[JohnR34231]

A year or two ago somebody did an analysis comparing each teams finish in the national rankings to its cumulative recruiting ranking. Stanford had the highest differential in the study. What I don't recall if it was Pac 12 or the country or just ranked teams. But yo me it  belies the myth - and it is a myth- that they don't coach the players up.

As for boom or bust:

2011. 12-1
2012.  11-2
2013.  11-3
2014.  8-5
2015  12-2
2016. 10-3

Where is the bust?  Shaw has his flaws. But I don't see what evidence you have for your post which breaks down to they have done this despite the coaching.

They may still struggle this year. Heck midway through the second last night I posted that the "rout is on."  I was right. Just had the wrong team doing the routing!
 
   


[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17451.msg201783#msg201783 date=1506020256]
Nothing AncientCity is saying should be news--I still harbor fears that our recent successes post-Luck and post-eminent linemen have been more due to Stanford men stepping up despite coaching rather than coaching developing great athletes.  That post on athlete development from a few months ago has yet to be published on this board, but I'm still thinking on it.

A truly great coaching will coach up any and all athletes.  A competent coaching staff will not hinder a good athlete from becoming great on his own.  A bad coaching staff (actively or passively) prevents athletes from achieving their potential.

If the key to having a great Stanford offense post-Harbaugh is individuals (Hogan, CMac, Solly), then get ready for boom-or-bust cycles.  But if you want sustained excellence, make sure your coaching staff creates that environment for athletes to succeed.

Note: Is any program looking to hire Bloomgren/Pritchard?  If not, we might not be getting very good production out of them.

[/quote]

One of the "problems", if you want to term it thus, is for some fans at least, an 8-5 season is considered a bust, and a 10-3 one such as last year is considered mildly disappointing. Records that would have Stanford fans dancing in the streets in yesteryear are now considered somewhat mediocre. Also, it is not enough to merely win, we must play "exciting football", which translates to lighting up the scoreboard every week. Expectations have become very high, perhaps too high.

[JohnR34231]

A year or two ago somebody did an analysis comparing each teams finish in the national rankings to its cumulative recruiting ranking. Stanford had the highest differential in the study. What I don't recall if it was Pac 12 or the country or just ranked teams. But yo me it  belies the myth - and it is a myth- that they don't coach the players up.

As for boom or bust:

2011. 12-1
2012.  11-2
2013.  11-3
2014.  8-5
2015  12-2
2016. 10-3

Where is the bust?  Shaw has his flaws. But I don't see what evidence you have for your post which breaks down to they have done this despite the coaching.

They may still struggle this year. Heck midway through the second last night I posted that the "rout is on."  I was right. Just had the wrong team doing the routing!
 
   


[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17451.msg201783#msg201783 date=1506020256]
Nothing AncientCity is saying should be news--I still harbor fears that our recent successes post-Luck and post-eminent linemen have been more due to Stanford men stepping up despite coaching rather than coaching developing great athletes.  That post on athlete development from a few months ago has yet to be published on this board, but I'm still thinking on it.

A truly great coaching will coach up any and all athletes.  A competent coaching staff will not hinder a good athlete from becoming great on his own.  A bad coaching staff (actively or passively) prevents athletes from achieving their potential.

If the key to having a great Stanford offense post-Harbaugh is individuals (Hogan, CMac, Solly), then get ready for boom-or-bust cycles.  But if you want sustained excellence, make sure your coaching staff creates that environment for athletes to succeed.

Note: Is any program looking to hire Bloomgren/Pritchard?  If not, we might not be getting very good production out of them.

[/quote]

One of the "problems", if you want to term it thus, is for some fans at least, an 8-5 season is considered a bust, and a 10-3 one such as last year is considered mildly disappointing. Records that would have Stanford fans dancing in the streets in yesteryear are now considered somewhat mediocre. Also, it is not enough to merely win, we must play "exciting football", which translates to lighting up the scoreboard every week. Expectations have become very high, perhaps too high.