Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this??

Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? (/thread-23518.html)

Pages: 1 2

Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - gailtate - 10-02-2022

The devolution of Stanford football. I did not. This is stunning, even for me. Wow.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - CliffSpeed - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 08:13 AM)gailtate Wrote: The devolution of Stanford football. I did not. This is stunning, even for me. Wow.

In 2014 David Shaw stood in front of a room of Buck Club donors in NYC and said "I don't care about wins and losses." So yeah, I knew we were headed here. We've gone broke slowly, and now all at once.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - thunder_chik - 10-02-2022

I am gobsmacked by the extent of the decline. And by the impression that anyone responsible for the football program seems to be sitting on their hands. If Shaw truly isn't concerned with Ws and Ls, why the heck are we even fielding a team? Is it just for the TV money?
The university stuck it to fans during the glory years (raising ticket and parking prices, implementing mandatory "donations" as part of securing season tickets, jacking up permit prices for tailgating slots, etc.) I used to be able to spend a mere $7 for a general admission senior ticket when Luck first started playing. I don't think there's much good will left in the fan base.
I have no idea what will happen. If the downward spiral continues with no apparent effort to change course, I will remain sad and frustrated.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - lex24 - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 08:13 AM)gailtate Wrote: The devolution of Stanford football. I did not. This is stunning, even for me. Wow.

I certainly did not. And you’ve at least warned of this for some time. You were and are, right. Tip of the hat.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - Brickcity - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 08:13 AM)gailtate Wrote: The devolution of Stanford football. I did not. This is stunning, even for me. Wow.

After last season, I had assumed that the program would have a few more 3-9 to 5-7 type seasons before Shaw was eventually forced out or left on his own. So, while I expected the team to continually be one of the weaker teams in the conference, I certainly didn't expect it to be like 1-11 or 2-10 putrid.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - OutsiderFan - 10-02-2022

When no coaches were fired last year it was clear Shaw and Muir and Stanford didn't care, so I stopped caring too. So not at all surprised how bad Stanford is in 2022.

There have been too many red flags being waved since 2016 to be surprised. They have all compounded on each other and been made worse with the evolution of college football rules and practices.

How silly that I once thought one of the biggest issues facing Stanford Football was not offering early visits. Now I could list at least half a dozen strategically catastrophic things cratering the program, all more serious than the damage done by lack of early visits.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - Austroturf - 10-02-2022

Shaw set the course for this decline by neglecting to pull in top-tier coordinators and assistants. A program is only ever as good as the people who run it. Harbaugh understood that and assembled a crack staff of top lieutenants, which included Shaw. Somehow, that lesson was lost on Shaw: he looked for comfortable staffing solutions and never went outside his zone of familiarity. When things become comfortable, they become soft; and, over time, the once-fabled intellectual brutality of the program has become intellectual frailty. This is a sad spectacle, but has been developing now for years.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - Mick - 10-02-2022

All of the above is correct. The challenge is to disengage with a checked-out, mediocre talent who has dragged the program down with him in favor of a Harbaugh-like coach to make one final attempt to un-sink this sinking ship.

I don't think it can be done. More importantly, I wonder if the university hierarchy even wants it done.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - BostonCard - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 01:35 PM)Mick Wrote: All of the above is correct. The challenge is to disengage with a checked-out, mediocre talent who has dragged the program down with him in favor of a Harbaugh-like coach to make one final attempt to un-sink this sinking ship.

I don't think it can be done. More importantly, I wonder if the university hierarchy even wants it done.

I don’t think they don’t want it to be done, but I don’t think they prioritize it over other aspects of running the university, and I don’t think they are willing to make the compromises needed to do so.

BC

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - PersonalLegend - 10-02-2022

We've been on our way to a 3-win over/under team for many years. The Pandemic messed with the trend a little bit, I think. Anybody who was watching saw it. We have been lucky to have some amazing stalwart players. I would, for instance, argue that today's defensive front isn't all that different from the one in 2017, with the extremely notable exception that Harrison Philips could plug the middle all by himself. Our other guys got pushed around a lot even back then. [Okay, so we also had Okereke on that team and I remember him being pretty solid, but still...]

The best example of our program being adrift is we no longer have an identity of any kind. We are so far from the days of running a steady dose of power on anybody we choose it's not even sad.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - Brickcity - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 02:01 PM)PersonalLegend Wrote: We've been on our way to a 3-win over/under team for many years. The Pandemic messed with the trend a little bit, I think. Anybody who was watching saw it. We have been lucky to have some amazing stalwart players. I would, for instance, argue that today's defensive front isn't all that different from the one in 2017, with the extremely notable exception that Harrison Philips could plug the middle all by himself. Our other guys got pushed around a lot even back then. [Okay, so we also had Okereke on that team and I remember him being pretty solid, but still...]

The best example of our program being adrift is we no longer have an identity of any kind. We are so far from the days of running a steady dose of power on anybody we choose it's not even sad.

To your point about the wayward days of running power: that was 100% Jim Harbaugh. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever ran it after he left. Or, at least we ran it a lot less.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - cardcrimson - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 02:20 PM)Brickcity Wrote: To your point about the wayward days of running power: that was 100% Jim Harbaugh. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever ran it after he left. Or, at least we ran it a lot less.

I seem to remember a certain Rose Bowl against Michigan State where we ran the ball, was four straight times, into the middle of the line when we were trying to drive for a winning score. I think our coach, when pressed afterwards about the play calling, replied" "It's what we do". . . .

Of course, my memory is a bit hazy. . . .

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - PersonalLegend - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 02:29 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(10-02-2022, 02:20 PM)Brickcity Wrote: To your point about the wayward days of running power: that was 100% Jim Harbaugh. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever ran it after he left. Or, at least we ran it a lot less.

I seem to remember a certain Rose Bowl against Michigan State where we ran the ball, was four straight times, into the middle of the line when we were trying to drive for a winning score. I think our coach, when pressed afterwards about the play calling, replied" "It's what we do". . . .

Of course, my memory is a bit hazy. . . .

No, your memory is fine. And, yes, Shaw hammered home the "2 yard gains become 6 yard gains in the 4th quarter mantra." I wonder what the mantra is today? "Slow players need a slow mesh."

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - Softball Fan - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 01:26 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Shaw set the course for this decline by neglecting to pull in top-tier coordinators and assistants. A program is only ever as good as the people who run it. Harbaugh understood that and assembled a crack staff of top lieutenants, which included Shaw. Somehow, that lesson was lost on Shaw: he looked for comfortable staffing solutions and never went outside his zone of familiarity. When things become comfortable, they become soft; and, over time, the once-fabled intellectual brutality of the program has become intellectual frailty. This is a sad spectacle, but has been developing now for years.

I've never met Shaw. He seems like a really nice guy who will try to avoid any confrontation with his coaches at all costs. He seems like the personality type where he wants to be comfortable around everyone with no disagreements about strategy.

I would also guess he likes to be friends with his players. While a head coach should have a positive relationship with his players he should also make it clear he's the boss. I learned back in the days long ago of wvb coaching I couldn't be a friend to any of my players. To be effective I had to have the attitude, "I'm in charge. You do what I tell you to do."

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - Austroturf - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 02:29 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(10-02-2022, 02:20 PM)Brickcity Wrote: To your point about the wayward days of running power: that was 100% Jim Harbaugh. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever ran it after he left. Or, at least we ran it a lot less.

I seem to remember a certain Rose Bowl against Michigan State where we ran the ball, was four straight times, into the middle of the line when we were trying to drive for a winning score. I think our coach, when pressed afterwards about the play calling, replied" "It's what we do". . . .

Of course, my memory is a bit hazy. . . .

O, that series of downs is emblazoned in my memory (in a negative way, of course). But to evoke a more positive memory, the power-running game is what we inflicted on Oregon at home in 2013. That game remains the single most brilliant example of "Shaw-ball": win the TOP battle, score 7 or 3 points on every drive, stuff the opposing offense, shorten the game, limit possessions, rinse and repeat. Even skeptics of Shaw's coaching aptitude hailed him for his game plan after that victory. But, yeah, to do that you need the requisite personnel playing under the right staff. Minor details....

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - BostonCard - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 02:32 PM)PersonalLegend Wrote:
(10-02-2022, 02:29 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(10-02-2022, 02:20 PM)Brickcity Wrote: To your point about the wayward days of running power: that was 100% Jim Harbaugh. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever ran it after he left. Or, at least we ran it a lot less.

I seem to remember a certain Rose Bowl against Michigan State where we ran the ball, was four straight times, into the middle of the line when we were trying to drive for a winning score. I think our coach, when pressed afterwards about the play calling, replied" "It's what we do". . . .

Of course, my memory is a bit hazy. . . .

No, your memory is fine. And, yes, Shaw hammered home the "2 yard gains become 6 yard gains in the 4th quarter mantra." I wonder what the mantra is today? "Slow players need a slow mesh."

It starts and ends with the OL. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the slow mesh RPO (Wake Forest seems to run it just fine), except that our OL doesn’t push anyone back, so on many occasions a defensive linemen is up on the QB as soon as he pulls it down. It reminds me a bit of the old Buddy Teabens shotgun draw. It’s the same offense that largely got Florida to a national title, but the problem was that while Florida’s linemen could put up gaping holes for their running backs, when we tried it, we often faced a linebacker in the backfield.

Ironically, a few years ago, I remember this board clamoring for Shawvita to institute an RPO and claiming he was stubborn for not doing so.

I’m not particularly enamored with the slow mesh, or RPO’s generally, but until we re-develop an offensive line that can push people back and keep passing lanes clear, we’re going to be hosed regardless of scheme. We could go back to power, and realize that all our runs are getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage. We could go to a a “raid” offense and McKee will get sacked 10 times a game.

We need to start winning the wars in the trenches, and you can draw a straight line between Stanford’s decline and our inability to do so on both offense and defense.

BC

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - Austroturf - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 02:57 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(10-02-2022, 02:32 PM)PersonalLegend Wrote:
(10-02-2022, 02:29 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(10-02-2022, 02:20 PM)Brickcity Wrote: To your point about the wayward days of running power: that was 100% Jim Harbaugh. I could be wrong, but I don't think we ever ran it after he left. Or, at least we ran it a lot less.

I seem to remember a certain Rose Bowl against Michigan State where we ran the ball, was four straight times, into the middle of the line when we were trying to drive for a winning score. I think our coach, when pressed afterwards about the play calling, replied" "It's what we do". . . .

Of course, my memory is a bit hazy. . . .

No, your memory is fine. And, yes, Shaw hammered home the "2 yard gains become 6 yard gains in the 4th quarter mantra." I wonder what the mantra is today? "Slow players need a slow mesh."

We need to start winning the wars in the trenches, and you can draw a straight line between Stanford’s decline and our inability to do so on both offense and defense.

BC

Yup.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - msqueri - 10-02-2022

Regarding the offensive line and its push, I continue to think the issue is less the OL effectiveness per se and more the fundamental issue on offense continuously over the last decade: Shaw isn't a good offensive mind and our offense is always less than the sum of its parts.

Is the OL imperfect? Sure. But most college lines are. It is good enough that we shouldn't view it as a weakness. Walter Rouse is one of the better linemen in the nation, Drake Nugent was last year and at bare minimum is very good, and we came in to the year with enviable depth (and RT4 playing well last night suggests we do indeed have excellent depth). OL shouldn't be holding the offense back.

For what it's worth, here is my ranking of Pac-12 OL based on PFF team grades:

1. Oregon - 92.1 pass blocking (#1) + 66.1 run blocking (#48) = 79.1
2. UCLA - 78.9 pass blocking (#12) + 77.3 run blocking (#9) = 78.1
3. USC - 73.7 pass blocking (#28) + 81.5 run blocking (#4) = 77.6
4. Washington - 76.5 pass blocking (#19) + 75.6 run blocking (#12) = 76.1
5. Oregon State - 71.2 pass blocking (#38) + 67.6 run blocking (#44) = 69.4
6. Stanford - 62.8 pass blocking (#77) + 72.4 run blocking (#23) = 67.6
7. Utah - 70.1 pass blocking (#50) + 60.8 run blocking (#72) = 65.5
8. Arizona - 71.1 pass blocking (#39) + 54.0 run blocking (#106) = 62.6
9. Washington State - 60.8 pass blocking (#84) + 55.7 run blocking (#95) = 58.3
10. Colorado - 57.8 pass blocking (#94) + 52.5 run blocking (#111) = 55.2
11. Arizona State - 49.1 pass blocking (#114) + 55.5 run blocking (#100) = 52.3
12. Cal - 43.6 pass blocking (#123) + 51.2 run blocking (#118) = 47.4

I'm disappointed Stanford's OL is only middle of the pack. But we should recognize it's middle of the pack. To hear our fans talk it would sometimes seem we have a bad OL. We definitely don't. But having only competent OL play rather than dominant OL play makes it very hard for Shawfense to succeed. Thus it ever was.

Should the #6 OL in the Pac-12 + Smith/Filkins + Wilson/Higgins/Tremayne/Humphreys + Yurosek = the #9 scoring offense and #8 yards per play offense in the Pac-12? Certainly not.

IMHO, the core insight about Stanford football is that we play much worse than our talent. The total is less than the sum of the parts. This has been the case for many years now. OL is a great example. Can we only be good if we're completely dominating opponents in the trenches? Apparently, under this staff at least.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - Goose - 10-02-2022

(10-02-2022, 02:57 PM)BostonCard Wrote: It starts and ends with the OL. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the slow mesh RPO (Wake Forest seems to run it just fine), except that our OL doesn’t push anyone back, so on many occasions a defensive linemen is up on the QB as soon as he pulls it down. It reminds me a bit of the old Buddy Teabens shotgun draw. It’s the same offense that largely got Florida to a national title, but the problem was that while Florida’s linemen could put up gaping holes for their running backs, when we tried it, we often faced a linebacker in the backfield.

Ironically, a few years ago, I remember this board clamoring for Shawvita to institute an RPO and claiming he was stubborn for not doing so.

I’m not particularly enamored with the slow mesh, or RPO’s generally, but until we re-develop an offensive line that can push people back and keep passing lanes clear, we’re going to be hosed regardless of scheme. We could go back to power, and realize that all our runs are getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage. We could go to a a “raid” offense and McKee will get sacked 10 times a game.

We need to start winning the wars in the trenches, and you can draw a straight line between Stanford’s decline and our inability to do so on both offense and defense.
BC

Plus 1e9. This year was supposed to be the year we finally had an OL again. Didn't work out that way. The rest is a direct consequence. Injuries are an excuse, because we seem to have them all the time.

I am not a fan of the RPO, slow mesh or otherwise, because it puts your QB in harm's way far too often. If we had a QB who ran the ball a lot, I could understand using the RPO, because the QB would be getting those hits anyway. We don't.

RE: Seriously, did you ever think it would come to this?? - BostonCard - 10-02-2022

The Stanford OL has given up 16 sacks in 4 games, worst in the pac-12 (even as every other team has played 5 games). On a per game basis, in the entire country, only Tulsa, Colorado State and Akron have been worse. Some of that is the scheme, and some of that is McKey’s lack of pocket presence, but a lot of that is the OL.

In TFL allowed, Stanford is heads and shoulders worse than the next worst team in the PAC-12… 8.25 compared to 5.8 for Cal, ASU, and WSU. The 2.5 TFL/g gap between Stanford and the teams immediately above them is greater than the gap between Cal and the #3 team in the conference (OSU). Even if you subtract out sacks, Stanford is uniquely bad at allowing other teams into our backfield. It is probably a tribute to Filkins that he can average 4.5 ypc; he does ok when he is not met by a linebacker in the backfield.

Stanford has run 272 plays, and given up a TFL on 33 of them, so one in eight plays goes for negative yardage. A good scheme and quarterback can reduce that, but it doesn’t absolve the offensive line of its basic responsibility to keep opposing defenders out of our backfield.

BC