Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - 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: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State (/thread-23673.html)
+- 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: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State (/thread-23673.html)
Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - msqueri - 11-06-2022
1. Yesterday was a low point for Stanford football. One of the most mediocre teams in Power Five football - a 4-4 Washington State team that hasn't had a regular season better than 6-6 since 2018 - came into our house and picked the score. Beyond the abject uncompetitiveness (itself not a rare occasion for us, which is a big part of why this is another low point), it was another joyless Saturday on campus that begs the question of why we field a team and pour resources into it if we're not going to give it a chance of being relevant or fun. A few thousand people bothered to show up and by the final whistle there were probably more people at field level than in the rest of the stadium. Many of the most vocal who showed up expressed themselves sartorially with garb that Stanford Hates Fun. That meme, comically and short-sightedly boosted by a school more eager to censor criticism than address the roots of it, went national as the much-watched talking heads on ESPN's College GameDay mocked us for the laughingstock our no fun allowed administration, losing football ways, and mausoleum of a football stadium have rightfully made us. It's hard to say whether this is THE low point for Stanford football. Going a year without a major college football win was low. So was the string of obliterations (173-46!) to end last year. Before Shaw's time, so were multiple moments in Walt Harris' reign of terror, or the 1983 season, or the 1960 season. The point is that Shaw has now strung together a couple of years of low points that rival the lowest moments in program history. If there is still somebody out there who tolerates the idea of David Shaw coaching at Stanford next season (including David Shaw) I don't believe they have the best interests of the players, fans, or university at heart.
2. That being said, those who don't feel sorry for Shaw need to work on their empathy. This tarnishing of the legacy of an accomplished and decent man is brutal. It's painful to watch him process all this and gamely go before cameras and do the public-facing aspects of his job. He plainly doesn't know why he's failed or what he could possibly do to stop failing. In the press conference he talked about how ultimately he's accountable and how that's the easy part but the hard part is knowing how to get the most out of our players. To reach the mountaintop, tumble to the seas, and have no idea how to make it back to shore, much less start climbing again, must be excruciating. I have to imagine it's traumatic and, at a bare minimum, comes with coping mechanisms that border on the delusional. When asked about how the coaches are handling all of this, he offered a meditation on how all you can do is just do the job. On some level I think a coach I've always viewed as excessively deontological has coped with failure by becoming even more relentlessly, all-consumingly dedicated to a philosophy of "the means justify the ends." What else can he do but put together the game plan Sunday night, focus on fundamentals during the week, and appeal to the pride of the team to execute on Saturday? But another phrase for this is going through the motions. And I think that wears on even Shaw. It was startling to me to see him in the press conference forget Ron Gould and Kendall Williamson's names. Seemed like PTSD. Deep down I don't care how philosophical one is, a football coach can't sustain his soul on deontology alone. The mounting toll of the losses and the garbage ways they happen will weigh on anybody. To use another metaphor, after falling from the mountaintop Shaw settled at the base camp and accumulated such piles of garbage that they've gotten so high they block out any view he used to have of the peak. All of this makes me sad for Shaw, no matter how angry I am at what he's made of the program (which is very angry). The one thing that would make me take back this sympathy is if he is secretly colluding with powers-that-be to "demonstrate" that winning football is now impossible at Stanford. That always felt too conspiratorial to me but the more he coaches like this and the more he's allowed to do it the more I'll wonder.
3. Shaw's comments that he never makes excuses and then immediately talking at length about the defensive injuries and fumbles was comical, though I chalk it up to shell shock. My problem with his narrative is the same as every week - take out all the injuries and even the super negative plays like fumbles and we're still bad. Shaw talked again about how the offense plays well when it's not going backwards. Excuse me? The game was 21-0 before any fumbles had happened. Given our offense that means the game was essentially over before ball security reared its ugly head. Our first two drives were three and outs without "going backwards" on either of them. We just failed the good old fashioned way, by sucking, same as the vast majority of weeks the last several years. The fumbles and other errors Shaw talked about made the score even more lopsided but take all of that out and we're still not competitive. Obviously the fumbles don't help though. I chafe at any notion this is bad luck or episodic poor execution or even to some degree players trying to do too much. This has been a horrid flaw of the team since the Colgate game. We've fumbled 20 times this season. Twenty! In comparison, Oregon, Cal, and USC are all in the 4-5 fumble range and Washington is at 7. We are 130th in the nation in both fumbles lost and overall fumbles, with only Central Michigan keeping us from the last spot. This is who we are.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - msqueri - 11-06-2022
4. The hardest question for me right now is whether this poor defensive performance is who we are on that side of the ball. Defense has clearly been a brighter spot than offense this year and there have been signs of improvement and young talent an optimist would want to latch on to. But as the season nears its final stretch it's looking very likely this will now be the sixth straight pretty crappy Lance Anderson defense. How much of that is having to play with a crummy hand due to the ineptitude of the offense? Going forward, how much of it will be having several key defenders in the middle of the defense out with injury? I think it's a fair amount for both, making the defense harder to evaluate than the offense. Put another way, the offense stunk all season while the defense had a stretch in the middle of the season that looked a bit better before it succumbed to its destiny. Ultimately it's pretty bad though. This was Washington State's first time breaking 500 yard of offense in the last three seasons and 7.14 yards per play is the third highest they've had in that span. Even excluding the scoop and score, they had 3.75 points per drive, which made the Washington State offense (#77 in points per drive) look like the Washington offense (#7 in points per drive).
5. I do think losing Fields, Miezan, Williamson, and Damuni on the first few plays of the game nuked the game plan. We went into the game counting on those guys to defend the run and then otherwise for the defense to focus on the pass-happy Cougar style. Without those guys we had walk-ons and very poor players manning the middle. The result was ugly. Washington State came into the game averaging 83 rushing yards per game and 3.45 yards per carry. Against us, they had 306 yards rushing and 8.05 yards per carry. That is more than double the rushing yards the Cougs have had in any game this year. At no point in the last 14 seasons has Washington State had a single game against any opponent (even FCS) with either that many rushing yards or that high of a yards per carry. (I didn't care enough to go back to see if it's ever happened in history) Read all those numbers again. We're all probably inured to how bad Stanford's run defense has been in recent years but that's special to let one of the worst rushing teams in the nation do that to you. Injuries can't excuse that performance, but Fields, Miezan, and Damuni being out was debilitating for run defense. Those are key parts of what we do (albeit not well) in that phase. Because the Cougs typically have a weak run game, I think a plausible alternative reality exists in which we're just mediocre enough against the run with those guys and don't give up the brobdingnagian plays up the middle (or maybe just one or two of them) that Washington State hinges on the pass like they normally do. Just as it was against UCLA, pass defense was the relative bright spot of the game for us. I'd say it was straight-up good - the fourth lowest passer rating, third lowest yards per attempt, third lowest passing yards, and second lowest completion percentage any defense has allowed to the Cougs this year. It was one of our three best pass defense games of the year, along with the Oregon and Notre Dame games. The problem is that without a modicum of run defense Washington State could have their way with us regardless. I could buy an argument that the defense turns in a mediocre performance last night if it had the personnel to execute it.
6. I have less patience for any notion that not having the personnel to execute is defensible. Injuries happen in football and, before that really unfortunate 2-3 play stretch our defense had been relatively healthy this year. As Shaw has said all year, when you have injuries it comes down to the depth to overcome them. It's on the coaches that the drop-off from Miezan, Damuni, Fields, and Williamson to Jorgensen, Kaul, Gilman, and Slocum was so disastrous. When you recruit three scholarship linebackers in a three year stretch and they all suck, you don't get to complain that your starting linebackers getting injured is debilitating. Sadly, it does look like a LB calamity will be our future for years to come, as the three young guys do appear to suck if they couldn't even get an opportunity yesterday. Horrifying that three starting linebackers can all be gone and Dubre, a seemingly quality recruit near the end of his second year, gets two snaps in garbage time. Also very troubling that in one of the last four games of the year, meaning that all players who have not yet played this year now automatically get to count it as a redshirt, neither Hudson nor Rose is football-ready to see the field. Jorgensen and Kaul have made a lot for themselves as guys who came in as walk-ons. This isn't their fault (in fact Jorgensen had two big run stops, which is usually about what we can expect from Damuni, and Kaul broke up a pass). It falls squarely on the recruiting and player development that made us have to play them a combined 76 snaps. It's also a recruiting issue when you have to rely on a player like Gilman at safety.
7. I do have some nice things to say about individual defenders. McGill got beat for a touchdown in garbage time by a backup QB making his debut, but three pass breakups (one in the red zone) against Ward is big-time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Coug game plan was to pick on McGill, and he didn't let them (Turner-Muhammad on the other hand....). He also forced a punt by being an annoying pissant and drawing an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty that forced a punt rather than going for it on 4th and short. And it's clearer and clearer that the best talent on this team are the true freshmen edge guys. PFF assessed Bailey as having a Jekyll and Hyde game, but in terms of sheer number of big plays he was clearly the standout Cardinal of the day - a 3rd down stop in the red zone spoiled by Gilman's penalty, a forced fumble and gigantic 19 yard loss that made a punt inevitable, a tackle for loss and another run stop, and a QB hurry to force an incomplete pass. He's a beast. [He did have a roughing the passer thanks to acting from Ward and maybe a bit of a makeup call for the previous play's love tap] Cooper forced a 4th down with a tackle (not his fault STM then gave up the touchdown) and forced two punts (a stop for no gain on 3rd and 4 and a QB hurry on 3rd and 5). I think they're easily the two best players on the roster adjusted for age. And we got a glimpse of their classmate Tafiti getting his first action and it will be nice to see more of him going forward. Also in the true freshman getting his feet wet category, I was delighted to see one of my favorite recent recruits, Collin Wright, look like a guy who will start at Stanford as long as he's eligible (i.e., I think he should start as a redshirt freshman next year and is already markedly better than Gilman).
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - msqueri - 11-06-2022
8. Ok, holding off on talking about the offense as MY coping mechanism can only wait so long. Everybody besides Shaw and our players should know by now it's one of the worst offenses in the country and beyond redemption. We had one point per drive. One. Washington State has a good offense but not that good. We made the #37 points per drive defense look like the #3 points per drive defense (Georgia gives up 1.03 points per drive). Stanford's 4.81 yards per play is the lowest a Power Five offense has had against Washington State all season. [As a sign of how pitiful our offense is EVERY week, the Oregon State game is actually the only time in the last six games in which we had more yards per play than yesterday.] The passing offense hasn't been good at any point this season other than the Washington game, but what it's become without Wilson is mind-boggling. Shaw talks about McKee, Yurosek, Higgins, and Tremayne like they're our best players, but that's damning with faint praise. These guys had the second worst passing metrics of any team against Washington State this year. Every week they're bad. Let's stop talking about them like they're good. McKee might be the least bad. PFF thought he was our best performing starter on offense while Total QBR had him #71 of 121 QBs in Total QBR this week. The way our offense played I can buy that a player being just a tad below the national average at his position would be our best performance of the day. McKee had a few plays with his feet that were decidedly positive for the offense and his throws to Higgins and Yurosek deserved more than the fumbles they resulted in. McKee left plenty of meat on the bone but he is better and is playing better than his receivers. This week's moving the chains (first downs) leader board: Yurosek (4), Daniels (3), Leigber (3), Higgins (2, and also drew a pass interference), McKee (2), Humphreys (also drew two pass interferences in close succession on the second touchdown drive), Reuben, Barrow, Tremayne.
9. The run game is what it is. Everybody knows we don't have running backs. That nobody had more than 23 yards rushing takes me back to my years in college of JR Lemon, Kenneth Tolon, and Jason Evans trying to run behind the non-offensive line Willingham bequeathed. This time though it's not coveted recruits running into a brick wall but a converted safety and true freshman running quarterback trying to put on a brave face. I don't have anything negative to say about what Leigber and Daniels are doing for the team. But obviously you can only squeeze so much blood out of a turnip. A miserable 71 yards rushing (lowest of the season) and 2.54 yards per carry (third worst) speaks for itself. But I want to be clear that I think it's assuming more than is in evidence to think this is why the offense stinks. In fact, our rushing output and yards per carry is better than Cal, Idaho, and Colorado State did against Washington State's good run defense. I don't say that to defend our run game but to say that it isn't doing any worse, relative to opponent, than our passing game. In any case, we obviously need to fix the RB pipeline. Barrow being dinged up (recall he missed all of last season and was hobbled as a high school senior) reveals yet another fragile RB we can't count on. I am starting the campaign now for LJ Martin to be the highest priority recruit to be admitted for early enrollment. We're going to need him.
10. I am not being facetious when I say one of my biggest disappointments yesterday was not getting to see Karty line up for a field goal. I know Stanford sucks, that we're not going to make a bowl, and that it's a joyless viewing experience. None of that is surprising. But one of the few things we have to watch for this year is if Karty can remain perfect on attempts and how far he can nail it from. We got none of the Karty show yesterday aside from his as-ever reliable kickoffs and extra points (not that we give him many of those either). This damages his quest for honors, already a massive long shot, significantly. Defending Lou Groza Award winner Jake Moody tacked on another field goal yesterday for Michigan and now has a whopping 19 (Karty has 14). Christopher Dunn hit three field goals, including a 51 yarder, for NC State and is now 18 for 18 to Karty's 14 for 14. I seriously doubt Karty is even a finalist for the Groza Award but we're not doing him any favors. Yeah, yeah, I know coaches shouldn't play for awards and that going for it on 4th down in the red zone intended to show the team some fight, but a game without seeing a Karty field goal attempt was even less entertaining than our usual meager fare. Elsewhere on special teams, Sanborn had net punts of 28 (to the 45), 47 (to the 25), 20 (to the 42), 31 (back into our territory to the Stanford 36), and 42 (to the 30). That's a poor game for punt return coverage. Hard for an outsider like me to assess how much is Sanborn versus his unit mates, but it wasn't a good game for us in this phase. On kick coverage, nice to see a good Scotty Edwards tackle. On returns, Thompson had a few nice ones but on balance he seems like a downgrade from our priors and he had some negative plays in fair catching inside the 5 and muffing a kick we were lucky to recover. Still very early for him as a true freshman (which brings up the oddity of burning his redshirt for single digit special teams plays a game) and I look forward to seeing more of him.
11. Game balls: McKee, McGill, Edwards, Akina
12. That loss practically makes it official this will be a losing team that will extend the bowl drought. Some won't want to admit that until we get boat-raced by Utah, but it's clear this team is a loser. I find that oddly/depressingly liberating. My view for the last several weeks has been that Shaw saved his job with the Notre Dame and Arizona State wins. I still think that's probably the case, especially given the injuries that now/again give the lazy armchair observer a ready-made excuse, even if those really paying attention know the team is hopeless independent of injuries. But the magnitude of Stanford's embarrassment on numerous fronts yesterday opens up the possibility of a tectonic shift in the management of the program. Three weeks is a lot of time for a lot more embarrassment. Cal and BYU aren't a lot better than we are (though they're better) and the possibility remains that we could win one or both of those games. The absolute best case scenario for Stanford going forward is that we win those games and Shaw uses it as an excuse to ride off into the sunset. But if he's inclined to stick around another year and if powers-that-be are inclined to let him, contrary to all earthly evidence of what's best for the program, anything good that happens on the field for Stanford football the next three weeks is bad for the program. Embrace the suck. No Fun U needs to know what a disgrace it is nationally and how much it is eroding bonds of affection alums and donors have for a school we'd like to think is likable.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - cardcrimson - 11-06-2022
Excellent write up. Thanks!
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - Phogge - 11-06-2022
Not bad.
Disagree only on McKee, especially if you watched guys like Duggan, Nix and DTR plus the two bombers at SMU and Houston who can fling it and are actually capable to evade the rush and make first downs with their legs. I would recruit no more statues.
I get why high academic guys who can play a little come to Stanford. But guys like Bailey and Cooper who have NFL upside puzzle me. They play before nobody and the team is going nowhere fast. If I was their advisor I'd tell them to get out of Dodge.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - msqueri - 11-06-2022
(11-06-2022, 03:06 PM)Phogge Wrote: Not bad.
Disagree only on McKee, especially if you watched guys like Duggan, Nix and DTR plus the two bombers at SMU and Houston who can fling it and are actually capable to evade the rush and make first downs with their legs. I would recruit no more statues.
I get why high academic guys who can play a little come to Stanford. But guys like Bailey and Cooper who have NFL upside puzzle me. They play before nobody and the team is going nowhere fast. If I was their advisor I'd tell them to get out of Dodge.
I was damning McKee with faint praise. I never said he was playing great, just better than the rest of our crap on offense. I still remember all the foolish posts this off-season favorably comparing Brycen Tremayne to Mike Wilson, and we still occasionally get posts comparing Elijah Higgins to Ty Montgomery. This is outlandish. It's in that context I observed that objective metrics put McKee as below average but close enough to middling he might be our least bad offensive player in a given game. That is NOT same as favorably comparing him to Duggan, Nix, and DTR as college QBs (and at no point have I ever suggested McKee could hold DTR's jock strap as I view DTR as one of the all-time most underrated college players). For what it's worth, here are the Total QBR rankings for the Pac-12 QBs, and throwing Duggan and Mordecai in there because you mentioned them (the Houston guy hasn't qualified):
4. DTR
6. Nix
7. Rising
9. Williams
14. Duggan
23. Penix
33. Mordecai
41. de Laura
64. Ward
80. Plummer
86. McKee
94. Jones
121. Shrout
Anyway, my post should be read more as shade at everybody else than true praise of McKee.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - RuralFan - 11-06-2022
(11-06-2022, 01:49 PM)msqueri Wrote: The one thing that would make me take back this sympathy is if he is secretly colluding with powers-that-be to "demonstrate" that winning football is now impossible at Stanford. That always felt too conspiratorial to me but the more he coaches like this and the more he's allowed to do it the more I'll wonder.
I don't know what David Shaw thinks. I do know that he has said he wishes college football involved: recruiting freshman, coaching them to play well, and having them stay four or five years. I believe this model no longer applies and will not work. As I watch our games on TV or though steaming options I am stunned by the number of quality players our opposition has acquired through the transfer portal. Stanford acquired one graduate transfer. Now maybe this would work if Stanford players weren't allowed to transfer out, but of course they are allowed to transfer out and some do. My understanding is that Stanford's admission allows all most no undergraduate transfers. If this policy continues, I don't think Stanford can operate a competitive D-1 football program.
Now getting transfers into Stanford is important, but so is getting them to agree to come for a year or two. My guess is this requires an NIL (Name, Image, Likeness) offer. Now Stanford has athletes in women's basketball with NIL contracts. Maybe we are also competitive in football, but if we are not and want to be, we had better figure it out.
What about a new football coach? Stanford can release David Shaw if they want, but what requirements will attract a new coach. Maybe a seven or eight figure salary will do the trick, or maybe Stanford will be required to fundamentally change some of its undergraduate policies. This must be a brobdingnagian pill for administrators to swallow that really just wish the problems would go away
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - Austroturf - 11-06-2022
In my view, Shaw's main issue is that he probably never fully understood why he was on the mountain to begin with. If you truly understand why you are succeeding, then it stands to reason that you can take corrective action when things are sliding south. Did he fully grasp what he inherited from Harbaugh and why the program was in such monumentally good shape when the 2011 season kicked off? He probably understood some of the key elements, but certainly not all of them.
Over the years, we have watched:
1) an erosion of the coaching staff.
2) a decline in player development.
3) an increase in susceptibility to injury.
4) a decay in football fundamentals.
5) an overall down-tick in the quality of recruiting.
6) a deterioration in toughness.
7) the loss of a clear football identity.
Somehow, Shaw must have been observing and registering all this, but he stayed the course. He kept the same staff, tweaked it when there was attrition and had the audacity at the start of the season to claim that his team was a "snake in the grass". And that after a 3-9 season in 2021 and seven straight losses to end the campaign. Really?
That's why my empathy for him is not sizable. He inherited everything a coach could hope for, made good use of it for a number of years and then haplessly stood by watching while it crumbled around him. He must have believed that his infallible leadership was the secret sauce to success, that he could hire any warm bodies on the coaching staff and that the result would be multiple 10-win seasons. And that indicates that he never really understood why he was so massively successful in 2011-2015. I will always be grateful for those seasons; but Shaw clearly did not understand how to sustain that success, which means he never fully grasped the particulars that led to all those wins and bowl games and conference titles. Ultimately, success (or failure) stems from the people you surround yourself with and your ability to lead them. And the downfall of Stanford football is a simple failure of leadership.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - cardcrimson - 11-06-2022
(11-06-2022, 04:26 PM)Austroturf Wrote: He inherited everything a coach could hope for, made good use of it for a number of years and then haplessly stood by watching while it crumbled around him. He must have believed that his infallible leadership was the secret sauce to success, that he could hire any warm bodies on the coaching staff and that the result would be multiple 10-win seasons. And that indicates that he never really understood why he was so massively successful in 2011-2015. I will always be grateful for those seasons; but Shaw clearly did not understand how to sustain that success, which means he never fully grasped the particulars that led to all those wins and bowl games and conference titles. Ultimately, success (or failure) stems from the people you surround yourself with and your ability to lead them. And the downfall of Stanford football is a simple failure of leadership.
I think this is spot on, especially the last two sentences. It's all about leadership and surrounding yourself with the best people possible. He clearly hasn't done the latter. Arrogance, insecurity, complacency? Who knows, not that it matters at this point.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - CowboyIndian - 11-06-2022
(11-06-2022, 03:36 PM)RuralFan Wrote: As I watch our games on TV or though steaming options....
Our football has become one big "steaming" option.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - gailtate - 11-06-2022
(11-06-2022, 05:00 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(11-06-2022, 04:26 PM)Austroturf Wrote: He inherited everything a coach could hope for, made good use of it for a number of years and then haplessly stood by watching while it crumbled around him. He must have believed that his infallible leadership was the secret sauce to success, that he could hire any warm bodies on the coaching staff and that the result would be multiple 10-win seasons. And that indicates that he never really understood why he was so massively successful in 2011-2015. I will always be grateful for those seasons; but Shaw clearly did not understand how to sustain that success, which means he never fully grasped the particulars that led to all those wins and bowl games and conference titles. Ultimately, success (or failure) stems from the people you surround yourself with and your ability to lead them. And the downfall of Stanford football is a simple failure of leadership.
I think this is spot on, especially the last two sentences. It's all about leadership and surrounding yourself with the best people possible. He clearly hasn't done the latter. Arrogance, insecurity, complacency? Who knows, not that it matters at this point.
A guy I worked for when I was coming up had a saying: "The most important thing to know, in business or anything else, is why you are successful. If you don't really understand why, failure is right around the corner."
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - Jamesy - 11-06-2022
Thanks msqueri for another great write-up. Agree that the loss of 3-4 defensive starters on the first drive was a killer along with the lack of quality backups. That got me to thinking, can you imagine what it'll be like next year? Miezan, Damuni, JMF, McGill, Williamson, Fields, Bonner, KBK, Herron are likely all gone. I'm actually a little optimistic about our line with Bailey, Cooper, and Moi plus Aybar coming back from injury, but there's no one behind them. On offense, probably lose 4/5 of our O-Line (Hinton, Rouse, Hornibrook, Nugent) plus McKee (either to draft or transfer I'm guessing), Wilson, Tremayne, Higgins. Cupboard is going to be bare.
Did anyone else hear the students chanting "Fire Shaw! Fire Shaw!" during the game? Yikes.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - Beeg_Dawg - 11-06-2022
Quote:I still remember all the foolish posts this off-season favorably comparing Brycen Tremayne to Mike Wilson, and we still occasionally get posts comparing Elijah Higgins to Ty Montgomery.
Holy sheet! Even mentioning Higgins as comparable to Montgomery is a slap to TM.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - Austroturf - 11-07-2022
(11-06-2022, 09:28 PM)gailtate Wrote:(11-06-2022, 05:00 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(11-06-2022, 04:26 PM)Austroturf Wrote: He inherited everything a coach could hope for, made good use of it for a number of years and then haplessly stood by watching while it crumbled around him. He must have believed that his infallible leadership was the secret sauce to success, that he could hire any warm bodies on the coaching staff and that the result would be multiple 10-win seasons. And that indicates that he never really understood why he was so massively successful in 2011-2015. I will always be grateful for those seasons; but Shaw clearly did not understand how to sustain that success, which means he never fully grasped the particulars that led to all those wins and bowl games and conference titles. Ultimately, success (or failure) stems from the people you surround yourself with and your ability to lead them. And the downfall of Stanford football is a simple failure of leadership.
I think this is spot on, especially the last two sentences. It's all about leadership and surrounding yourself with the best people possible. He clearly hasn't done the latter. Arrogance, insecurity, complacency? Who knows, not that it matters at this point.
A guy I worked for when I was coming up had a saying: "The most important thing to know, in business or anything else, is why you are successful. If you don't really understand why, failure is right around the corner."
Great quote.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - qwerty49 - 11-07-2022
Once again another nice analysis from msqueri.
One things that bugs me no end is that we often are not fully set or ready when the opponent decides to go no-huddle. One would think that Anderson would have scouted Wazzu sufficiently to prepare for that. Far too often our D just did not look ready, and the result was a chunk play.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - Austroturf - 11-07-2022
(11-06-2022, 05:00 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(11-06-2022, 04:26 PM)Austroturf Wrote: He inherited everything a coach could hope for, made good use of it for a number of years and then haplessly stood by watching while it crumbled around him. He must have believed that his infallible leadership was the secret sauce to success, that he could hire any warm bodies on the coaching staff and that the result would be multiple 10-win seasons. And that indicates that he never really understood why he was so massively successful in 2011-2015. I will always be grateful for those seasons; but Shaw clearly did not understand how to sustain that success, which means he never fully grasped the particulars that led to all those wins and bowl games and conference titles. Ultimately, success (or failure) stems from the people you surround yourself with and your ability to lead them. And the downfall of Stanford football is a simple failure of leadership.
I think this is spot on, especially the last two sentences. It's all about leadership and surrounding yourself with the best people possible. He clearly hasn't done the latter. Arrogance, insecurity, complacency? Who knows, not that it matters at this point.
Agree that it does not matter at this point, but, in my view, early success leads to an overestimation of one's abilities and a sense of infallibility. This can result in arrogance and/or complacency, and Shaw may be exhibiting both in his behavior. As the history of Stanford football shows, it's tough to be a consistent winner on the Farm. You have to fight and scrap and push and make more out of the little you have. Harbaugh knew that. Shaw somehow never really understood that, or he concluded that his early success justified his more low-key demeanor and comfortable, family-style approach to the program. Is that arrogance, complacency, obtuseness, or all three? Hard to say, but the results are there.
And this reminds me of what Harbaugh said in his presser last year after the Ohio State game: "Some people find themselves on third base and think they hit a triple." This was a dig at Ryan Day at Ohio State, whose early success has resulted in a certain arrogance. It's definitely easier to win at Ohio State, but let's see if arrogance eventually trips up Ryan Day, as well. Early success can be a blinkering experience.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - OutsiderFan - 11-07-2022
Let's not pretend Stanford is some sort of uniquely challenging place to win. It's tough to win EVERYWHERE, even with advantages Stanford doesn't have. And Stanford does have some of its own advantages too.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - Treebound - 11-07-2022
Sorry OF, but I disagree with you. In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford. You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out. That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete. With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger. Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.
As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect). I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment. I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - gailtate - 11-07-2022
(11-07-2022, 07:58 AM)Treebound Wrote: Sorry OF, but I disagree with you. In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford. You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out. That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete. With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger. Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.
As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect). I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment. I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.
It's a stark choice. University officials must bear-hug this quandary, figure it out, and then forge a way to succeed at the level that returns Stanford to the success it generated a decade ago. I would think that there are enough collective brains and determination to achieve this. If not, the future Stanford will be unrecognizable and diminished. A lesser institution, unknown to mankind. Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - lex24 - 11-07-2022
(11-07-2022, 08:15 AM)gailtate Wrote:(11-07-2022, 07:58 AM)Treebound Wrote: Sorry OF, but I disagree with you. In the new era of the transfer portal and NIL, it is harder for Stanford. You may argue that this is Stanford's choice, but I think most here would agree that the higher academic standards for athletes are not something to be thrown out. That makes the recruiting pool much smaller, which makes it harder to bring in the talent to compete. With NIL cooperatives (for as long as that shell game is going to be allowed to exist) the arms race just got much bigger. Ohio State's coach is asking for $80m just to keep his team in place - that's pro level support.
As the NCAA president once told Howard Wolf, "college sports needs Stanford to win because it shows it can be done the right way." (Something to that effect). I'm not sure we can do it in this new semi-pro environment. I know we cannot compete with this current leadership or lack thereof.
It's a stark choice. University officials must bear-hug this quandary, figure it out, and then forge a way to succeed at the level that returns Stanford to the success it generated a decade ago. I would think that there are enough collective brains and determination to achieve this. If not, the future Stanford will be unrecognizable and diminished. A lesser institution, unknown to mankind. Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait.
I don’t think Stanford will ever get back to the success level of ‘10-16. That was as unprecedented to begin with. It was inevitable thatbi5vwoukd end. Although not to this level
The portal was game changer one. There is nothing good about a one way door. NIL was the second. An even bigger problem. The 40 year decision can’t compete with offering a guy a million bucks…
Getting back to teams that are In the 7-5 or 8-4 level is a possibility I think. But even that I think is somewhat of an uphill battle.