Where you're off is thinking the staff used the same processes and level of effort and just experienced less success. That's not the case. We recruited OL dramatically less often, less vigorously, and in less volume for a nearly three year stretch. The Trey Stratford OL class was not a class in which we had a plan for five OL but could only get one but rather a class in which we recruited all year like we were going after one OL. We whiffed on a couple swinging for the fences longshot mega whale possibilities (Nicholas Petit-Frere, Jamaree Salyer) and when we missed settled late for Stratford. [It's actually even worse than that as we offered offensively and negligently late] We had the insane idea of only offering low single digit OL in an entire year one year after we brought in only three OL, two of whom were mega whales unlikely to complete eligibility. This is not the processes and level of effort that built the Tunnel Workers Union. It's dereliction. We were not recruiting. Whoever was responsible for OL recruiting was not doing their job. Period. As it happens, we now know in retrospect that Shaw was dealing with his brother's health during much of this period and that Bloomgren had a foot out the door for his next job. Whatever the reason, four OL in 2.8 years is not normal processes and level of effort. It's much more accurately described as not working.
By the way, finding three or more OL in a class is not difficult. It's not like we have a handful of admissible OL recruits in a year and if luck doesn't go our way we might whiff. There are 150+ OL among the top 1000 players in the country, which would conservatively mean dozens who can get into Stanford and help the football program. Many of those would be recruits along the lines of the OL we got this year - plausibly Power Five but not exactly having their doors knocked down by top programs - and thus pretty low hanging fruit. It takes either a conscious decision or abject neglect to recruit fewer than three in a year.
I have a lot of trouble with the argument that "the departure of Bloomgren did not yield a significantly more effective offensive line." Why would it when we weren't recruiting OL? OL is a position dominated by fourth or fifth year (or at other schools older) guys, with some ability for younger guys to contribute but usually not dominate. That means that:
* 2018 (first year without Bloomgren) was dependent on the recruits of the 2014 (Fanaika, Hall, Burkett the players Bloomgren bequest Carberry) and 2015 (Wilson, Chaffin.....YIKES!) classes.....Tunnel Workers Union of old this was not.
* 2019 was dependent on 2015 (so crappy it was all gone by then) and 2016 (Hamilton, Hattis, and Powell).....even worse than the previous year.
* 2020 was dependent on 2016 (so eager to hit the transfer portal that none remained) and 2017 (Little, Sarell, and Dalman)....thanks to FINALLY being able to get NFL linemen in the fourth year, especially Dalman, this line actually performed well.
* 2021 was dependent on 2017 (literally all gone, which wasn't a shock after recruiting a very small class with two mega whales, although I also blame our culture for guys leaving to be mid-round picks or worse) and 2018 (nobody in this class because Stratford was already retired)......the true coming home to roost for our period of neglect of OL recruiting.
* 2022 was dependent on 2018 (nobody at home) and 2019 (Rouse, Miller, Hornibrook, Bragg, Nugent)......a legitimate data point for your argument that post-Bloomgren coaches deserve blame for inefficacy.
This past season was the one year in which on-paper talent should have been able to lead to really good OL performance. Something happened with evaluation, strength and conditioning, and/or coaching of these players for the 2022 OL to not be good. But literally every other line you're talking about was a result of Stanford just not recruiting this position.
I don't know if I'll be able to convince you, but my time leading football recruiting coverage for TOS and my many years obsessively following recruiting leads me to believe that indeed you are wrong that there aren't facts in evidence that "there are always the guys and we just have to find them." Some years are much harder sledding than others, but in any 2.8 year span there are certainly double digit guys who can help our OL, rather than four.
P.S. For what it's worth, I think every national award in sight is on the table potentially for Nugent at Michigan. I would be surprised if he's not an All-American according to one of the main deciders of such things. Hinton strikes me as somebody who may or may not be good enough to start at Michigan and, if he stayed at Stanford, I would have expected him to finally be an average Pac-12 OL in 2023.
By the way, finding three or more OL in a class is not difficult. It's not like we have a handful of admissible OL recruits in a year and if luck doesn't go our way we might whiff. There are 150+ OL among the top 1000 players in the country, which would conservatively mean dozens who can get into Stanford and help the football program. Many of those would be recruits along the lines of the OL we got this year - plausibly Power Five but not exactly having their doors knocked down by top programs - and thus pretty low hanging fruit. It takes either a conscious decision or abject neglect to recruit fewer than three in a year.
I have a lot of trouble with the argument that "the departure of Bloomgren did not yield a significantly more effective offensive line." Why would it when we weren't recruiting OL? OL is a position dominated by fourth or fifth year (or at other schools older) guys, with some ability for younger guys to contribute but usually not dominate. That means that:
* 2018 (first year without Bloomgren) was dependent on the recruits of the 2014 (Fanaika, Hall, Burkett the players Bloomgren bequest Carberry) and 2015 (Wilson, Chaffin.....YIKES!) classes.....Tunnel Workers Union of old this was not.
* 2019 was dependent on 2015 (so crappy it was all gone by then) and 2016 (Hamilton, Hattis, and Powell).....even worse than the previous year.
* 2020 was dependent on 2016 (so eager to hit the transfer portal that none remained) and 2017 (Little, Sarell, and Dalman)....thanks to FINALLY being able to get NFL linemen in the fourth year, especially Dalman, this line actually performed well.
* 2021 was dependent on 2017 (literally all gone, which wasn't a shock after recruiting a very small class with two mega whales, although I also blame our culture for guys leaving to be mid-round picks or worse) and 2018 (nobody in this class because Stratford was already retired)......the true coming home to roost for our period of neglect of OL recruiting.
* 2022 was dependent on 2018 (nobody at home) and 2019 (Rouse, Miller, Hornibrook, Bragg, Nugent)......a legitimate data point for your argument that post-Bloomgren coaches deserve blame for inefficacy.
This past season was the one year in which on-paper talent should have been able to lead to really good OL performance. Something happened with evaluation, strength and conditioning, and/or coaching of these players for the 2022 OL to not be good. But literally every other line you're talking about was a result of Stanford just not recruiting this position.
I don't know if I'll be able to convince you, but my time leading football recruiting coverage for TOS and my many years obsessively following recruiting leads me to believe that indeed you are wrong that there aren't facts in evidence that "there are always the guys and we just have to find them." Some years are much harder sledding than others, but in any 2.8 year span there are certainly double digit guys who can help our OL, rather than four.
P.S. For what it's worth, I think every national award in sight is on the table potentially for Nugent at Michigan. I would be surprised if he's not an All-American according to one of the main deciders of such things. Hinton strikes me as somebody who may or may not be good enough to start at Michigan and, if he stayed at Stanford, I would have expected him to finally be an average Pac-12 OL in 2023.