanford (left after 2013 season to be OC at Boise State)
Brian Polian (left after 2011 season to be Special Teams/TE coach at Texas A&M)
Ron Crook (left after 2012 season to be OL coach at West Virginia)
David Kotulski (left after 2013 season to be DC at Vanderbilt)
Lance Taylor (left after 2016 season to be WR coach for Carolina Panthers)

[Spiny_Norman]

Has DShaw fired an assistant in 8 years? Or have they all left of their own accord for other positions or retired?

From what I can tell, the assistants who have left are:
Derek Mason (left after 2013 season to be HC at Vanderbilt)
Pep Hamilton (left after 2012 season to be OC for Indianapolis Colts)
Jason Tarver (left after 2011 season to be DC for Oakland Raiders)
Randy Hart (retired)
Mike Bloomgren (left after 2017 season to be HC at Rice)
Mike Sanford (left after 2013 season to be OC at Boise State)
Brian Polian (left after 2011 season to be Special Teams/TE coach at Texas A&M)
Ron Crook (left after 2012 season to be OL coach at West Virginia)
David Kotulski (left after 2013 season to be DC at Vanderbilt)
Lance Taylor (left after 2016 season to be WR coach for Carolina Panthers)

[cardcrimson]

Before we get lost in the bigger picture recruiting stuff, let's not forget the need to overhaul the coaching staff. That is the first step to take that will demonstrate Shaw can make hard decisions.

If there is one thing I have learned from following the most successful coaches in college football, it is that they are willing to make themselves uncomfortable to get better.

On Defense: Fangio -> Mason -> Anderson were all internal promotion Defensive Coordinators.
On Offense: Shaw -> Bloomgren -> Pritchard were all internal promotion Offensive Coordinators.  

Shaw needs to make himself a little uncomfortable with some outside the family coordinators. If he isn't willing to make the most standard managerial decisions to improve performance, he isn't going to make the harder ones.

Vic Fangio once coached at Stanford. Where is the next Fangio level DC? Please hire an OC off of Kyle Shanahan's staff. He really knows how to scheme an offense and keep defenses off balance. I want someone from that coaching tree.

I suppose it's a start that all the newer position coaches come from outside the program.

Gould ('17): Cal RB/UC Davis HC (I LOVED this hire; Cal fans were furious)
Kennedy ('18): Iowa WR
Carberry ('18): Washington Redskins offensive asst.

Others...
Turner: internal (Stanford offensive asst.)
Alamar: Fresno State ST/TE
Reynolds: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was the DL coach at Oklahoma for a year before he came back)
Hansen: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was a SF 49ers defensive asst. under Harbaugh for a couple years before he came back)
Akina: Texas

Well, everyone has to come from outside, unless they are an ex-player like Tavita. 

One advantage of having Tavita as the OC is, I suppose, that he "knows the system."  You know -- the 10,000,000-page playbook that it takes a hundred years and an implanted CPU to master.  But even that system is Harbs' system more than Shaw's, and, as people have pointed out, things have changed since 2007.

I hope the "complex playbook" BS is exploded in all its entirely soon.  We get beat by true frosh QBs running simpler systems.  And by experienced QBs running complex systems.  We don't have an advantage consisting of a half-dozen secret plays.  We do have a disadvantage of a predictable offense that stubbornly insists the players fill situation roles when sometimes the matchups just won't work.

I'm sure we will try to run as much as possible against Oregon, if only to try to limit their touches on offense.  But after the first two times Scarlett gets caught behind the LOS by the edge defender on our pack-em-in-the-middle short-yardage play, I really want to see what Shaw does then.

Was listening to Greg Papa on KNBR as I was driving this pm and he made an interesting observation. He said he was surprised how small Shanahan's laminated play sheet is compared to other coaches, especially compared to Andy Reid's. Apparently, relatively simple, as well.

[cardcrimson]

Before we get lost in the bigger picture recruiting stuff, let's not forget the need to overhaul the coaching staff. That is the first step to take that will demonstrate Shaw can make hard decisions.

If there is one thing I have learned from following the most successful coaches in college football, it is that they are willing to make themselves uncomfortable to get better.

On Defense: Fangio -> Mason -> Anderson were all internal promotion Defensive Coordinators.
On Offense: Shaw -> Bloomgren -> Pritchard were all internal promotion Offensive Coordinators.  

Shaw needs to make himself a little uncomfortable with some outside the family coordinators. If he isn't willing to make the most standard managerial decisions to improve performance, he isn't going to make the harder ones.

Vic Fangio once coached at Stanford. Where is the next Fangio level DC? Please hire an OC off of Kyle Shanahan's staff. He really knows how to scheme an offense and keep defenses off balance. I want someone from that coaching tree.

I suppose it's a start that all the newer position coaches come from outside the program.

Gould ('17): Cal RB/UC Davis HC (I LOVED this hire; Cal fans were furious)
Kennedy ('18): Iowa WR
Carberry ('18): Washington Redskins offensive asst.

Others...
Turner: internal (Stanford offensive asst.)
Alamar: Fresno State ST/TE
Reynolds: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was the DL coach at Oklahoma for a year before he came back)
Hansen: basically internal (Stanford defensive asst., was a SF 49ers defensive asst. under Harbaugh for a couple years before he came back)
Akina: Texas

Well, everyone has to come from outside, unless they are an ex-player like Tavita. 

One advantage of having Tavita as the OC is, I suppose, that he "knows the system."  You know -- the 10,000,000-page playbook that it takes a hundred years and an implanted CPU to master.  But even that system is Harbs' system more than Shaw's, and, as people have pointed out, things have changed since 2007.

I hope the "complex playbook" BS is exploded in all its entirely soon.  We get beat by true frosh QBs running simpler systems.  And by experienced QBs running complex systems.  We don't have an advantage consisting of a half-dozen secret plays.  We do have a disadvantage of a predictable offense that stubbornly insists the players fill situation roles when sometimes the matchups just won't work.

I'm sure we will try to run as much as possible against Oregon, if only to try to limit their touches on offense.  But after the first two times Scarlett gets caught behind the LOS by the edge defender on our pack-em-in-the-middle short-yardage play, I really want to see what Shaw does then.

Was listening to Greg Papa on KNBR as I was driving this pm and he made an interesting observation. He said he was surprised how small Shanahan's laminated play sheet is compared to other coaches, especially compared to Andy Reid's. Apparently, relatively simple, as well.

[CardinalSagehen]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

[CardinalSagehen]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

[cardcrimson]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

Well, frankly. They all can be true. Seemingly, we've regressed in a myriad of areas. Including in those areas you mentioned, and in many more. Apparent complacency is one you did mention, and it crosses everything.

FWIW, new talent doesn't come out of the blue, it gets recruited. And luck has very little to do with winning, unless of course it's Andrew.

[cardcrimson]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

Well, frankly. They all can be true. Seemingly, we've regressed in a myriad of areas. Including in those areas you mentioned, and in many more. Apparent complacency is one you did mention, and it crosses everything.

FWIW, new talent doesn't come out of the blue, it gets recruited. And luck has very little to do with winning, unless of course it's Andrew.

[CardinalSagehen]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

Well, frankly. They all can be true. Seemingly, we've regressed in a myriad of areas. Including in those areas you mentioned, and in many more. Apparent complacency is one you did mention, and it crosses everything.

FWIW, new talent doesn't come out of the blue, it gets recruited. And luck has very little to do with winning, unless of course it's Andrew.

Just so I understand, are you basing “apparent complacency” on a string of 9-win seasons, a win over the Big Ten West champion, two bad road losses, and a 2020 recruiting class that is light on D but generally of normal quality for us?

Perhaps a little recency bias there?

[CardinalSagehen]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

Well, frankly. They all can be true. Seemingly, we've regressed in a myriad of areas. Including in those areas you mentioned, and in many more. Apparent complacency is one you did mention, and it crosses everything.

FWIW, new talent doesn't come out of the blue, it gets recruited. And luck has very little to do with winning, unless of course it's Andrew.

Just so I understand, are you basing “apparent complacency” on a string of 9-win seasons, a win over the Big Ten West champion, two bad road losses, and a 2020 recruiting class that is light on D but generally of normal quality for us?

Perhaps a little recency bias there?

[OutsiderFan]

Sure it's OK to give a coach a mulligan. Those coaches who get them usually have young teams, suffer QB injuries and/or make changes to their coaching staffs to shake things up.  

This thread has highlighted issues on the current team, concern about player development, and systemic weaknesses around recruiting. You don't get better doing the same things that aren't working anymore, and doing the same thing and expecting different results is, well, you know.

[OutsiderFan]

Sure it's OK to give a coach a mulligan. Those coaches who get them usually have young teams, suffer QB injuries and/or make changes to their coaching staffs to shake things up.  

This thread has highlighted issues on the current team, concern about player development, and systemic weaknesses around recruiting. You don't get better doing the same things that aren't working anymore, and doing the same thing and expecting different results is, well, you know.