[Austroturf]

The program has been trending down since 2016; and over the last three seasons, Shaw is 11-14, which is sub-mediocre.  And this at a time when the Pac-12 has been arguably the weakest of the Power 5 conferences.  

There's a possibility that the Pac-12's only ranked team this week is Oregon (and they'll still be overrated). UCLA and Utah do not deserve to sneak in. The Pac-12 is awful and we are middling at best in the awful Pac-12. Excellent post, Astroturf. We can like Shaw and still recognize that he does not have the willingness or the skillset to stop this ship from sinking. 

Yes, I have been thinking that if we had the 2010, 2011 or 2015 team this year, we would be dominating the rather weak Pac-12 of 2021.  I don't think Utah or UCLA will crack the top 25 this week.  Utah has losses to BYU, which lost badly to unranked Baylor yesterday, and San Diego State, which barely survived 2OT against San Jose State this week.  UCLA has lost to Fresno State and Arizona State, both of which were once ranked during the season, but certainly will not be when the new polls come out.  The conference is not strong; and even Oregon looks sketchy after almost allowing Cal to send their game to OT, and this time in Autzen stadium.

[Austroturf]

The program has been trending down since 2016; and over the last three seasons, Shaw is 11-14, which is sub-mediocre.  And this at a time when the Pac-12 has been arguably the weakest of the Power 5 conferences.  

There's a possibility that the Pac-12's only ranked team this week is Oregon (and they'll still be overrated). UCLA and Utah do not deserve to sneak in. The Pac-12 is awful and we are middling at best in the awful Pac-12. Excellent post, Astroturf. We can like Shaw and still recognize that he does not have the willingness or the skillset to stop this ship from sinking. 

Yes, I have been thinking that if we had the 2010, 2011 or 2015 team this year, we would be dominating the rather weak Pac-12 of 2021.  I don't think Utah or UCLA will crack the top 25 this week.  Utah has losses to BYU, which lost badly to unranked Baylor yesterday, and San Diego State, which barely survived 2OT against San Jose State this week.  UCLA has lost to Fresno State and Arizona State, both of which were once ranked during the season, but certainly will not be when the new polls come out.  The conference is not strong; and even Oregon looks sketchy after almost allowing Cal to send their game to OT, and this time in Autzen stadium.

[Goose]

It is undeniable that the team has multiple problems. However, I think it is important to prioritize them. Of all our issues, I think the Defensive Secondary is by far the least. As BC points out, if the QB has all day to find a receiver, he will. The secondary isn't as athletic (read fast) as one might prefer, but is fairly effective none the less. Yes, we have some tackling issues, but I think we are actually better at it this year than in previous years. They also have some injury problems. The elephant is the DL. Fisk was out hurt. When he plays, we are bad. When he doesn't, we are horrible. At the end of the game, these guys are spent. They have nothing left. This unit is where we lose games. The rest of the defensive problems are knock-on effect IMHO.

On offense, for several years, including CMac and Bryce Love, we haven't had guys who were power runners. Obviously, CMac was a generational talent and Love was not too far behind, but even with these guys we got stonewalled fairly frequently. For quite a while, we haven't had anybody who could move the pile. However, that isn't the big problem. The big problem is that we have an OL that is helpless against a speed rush. That has been an ongoing issue. That is why WSU has "had our number" for a while, even in years where we were pretty successful. Our OL also isn't very good at making holes in any type of DL, but we get outquicked all the time and have been back to 2015. This year, our OL is just plain bad against any opponent, but if the opponent is quick, look out! Look at then end of the WSU game or anytime in the UCLA game.

Why our OL is as bad as it is a bit of a mystery to me at least. If you go on the Kal boards, they say their OL is horrible because they are not very talented. They are 3 star or below and therefore not very good. Over the last few years we have been able to attract some fairly highly rated guys, and yet we are bad too. So why is that? We have had a fair amount of turnover at that coaching position, but it seems to me that we just don't have the physical ability to match up with the teams we play. Sometimes we see people just getting physically beat, but far more often we have rushers penetrating into the backfield untouched. They blow up running plays before they get started. CMac and Love were both given credit for being "patient" runners who would wait for the blocking to form up and then go. I think we are trying to replicate that approach. However, if there is a guy coming in clean, even if from the backside, that isn't going to work. Obviously, on pass plays a free rusher is a big problem. That loses us games too.

I think these are the priorities. If the DL could have prevented the WSU passer from having time to throw deep on their final drive, we win the game. If the OL had got enough push we could have kept the ball and the WSU final drive wouldn't have happened in the first place. Given that it did happen, the OL couldn't even come close to protecting McKee and allowing us to at least tie the game. That is the story, IMHO. The other problems are very secondary.

[Goose]

It is undeniable that the team has multiple problems. However, I think it is important to prioritize them. Of all our issues, I think the Defensive Secondary is by far the least. As BC points out, if the QB has all day to find a receiver, he will. The secondary isn't as athletic (read fast) as one might prefer, but is fairly effective none the less. Yes, we have some tackling issues, but I think we are actually better at it this year than in previous years. They also have some injury problems. The elephant is the DL. Fisk was out hurt. When he plays, we are bad. When he doesn't, we are horrible. At the end of the game, these guys are spent. They have nothing left. This unit is where we lose games. The rest of the defensive problems are knock-on effect IMHO.

On offense, for several years, including CMac and Bryce Love, we haven't had guys who were power runners. Obviously, CMac was a generational talent and Love was not too far behind, but even with these guys we got stonewalled fairly frequently. For quite a while, we haven't had anybody who could move the pile. However, that isn't the big problem. The big problem is that we have an OL that is helpless against a speed rush. That has been an ongoing issue. That is why WSU has "had our number" for a while, even in years where we were pretty successful. Our OL also isn't very good at making holes in any type of DL, but we get outquicked all the time and have been back to 2015. This year, our OL is just plain bad against any opponent, but if the opponent is quick, look out! Look at then end of the WSU game or anytime in the UCLA game.

Why our OL is as bad as it is a bit of a mystery to me at least. If you go on the Kal boards, they say their OL is horrible because they are not very talented. They are 3 star or below and therefore not very good. Over the last few years we have been able to attract some fairly highly rated guys, and yet we are bad too. So why is that? We have had a fair amount of turnover at that coaching position, but it seems to me that we just don't have the physical ability to match up with the teams we play. Sometimes we see people just getting physically beat, but far more often we have rushers penetrating into the backfield untouched. They blow up running plays before they get started. CMac and Love were both given credit for being "patient" runners who would wait for the blocking to form up and then go. I think we are trying to replicate that approach. However, if there is a guy coming in clean, even if from the backside, that isn't going to work. Obviously, on pass plays a free rusher is a big problem. That loses us games too.

I think these are the priorities. If the DL could have prevented the WSU passer from having time to throw deep on their final drive, we win the game. If the OL had got enough push we could have kept the ball and the WSU final drive wouldn't have happened in the first place. Given that it did happen, the OL couldn't even come close to protecting McKee and allowing us to at least tie the game. That is the story, IMHO. The other problems are very secondary.

[Austroturf]

It is undeniable that the team has multiple problems. However, I think it is important to prioritize them. Of all our issues, I think the Defensive Secondary is by far the least. As BC points out, if the QB has all day to find a receiver, he will. The secondary isn't as athletic (read fast) as one might prefer, but is fairly effective none the less. Yes, we have some tackling issues, but I think we are actually better at it this year than in previous years. They also have some injury problems. The elephant is the DL. Fisk was out hurt. When he plays, we are bad. When he doesn't, we are horrible. At the end of the game, these guys are spent. They have nothing left. This unit is where we lose games. The rest of the defensive problems are knock-on effect IMHO.

On offense, for several years, including CMac and Bryce Love, we haven't had guys who were power runners. Obviously, CMac was a generational talent and Love was not too far behind, but even with these guys we got stonewalled fairly frequently. For quite a while, we haven't had anybody who could move the pile. However, that isn't the big problem. The big problem is that we have an OL that is helpless against a speed rush. That has been an ongoing issue. That is why WSU has "had our number" for a while, even in years where we were pretty successful. Our OL also isn't very good at making holes in any type of DL, but we get outquicked all the time and have been back to 2015. This year, our OL is just plain bad against any opponent, but if the opponent is quick, look out! Look at then end of the WSU game or anytime in the UCLA game.

Why our OL is as bad as it is a bit of a mystery to me at least. If you go on the Kal boards, they say their OL is horrible because they are not very talented. They are 3 star or below and therefore not very good. Over the last few years we have been able to attract some fairly highly rated guys, and yet we are bad too. So why is that? We have had a fair amount of turnover at that coaching position, but it seems to me that we just don't have the physical ability to match up with the teams we play. Sometimes we see people just getting physically beat, but far more often we have rushers penetrating into the backfield untouched. They blow up running plays before they get started. CMac and Love were both given credit for being "patient" runners who would wait for the blocking to form up and then go. I think we are trying to replicate that approach. However, if there is a guy coming in clean, even if from the backside, that isn't going to work. Obviously, on pass plays a free rusher is a big problem. That loses us games too.

I think these are the priorities. If the DL could have prevented the WSU passer from having time to throw deep on their final drive, we win the game. If the OL had got enough push we could have kept the ball and the WSU final drive wouldn't have happened in the first place. Given that it did happen, the OL couldn't even come close to protecting McKee and allowing us to at least tie the game. That is the story, IMHO. The other problems are very secondary.

But those are massive problems.  In essence, your assessment is that we are losing in the trenches -- what I referred to as "feeble line play" in my post.  And, yes, the knock-on effects are that our defense is porous and puts no pressure on the opposing QB, who then torches us downfield, and our running backs have no holes to run through nor does McKee have the pass protection he needs.  Shawball, in its original form, was predicated on superior line play, with the power run game controlling TOP and the defense reliably getting stops when needed.  It was beautiful when we had it, but that superior line play (on both sides of the ball) is a distant memory.

[Austroturf]

It is undeniable that the team has multiple problems. However, I think it is important to prioritize them. Of all our issues, I think the Defensive Secondary is by far the least. As BC points out, if the QB has all day to find a receiver, he will. The secondary isn't as athletic (read fast) as one might prefer, but is fairly effective none the less. Yes, we have some tackling issues, but I think we are actually better at it this year than in previous years. They also have some injury problems. The elephant is the DL. Fisk was out hurt. When he plays, we are bad. When he doesn't, we are horrible. At the end of the game, these guys are spent. They have nothing left. This unit is where we lose games. The rest of the defensive problems are knock-on effect IMHO.

On offense, for several years, including CMac and Bryce Love, we haven't had guys who were power runners. Obviously, CMac was a generational talent and Love was not too far behind, but even with these guys we got stonewalled fairly frequently. For quite a while, we haven't had anybody who could move the pile. However, that isn't the big problem. The big problem is that we have an OL that is helpless against a speed rush. That has been an ongoing issue. That is why WSU has "had our number" for a while, even in years where we were pretty successful. Our OL also isn't very good at making holes in any type of DL, but we get outquicked all the time and have been back to 2015. This year, our OL is just plain bad against any opponent, but if the opponent is quick, look out! Look at then end of the WSU game or anytime in the UCLA game.

Why our OL is as bad as it is a bit of a mystery to me at least. If you go on the Kal boards, they say their OL is horrible because they are not very talented. They are 3 star or below and therefore not very good. Over the last few years we have been able to attract some fairly highly rated guys, and yet we are bad too. So why is that? We have had a fair amount of turnover at that coaching position, but it seems to me that we just don't have the physical ability to match up with the teams we play. Sometimes we see people just getting physically beat, but far more often we have rushers penetrating into the backfield untouched. They blow up running plays before they get started. CMac and Love were both given credit for being "patient" runners who would wait for the blocking to form up and then go. I think we are trying to replicate that approach. However, if there is a guy coming in clean, even if from the backside, that isn't going to work. Obviously, on pass plays a free rusher is a big problem. That loses us games too.

I think these are the priorities. If the DL could have prevented the WSU passer from having time to throw deep on their final drive, we win the game. If the OL had got enough push we could have kept the ball and the WSU final drive wouldn't have happened in the first place. Given that it did happen, the OL couldn't even come close to protecting McKee and allowing us to at least tie the game. That is the story, IMHO. The other problems are very secondary.

But those are massive problems.  In essence, your assessment is that we are losing in the trenches -- what I referred to as "feeble line play" in my post.  And, yes, the knock-on effects are that our defense is porous and puts no pressure on the opposing QB, who then torches us downfield, and our running backs have no holes to run through nor does McKee have the pass protection he needs.  Shawball, in its original form, was predicated on superior line play, with the power run game controlling TOP and the defense reliably getting stops when needed.  It was beautiful when we had it, but that superior line play (on both sides of the ball) is a distant memory.

[Goose]

But those are massive problems.  In essence, your assessment is that we are losing in the trenches -- what I referred to as "feeble line play" in my post.  And, yes, the knock-on effects are that our defense is porous and puts no pressure on the opposing QB, who then torches us downfield, and our running backs have no holes to run through nor does McKee have the pass protection he needs.  Shawball, in its original form, was predicated on superior line play, with the power run game controlling TOP and the defense reliably getting stops when needed.  It was beautiful when we had it, but that superior line play (on both sides of the ball) is a distant memory.

Indeed they are massive problems. It isn't just Shawball. It is Everybody ball. Thus my Kal comment. If your OL can't block, you lose. As Kal is finally noticing, it doesn't matter if it is Baldwin or Musgrave calling the plays/designing the offense. If your OL sucks, your offense will suck. The issue I have is that we have recruited guys who are supposedly elite. Why aren't they playing like it? I for one have no idea at all. It isn't just the OL coach, because we have been through several of them lately. Or, maybe its is the OL coaches and we have been going steadily downhill?

On the DL, we know we just don't have adequate depth. We have a couple of players who are quite good, and then fall off a cliff. We often say "We play dime so much we only need two DL". In fact, I think we do it because we only HAVE two DL and therefore no choice. We have at least a plausible source of the problem here and it is rumored that "help is on the way". Hopefully that is true. On the OL, it is still a mystery.

[Goose]

But those are massive problems.  In essence, your assessment is that we are losing in the trenches -- what I referred to as "feeble line play" in my post.  And, yes, the knock-on effects are that our defense is porous and puts no pressure on the opposing QB, who then torches us downfield, and our running backs have no holes to run through nor does McKee have the pass protection he needs.  Shawball, in its original form, was predicated on superior line play, with the power run game controlling TOP and the defense reliably getting stops when needed.  It was beautiful when we had it, but that superior line play (on both sides of the ball) is a distant memory.

Indeed they are massive problems. It isn't just Shawball. It is Everybody ball. Thus my Kal comment. If your OL can't block, you lose. As Kal is finally noticing, it doesn't matter if it is Baldwin or Musgrave calling the plays/designing the offense. If your OL sucks, your offense will suck. The issue I have is that we have recruited guys who are supposedly elite. Why aren't they playing like it? I for one have no idea at all. It isn't just the OL coach, because we have been through several of them lately. Or, maybe its is the OL coaches and we have been going steadily downhill?

On the DL, we know we just don't have adequate depth. We have a couple of players who are quite good, and then fall off a cliff. We often say "We play dime so much we only need two DL". In fact, I think we do it because we only HAVE two DL and therefore no choice. We have at least a plausible source of the problem here and it is rumored that "help is on the way". Hopefully that is true. On the OL, it is still a mystery.

[winflop]

On the DL, we know we just don't have adequate depth.

And it's going to be much worse next year. Pretty much every guy who's getting snaps is gone after this season, and there isn't much to replace them.

I think the core problem remains S&C/training. The guys we have aren't strong enough, and they get hurt too often.

[winflop]

On the DL, we know we just don't have adequate depth.

And it's going to be much worse next year. Pretty much every guy who's getting snaps is gone after this season, and there isn't much to replace them.

I think the core problem remains S&C/training. The guys we have aren't strong enough, and they get hurt too often.

[Austroturf]

But those are massive problems.  In essence, your assessment is that we are losing in the trenches -- what I referred to as "feeble line play" in my post.  And, yes, the knock-on effects are that our defense is porous and puts no pressure on the opposing QB, who then torches us downfield, and our running backs have no holes to run through nor does McKee have the pass protection he needs.  Shawball, in its original form, was predicated on superior line play, with the power run game controlling TOP and the defense reliably getting stops when needed.  It was beautiful when we had it, but that superior line play (on both sides of the ball) is a distant memory.

Indeed they are massive problems. It isn't just Shawball. It is Everybody ball. Thus my Kal comment. If your OL can't block, you lose. As Kal is finally noticing, it doesn't matter if it is Baldwin or Musgrave calling the plays/designing the offense. If your OL sucks, your offense will suck. The issue I have is that we have recruited guys who are supposedly elite. Why aren't they playing like it? I for one have no idea at all. It isn't just the OL coach, because we have been through several of them lately. Or, maybe its is the OL coaches and we have been going steadily downhill?

On the DL, we know we just don't have adequate depth. We have a couple of players who are quite good, and then fall off a cliff. We often say "We play dime so much we only need two DL". In fact, I think we do it because we only HAVE two DL and therefore no choice. We have at least a plausible source of the problem here and it is rumored that "help is on the way". Hopefully that is true. On the OL, it is still a mystery.

Agree that a bad OL neuters any offense; but Shawball, with the power-run game and high emphasis on long drives and high TOP was absolutely dependent on top-flight OL play to get the push and slowly grind the defense down.    

Why the OL performance has slipped?  Probably a combination of subpar coaching (the unit under Bloomgren was good to excellent, with some patchiness at times), deficient S&C and lack of depth.  The many injuries are probably a result of deficient S&C.  The quality of recruits appears to be good, but there were some years when we didn't sign enough new players, which also impacts depth.  The downward slide in performance is unmistakable.  Who owns the problem?  Shaw, Pritchard, the new position coach?

[Austroturf]

But those are massive problems.  In essence, your assessment is that we are losing in the trenches -- what I referred to as "feeble line play" in my post.  And, yes, the knock-on effects are that our defense is porous and puts no pressure on the opposing QB, who then torches us downfield, and our running backs have no holes to run through nor does McKee have the pass protection he needs.  Shawball, in its original form, was predicated on superior line play, with the power run game controlling TOP and the defense reliably getting stops when needed.  It was beautiful when we had it, but that superior line play (on both sides of the ball) is a distant memory.

Indeed they are massive problems. It isn't just Shawball. It is Everybody ball. Thus my Kal comment. If your OL can't block, you lose. As Kal is finally noticing, it doesn't matter if it is Baldwin or Musgrave calling the plays/designing the offense. If your OL sucks, your offense will suck. The issue I have is that we have recruited guys who are supposedly elite. Why aren't they playing like it? I for one have no idea at all. It isn't just the OL coach, because we have been through several of them lately. Or, maybe its is the OL coaches and we have been going steadily downhill?

On the DL, we know we just don't have adequate depth. We have a couple of players who are quite good, and then fall off a cliff. We often say "We play dime so much we only need two DL". In fact, I think we do it because we only HAVE two DL and therefore no choice. We have at least a plausible source of the problem here and it is rumored that "help is on the way". Hopefully that is true. On the OL, it is still a mystery.

Agree that a bad OL neuters any offense; but Shawball, with the power-run game and high emphasis on long drives and high TOP was absolutely dependent on top-flight OL play to get the push and slowly grind the defense down.    

Why the OL performance has slipped?  Probably a combination of subpar coaching (the unit under Bloomgren was good to excellent, with some patchiness at times), deficient S&C and lack of depth.  The many injuries are probably a result of deficient S&C.  The quality of recruits appears to be good, but there were some years when we didn't sign enough new players, which also impacts depth.  The downward slide in performance is unmistakable.  Who owns the problem?  Shaw, Pritchard, the new position coach?

[BostonCard]

I think you guys have nailed the problem, which can be traced to the lines.  As to who bears responsibility, I don’t know that we can really know, but ultimately that falls on Shaw.  I do think that the lines are getting pushed around, which points to S&C.  There have also been recruiting problems, especially at defensive line, which is why this recruiting class could mark the start of the turnaround.  But the impact won’t be visible for three or four years, and as winflop noted, next year’s DL will be horrifyingly inexperienced.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think you guys have nailed the problem, which can be traced to the lines.  As to who bears responsibility, I don’t know that we can really know, but ultimately that falls on Shaw.  I do think that the lines are getting pushed around, which points to S&C.  There have also been recruiting problems, especially at defensive line, which is why this recruiting class could mark the start of the turnaround.  But the impact won’t be visible for three or four years, and as winflop noted, next year’s DL will be horrifyingly inexperienced.

BC

[Goose]

Agree that a bad OL neuters any offense; but Shawball, with the power-run game and high emphasis on long drives and high TOP was absolutely dependent on top-flight OL play to get the push and slowly grind the defense down.

True, and we can't do that anymore, or even come close. That is why Shawball now passes much more that it runs. The knock-on of that is that the defense is on the field more even when the offense is doing well.   

Why the OL performance has slipped?  Probably a combination of subpar coaching (the unit under Bloomgren was good to excellent, with some patchiness at times), deficient S&C and lack of depth.  The many injuries are probably a result of deficient S&C.  The quality of recruits appears to be good, but there were some years when we didn't sign enough new players, which also impacts depth.  The downward slide in performance is unmistakable.  Who owns the problem?  Shaw, Pritchard, the new position coach?

I have to point out that you omit one obvious possibility of who owns the problem. The players. We can't realistically say they are not part of the problem unless we know that isn't the case. I don't know, so I can't say, but it is worthy of consideration.
It is tempting to say our injuries are a result of deficient S&C coaching. However, I would ask how do we quantify that? Many of the injuries we have had are things that are serious knee injuries. It could be that if the athlete was in better condition, they don't get in a position to get injured, but I can't justify saying it is S&C without any insight into why that is clearly the case. I just don't know.

[Goose]

Agree that a bad OL neuters any offense; but Shawball, with the power-run game and high emphasis on long drives and high TOP was absolutely dependent on top-flight OL play to get the push and slowly grind the defense down.

True, and we can't do that anymore, or even come close. That is why Shawball now passes much more that it runs. The knock-on of that is that the defense is on the field more even when the offense is doing well.   

Why the OL performance has slipped?  Probably a combination of subpar coaching (the unit under Bloomgren was good to excellent, with some patchiness at times), deficient S&C and lack of depth.  The many injuries are probably a result of deficient S&C.  The quality of recruits appears to be good, but there were some years when we didn't sign enough new players, which also impacts depth.  The downward slide in performance is unmistakable.  Who owns the problem?  Shaw, Pritchard, the new position coach?

I have to point out that you omit one obvious possibility of who owns the problem. The players. We can't realistically say they are not part of the problem unless we know that isn't the case. I don't know, so I can't say, but it is worthy of consideration.
It is tempting to say our injuries are a result of deficient S&C coaching. However, I would ask how do we quantify that? Many of the injuries we have had are things that are serious knee injuries. It could be that if the athlete was in better condition, they don't get in a position to get injured, but I can't justify saying it is S&C without any insight into why that is clearly the case. I just don't know.

[lex24]

Ok, to the Fire Shaw crowd. Name your successor.  You think any name coach would come to Stanford?  Hey, Frost may. be available.  Want he supposed to be all that. Or how bout Wilcox? 

Name someone. It’s easy to scream “ fire ——-“. But for whom.

---

[quote="Austroturf" pid='329646' dateline='1634486267']
Agree that a bad OL neuters any offense; but Shawball, with the power-run game and high emphasis on long drives and high TOP was absolutely dependent on top-flight OL play to get the push and slowly grind the defense down.

True, and we can't do that anymore, or even come close. That is why Shawball now passes much more that it runs. The knock-on of that is that the defense is on the field more even when the offense is doing well.   

Why the OL performance has slipped?  Probably a combination of subpar coaching (the unit under Bloomgren was good to excellent, with some patchiness at times), deficient S&C and lack of depth.  The many injuries are probably a result of deficient S&C.  The quality of recruits appears to be good, but there were some years when we didn't sign enough new players, which also impacts depth.  The downward slide in performance is unmistakable.  Who owns the problem?  Shaw, Pritchard, the new position coach?

I have to point out that you omit one obvious possibility of who owns the problem. The players. We can't realistically say they are not part of the problem unless we know that isn't the case. I don't know, so I can't say, but it is worthy of consideration.
It is tempting to say our injuries are a result of deficient S&C coaching. However, I would ask how do we quantify that? Many of the injuries we have had are things that are serious knee injuries. It could be that if the athlete was in better condition, they don't get in a position to get injured, but I can't justify saying it is S&C without any insight into why that is clearly the case. I just don't know.
[/quote


Team has no identity. They have not played “Shawball” in years.  They are not physical. And they are slow. Bad combo.

[lex24]

Ok, to the Fire Shaw crowd. Name your successor.  You think any name coach would come to Stanford?  Hey, Frost may. be available.  Want he supposed to be all that. Or how bout Wilcox? 

Name someone. It’s easy to scream “ fire ——-“. But for whom.

---

[quote="Austroturf" pid='329646' dateline='1634486267']
Agree that a bad OL neuters any offense; but Shawball, with the power-run game and high emphasis on long drives and high TOP was absolutely dependent on top-flight OL play to get the push and slowly grind the defense down.

True, and we can't do that anymore, or even come close. That is why Shawball now passes much more that it runs. The knock-on of that is that the defense is on the field more even when the offense is doing well.   

Why the OL performance has slipped?  Probably a combination of subpar coaching (the unit under Bloomgren was good to excellent, with some patchiness at times), deficient S&C and lack of depth.  The many injuries are probably a result of deficient S&C.  The quality of recruits appears to be good, but there were some years when we didn't sign enough new players, which also impacts depth.  The downward slide in performance is unmistakable.  Who owns the problem?  Shaw, Pritchard, the new position coach?

I have to point out that you omit one obvious possibility of who owns the problem. The players. We can't realistically say they are not part of the problem unless we know that isn't the case. I don't know, so I can't say, but it is worthy of consideration.
It is tempting to say our injuries are a result of deficient S&C coaching. However, I would ask how do we quantify that? Many of the injuries we have had are things that are serious knee injuries. It could be that if the athlete was in better condition, they don't get in a position to get injured, but I can't justify saying it is S&C without any insight into why that is clearly the case. I just don't know.
[/quote


Team has no identity. They have not played “Shawball” in years.  They are not physical. And they are slow. Bad combo.

[Phogge]

I would name a coach but he's undefeated right now... your sideline buddy.

[Phogge]

I would name a coach but he's undefeated right now... your sideline buddy.

[BostonCard]

Usually these exercises are punctuated by wildly optimistic takes that we would land some big name coach.  I have no reason to believe that any of the three names that I would offer would come.

Luke Fickell (head coach at Cincinnati) already makes $3.4 million a year and has ties to the BigTen (Ohio State), so I could see him becoming the next Nebraska coach or maybe an SEC wannabe.

Chris Petersen (former Washington head coach): if he really resigned due to feeling excessive pressure at Washington, maybe he’d do better at Stanford?

Kyle Wittingham (Utah head coach): he’d be a fool to leave Utah, but I like and respect him, and he is a great coach (as was evident last night against ASU)

I think all three would be in the category of “keep dreaming”

BC

[BostonCard]

Usually these exercises are punctuated by wildly optimistic takes that we would land some big name coach.  I have no reason to believe that any of the three names that I would offer would come.

Luke Fickell (head coach at Cincinnati) already makes $3.4 million a year and has ties to the BigTen (Ohio State), so I could see him becoming the next Nebraska coach or maybe an SEC wannabe.

Chris Petersen (former Washington head coach): if he really resigned due to feeling excessive pressure at Washington, maybe he’d do better at Stanford?

Kyle Wittingham (Utah head coach): he’d be a fool to leave Utah, but I like and respect him, and he is a great coach (as was evident last night against ASU)

I think all three would be in the category of “keep dreaming”

BC

[newguy]

if we had a good athletic director who could go out and get a really good coach, then i would say do it and replace Shaw.  but we don't.

[newguy]

if we had a good athletic director who could go out and get a really good coach, then i would say do it and replace Shaw.  but we don't.

[JohnR34231]

Usually these exercises are punctuated by wildly optimistic takes that we would land some big name coach.  I have no reason to believe that any of the three names that I would offer would come.

Luke Fickell (head coach at Cincinnati) already makes $3.4 million a year and has ties to the BigTen (Ohio State), so I could see him becoming the next Nebraska coach or maybe an SEC wannabe.

Chris Petersen (former Washington head coach): if he really resigned due to feeling excessive pressure at Washington, maybe he’d do better at Stanford?

Kyle Wittingham (Utah head coach): he’d be a fool to leave Utah, but I like and respect him, and he is a great coach (as was evident last night against ASU)

I think all three would be in the category of “keep dreaming”

BC

Chris was contacted about the job when Shaw was hired and supposedly said he would have been interested, but the timing wasn't right.
Perhaps it is now?

[JohnR34231]

Usually these exercises are punctuated by wildly optimistic takes that we would land some big name coach.  I have no reason to believe that any of the three names that I would offer would come.

Luke Fickell (head coach at Cincinnati) already makes $3.4 million a year and has ties to the BigTen (Ohio State), so I could see him becoming the next Nebraska coach or maybe an SEC wannabe.

Chris Petersen (former Washington head coach): if he really resigned due to feeling excessive pressure at Washington, maybe he’d do better at Stanford?

Kyle Wittingham (Utah head coach): he’d be a fool to leave Utah, but I like and respect him, and he is a great coach (as was evident last night against ASU)

I think all three would be in the category of “keep dreaming”

BC

Chris was contacted about the job when Shaw was hired and supposedly said he would have been interested, but the timing wasn't right.
Perhaps it is now?

[JustAnotherFan]

I have to point out that you omit one obvious possibility of who owns the problem. The players. We can't realistically say they are not part of the problem unless we know that isn't the case. I don't know, so I can't say, but it is worthy of consideration.
It is tempting to say our injuries are a result of deficient S&C coaching. However, I would ask how do we quantify that? Many of the injuries we have had are things that are serious knee injuries. It could be that if the athlete was in better condition, they don't get in a position to get injured, but I can't justify saying it is S&C without any insight into why that is clearly the case. I just don't know.

It is the head coach. It's why he gets paid the big bucks. He's the one who makes the hiring and the recruiting decisions. Harbaugh, and Shaw in the early years riding his coattails, proved that Stanford could hire top notch coaches, recruit well, develop players, win consistently, and compete for Pac-12 championships, BCS bowl games, and could even have been in the conversation for the playoff (had it rolled out sooner). Everything has been slipping for years. Maybe no one else could have maintained what Harbaugh brought to Stanford (and he couldn't replicate it at UM), but we now know quite well that Shaw cannot.

---

AP rankings just came out. Oregon ranked number 10. No other Pac-12 team ranked in the top 25. Utah, Arizona State, and UCLA receiving votes. Pretty sorry situation: https://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings 

The AAC (2), ACC (3), Big 12 (3), BigTen (6), and the SEC (6) all have more teams ranked than the Pac 12. 

The conference is tied with Conference USA, Mountain West, and Sun Belt conferences with 1 each.

[JustAnotherFan]

I have to point out that you omit one obvious possibility of who owns the problem. The players. We can't realistically say they are not part of the problem unless we know that isn't the case. I don't know, so I can't say, but it is worthy of consideration.
It is tempting to say our injuries are a result of deficient S&C coaching. However, I would ask how do we quantify that? Many of the injuries we have had are things that are serious knee injuries. It could be that if the athlete was in better condition, they don't get in a position to get injured, but I can't justify saying it is S&C without any insight into why that is clearly the case. I just don't know.

It is the head coach. It's why he gets paid the big bucks. He's the one who makes the hiring and the recruiting decisions. Harbaugh, and Shaw in the early years riding his coattails, proved that Stanford could hire top notch coaches, recruit well, develop players, win consistently, and compete for Pac-12 championships, BCS bowl games, and could even have been in the conversation for the playoff (had it rolled out sooner). Everything has been slipping for years. Maybe no one else could have maintained what Harbaugh brought to Stanford (and he couldn't replicate it at UM), but we now know quite well that Shaw cannot.

---

AP rankings just came out. Oregon ranked number 10. No other Pac-12 team ranked in the top 25. Utah, Arizona State, and UCLA receiving votes. Pretty sorry situation: https://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings 

The AAC (2), ACC (3), Big 12 (3), BigTen (6), and the SEC (6) all have more teams ranked than the Pac 12. 

The conference is tied with Conference USA, Mountain West, and Sun Belt conferences with 1 each.

[Austroturf]

Ok, to the Fire Shaw crowd. Name your successor.  You think any name coach would come to Stanford?  Hey, Frost may. be available.  Want he supposed to be all that. Or how bout Wilcox? 

Name someone. It’s easy to scream “ fire ——-“. But for whom.

I don't have a particular name, but the individual who takes over from Shaw (whether it is Shaw leaving on his own or being packaged out) needs to be a turnaround personality -- somebody who completely revitalizes the program with a new and motivated staff.  It doesn't have to be somebody as rough around the edges as Harbaugh, but perhaps a highly-motivated Group of 5 coach who sees Stanford as an attractive opportunity to take the next step.  Frankly, it does not need to be a big name coach from a blue-blood program.  Interestingly, Chris Petersen was recently interviewed on this subject and said the same thing: pedigree is less important than intrinsic coaching acumen, motivation for the job and excellent recruiting.  Here is a clip from ESPN where he is talking about what the USC head coaching job requires.  Maybe this is a first interview.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcyQd6uuUaQ

[Austroturf]

Ok, to the Fire Shaw crowd. Name your successor.  You think any name coach would come to Stanford?  Hey, Frost may. be available.  Want he supposed to be all that. Or how bout Wilcox? 

Name someone. It’s easy to scream “ fire ——-“. But for whom.

I don't have a particular name, but the individual who takes over from Shaw (whether it is Shaw leaving on his own or being packaged out) needs to be a turnaround personality -- somebody who completely revitalizes the program with a new and motivated staff.  It doesn't have to be somebody as rough around the edges as Harbaugh, but perhaps a highly-motivated Group of 5 coach who sees Stanford as an attractive opportunity to take the next step.  Frankly, it does not need to be a big name coach from a blue-blood program.  Interestingly, Chris Petersen was recently interviewed on this subject and said the same thing: pedigree is less important than intrinsic coaching acumen, motivation for the job and excellent recruiting.  Here is a clip from ESPN where he is talking about what the USC head coaching job requires.  Maybe this is a first interview.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcyQd6uuUaQ

[gailtate]

Ok, to the Fire Shaw crowd. Name your successor.  You think any name coach would come to Stanford?  Hey, Frost may. be available.  Want he supposed to be all that. Or how bout Wilcox? 

Name someone. It’s easy to scream “ fire ——-“. But for whom.

 I can think of two, both local: Brent Brennan and Troy Taylor. Both have taken moribund programs and turned them around like cable cars. Both are smart, well regarded, ego-free, academics-minded, tireless recruiters and eminently available. Oh, and well under $9MM and they "get" Stanford.

---

[quote="Austroturf" pid='329646' dateline='1634486267']
Agree that a bad OL neuters any offense; but Shawball, with the power-run game and high emphasis on long drives and high TOP was absolutely dependent on top-flight OL play to get the push and slowly grind the defense down.

True, and we can't do that anymore, or even come close. That is why Shawball now passes much more that it runs. The knock-on of that is that the defense is on the field more even when the offense is doing well.   

Why the OL performance has slipped?  Probably a combination of subpar coaching (the unit under Bloomgren was good to excellent, with some patchiness at times), deficient S&C and lack of depth.  The many injuries are probably a result of deficient S&C.  The quality of recruits appears to be good, but there were some years when we didn't sign enough new players, which also impacts depth.  The downward slide in performance is unmistakable.  Who owns the problem?  Shaw, Pritchard, the new position coach?

I have to point out that you omit one obvious possibility of who owns the problem. The players. We can't realistically say they are not part of the problem unless we know that isn't the case. I don't know, so I can't say, but it is worthy of consideration.
It is tempting to say our injuries are a result of deficient S&C coaching. However, I would ask how do we quantify that? Many of the injuries we have had are things that are serious knee injuries. It could be that if the athlete was in better condition, they don't get in a position to get injured, but I can't justify saying it is S&C without any insight into why that is clearly the case. I just don't know.
[/quote


Team has no identity. They have not played “Shawball” in years.  They are not physical. And they are slow. Bad combo.

---

I wrote the plug for Brennan and Taylor. This site's engineering reminds me of the Millennium Tower in SF.

[gailtate]

Ok, to the Fire Shaw crowd. Name your successor.  You think any name coach would come to Stanford?  Hey, Frost may. be available.  Want he supposed to be all that. Or how bout Wilcox? 

Name someone. It’s easy to scream “ fire ——-“. But for whom.

 I can think of two, both local: Brent Brennan and Troy Taylor. Both have taken moribund programs and turned them around like cable cars. Both are smart, well regarded, ego-free, academics-minded, tireless recruiters and eminently available. Oh, and well under $9MM and they "get" Stanford.

---

[quote="Austroturf" pid='329646' dateline='1634486267']
Agree that a bad OL neuters any offense; but Shawball, with the power-run game and high emphasis on long drives and high TOP was absolutely dependent on top-flight OL play to get the push and slowly grind the defense down.

True, and we can't do that anymore, or even come close. That is why Shawball now passes much more that it runs. The knock-on of that is that the defense is on the field more even when the offense is doing well.   

Why the OL performance has slipped?  Probably a combination of subpar coaching (the unit under Bloomgren was good to excellent, with some patchiness at times), deficient S&C and lack of depth.  The many injuries are probably a result of deficient S&C.  The quality of recruits appears to be good, but there were some years when we didn't sign enough new players, which also impacts depth.  The downward slide in performance is unmistakable.  Who owns the problem?  Shaw, Pritchard, the new position coach?

I have to point out that you omit one obvious possibility of who owns the problem. The players. We can't realistically say they are not part of the problem unless we know that isn't the case. I don't know, so I can't say, but it is worthy of consideration.
It is tempting to say our injuries are a result of deficient S&C coaching. However, I would ask how do we quantify that? Many of the injuries we have had are things that are serious knee injuries. It could be that if the athlete was in better condition, they don't get in a position to get injured, but I can't justify saying it is S&C without any insight into why that is clearly the case. I just don't know.
[/quote


Team has no identity. They have not played “Shawball” in years.  They are not physical. And they are slow. Bad combo.

---

I wrote the plug for Brennan and Taylor. This site's engineering reminds me of the Millennium Tower in SF.

[JohnR34231]

Here's how we all feel about Stanford's next Rose Bowl.

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

[JohnR34231]

Here's how we all feel about Stanford's next Rose Bowl.

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

[Giants]

Usually these exercises are punctuated by wildly optimistic takes that we would land some big name coach.  I have no reason to believe that any of the three names that I would offer would come.

Luke Fickell (head coach at Cincinnati) already makes $3.4 million a year and has ties to the BigTen (Ohio State), so I could see him becoming the next Nebraska coach or maybe an SEC wannabe.

Chris Petersen (former Washington head coach): if he really resigned due to feeling excessive pressure at Washington, maybe he’d do better at Stanford?

Kyle Wittingham (Utah head coach): he’d be a fool to leave Utah, but I like and respect him, and he is a great coach (as was evident last night against ASU)

I think all three would be in the category of “keep dreaming”

BC

Fickell isn’t going anywhere.  He is on the verge on reaching the CFP with a G5 program and will soon join a P5 conference that is losing its two premier teams. That gives him a clear path to consistent success at the highest level of the game.  Why go elsewhere and start from scratch?

Whittingham would have to move from Utah where he is close to his true passion - skiing.

Petersen - now, you are on to a possibility….

[Giants]

Usually these exercises are punctuated by wildly optimistic takes that we would land some big name coach.  I have no reason to believe that any of the three names that I would offer would come.

Luke Fickell (head coach at Cincinnati) already makes $3.4 million a year and has ties to the BigTen (Ohio State), so I could see him becoming the next Nebraska coach or maybe an SEC wannabe.

Chris Petersen (former Washington head coach): if he really resigned due to feeling excessive pressure at Washington, maybe he’d do better at Stanford?

Kyle Wittingham (Utah head coach): he’d be a fool to leave Utah, but I like and respect him, and he is a great coach (as was evident last night against ASU)

I think all three would be in the category of “keep dreaming”

BC

Fickell isn’t going anywhere.  He is on the verge on reaching the CFP with a G5 program and will soon join a P5 conference that is losing its two premier teams. That gives him a clear path to consistent success at the highest level of the game.  Why go elsewhere and start from scratch?

Whittingham would have to move from Utah where he is close to his true passion - skiing.

Petersen - now, you are on to a possibility….

[gailtate]

Usually these exercises are punctuated by wildly optimistic takes that we would land some big name coach.  I have no reason to believe that any of the three names that I would offer would come.

Luke Fickell (head coach at Cincinnati) already makes $3.4 million a year and has ties to the BigTen (Ohio State), so I could see him becoming the next Nebraska coach or maybe an SEC wannabe.

Chris Petersen (former Washington head coach): if he really resigned due to feeling excessive pressure at Washington, maybe he’d do better at Stanford?

Kyle Wittingham (Utah head coach): he’d be a fool to leave Utah, but I like and respect him, and he is a great coach (as was evident last night against ASU)

I think all three would be in the category of “keep dreaming”

BC

Fickell isn’t going anywhere.  He is on the verge on reaching the CFP with a G5 program and will soon join a P5 conference that is losing its two premier teams. That gives him a clear path to consistent success at the highest level of the game.  Why go elsewhere and start from scratch?

Whittingham would have to move from Utah where he is close to his true passion - skiing. 

Petersen - now, you are on to a possibility….

The allure of Chris Petersen eludes me. Recruiting-wise, in six years at UW he had his pick of the crème de la crème, appeared in one Rose Bowl and lost (see also the much heralded "Kyle Whittingam", who has yet to lead his team to Pasadena on New Years Day after how many years?).  BP's a top-notch coach, absolutely but it turned out that the pressure was too much. This is what you want?

[gailtate]

Usually these exercises are punctuated by wildly optimistic takes that we would land some big name coach.  I have no reason to believe that any of the three names that I would offer would come.

Luke Fickell (head coach at Cincinnati) already makes $3.4 million a year and has ties to the BigTen (Ohio State), so I could see him becoming the next Nebraska coach or maybe an SEC wannabe.

Chris Petersen (former Washington head coach): if he really resigned due to feeling excessive pressure at Washington, maybe he’d do better at Stanford?

Kyle Wittingham (Utah head coach): he’d be a fool to leave Utah, but I like and respect him, and he is a great coach (as was evident last night against ASU)

I think all three would be in the category of “keep dreaming”

BC

Fickell isn’t going anywhere.  He is on the verge on reaching the CFP with a G5 program and will soon join a P5 conference that is losing its two premier teams. That gives him a clear path to consistent success at the highest level of the game.  Why go elsewhere and start from scratch?

Whittingham would have to move from Utah where he is close to his true passion - skiing. 

Petersen - now, you are on to a possibility….

The allure of Chris Petersen eludes me. Recruiting-wise, in six years at UW he had his pick of the crème de la crème, appeared in one Rose Bowl and lost (see also the much heralded "Kyle Whittingam", who has yet to lead his team to Pasadena on New Years Day after how many years?).  BP's a top-notch coach, absolutely but it turned out that the pressure was too much. This is what you want?

[slide]

The allure of Chris Petersen eludes me. Recruiting-wise, in six years at UW he had his pick of the crème de la crème, appeared in one Rose Bowl and lost (see also the much heralded "Kyle Whittingam", who has yet to lead his team to Pasadena on New Years Day after how many years?).  BP's a top-notch coach, absolutely but it turned out that the pressure was too much. This is what you want?

it seems Stanford has enjoyed more success with "new" head coaches (Shaw, Harbs, Willingham) than former head coaches (Harris, Teevens).  along that line of thinking, I'd be looking for hungry coaches looking to take a big step up.  may be a Greg Roman or a Pete Carmichael (OC with the Saints) or a...

I don't think Shaw is ready to go anywhere or change anything.  he has shown enthusiasm for standing pat.  it is all about execution to him, someone else's execution...

[slide]

The allure of Chris Petersen eludes me. Recruiting-wise, in six years at UW he had his pick of the crème de la crème, appeared in one Rose Bowl and lost (see also the much heralded "Kyle Whittingam", who has yet to lead his team to Pasadena on New Years Day after how many years?).  BP's a top-notch coach, absolutely but it turned out that the pressure was too much. This is what you want?

it seems Stanford has enjoyed more success with "new" head coaches (Shaw, Harbs, Willingham) than former head coaches (Harris, Teevens).  along that line of thinking, I'd be looking for hungry coaches looking to take a big step up.  may be a Greg Roman or a Pete Carmichael (OC with the Saints) or a...

I don't think Shaw is ready to go anywhere or change anything.  he has shown enthusiasm for standing pat.  it is all about execution to him, someone else's execution...