[Goose]

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.

I am not is a position to know that to be true or false. Presumably you are. I just want to be extra sure that you know these facts based on direct observation of less often, less vigorously, and less volume, not inference from poor results.

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.

I totally agree that only offering low single digit OL in a year after a small class is probably a real bad plan. However, I must admit that I worry about your "Whatever the reason" comment. Presumably, you are saying you don't know the reason but in any case doing so is a bad idea. It does however appear you are again inferring the level of effort based on results, not based on independently observing people were just not putting in the effort. Reassure me that is not the case.

Stratford was a freshman in 2018, was he not? That would be a 2017 recruitment, the year Bloomgren left. The "mega whales" would be Sarell and Little. I don't think it was clear back in 2016 when they were recruited that not lasting 4 years in the program was going to become common for OL. We had yet to see that become "obvious". That really doesn't matter though, as clearly after a small class we needed a large one.

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 agree with the statement that getting fewer than three OL a year is either a conscious decision or abject neglect to recruit fewer than three in a year. I would agree that many of the OL might be "plausibly Power Five" but not exactly "sure things" and that by the law of averages some would be steak eaters. I do question your numbers given above however. If the "pool" is nominally 150 OL who are in the top 1K, if you use the Stanford admissions percentage of 0.04, that is 6 guys. Even if you allow for the OL being "more cerebral" :-) and a bit of a boost from being an athlete that comes out as maybe 10 guys, a dozen at most. Not "dozens". Of those 10, how many actually want to attend Stanford? I am pretty sure not all of them. Characterizing them as "low hanging fruit" is IMO a mistake. The extra work to be admitted is a deterrent. Anyway, there is a big enough pool to get 5 most years, but only that.

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 mostly agree with this, but if recruiting was "fixed" by Bloomgren's departure I would expect a year over year improvement, which I don't think we saw. I think the idea that an OL is determined solely by it's seniors just isn't supportable. Yes, the "old men" can help a lot if they are present, but failing that the other guys can play. As I said, Michigan in 2021 started two sophomores. Of course, you need to have the "right" guys, and possibly we weren't getting them. The "something happened" explanation for 2022 is possible, but equally possible IMO, especially given the lack of year over year improvement under different coaches is that we just lacked the correct "Jesse and Joe" in too many cases. Even when we had (marginally) enough bodies, it wasn't sufficient.

[Goose]

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.

I am not is a position to know that to be true or false. Presumably you are. I just want to be extra sure that you know these facts based on direct observation of less often, less vigorously, and less volume, not inference from poor results.

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.

I totally agree that only offering low single digit OL in a year after a small class is probably a real bad plan. However, I must admit that I worry about your "Whatever the reason" comment. Presumably, you are saying you don't know the reason but in any case doing so is a bad idea. It does however appear you are again inferring the level of effort based on results, not based on independently observing people were just not putting in the effort. Reassure me that is not the case.

Stratford was a freshman in 2018, was he not? That would be a 2017 recruitment, the year Bloomgren left. The "mega whales" would be Sarell and Little. I don't think it was clear back in 2016 when they were recruited that not lasting 4 years in the program was going to become common for OL. We had yet to see that become "obvious". That really doesn't matter though, as clearly after a small class we needed a large one.

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 agree with the statement that getting fewer than three OL a year is either a conscious decision or abject neglect to recruit fewer than three in a year. I would agree that many of the OL might be "plausibly Power Five" but not exactly "sure things" and that by the law of averages some would be steak eaters. I do question your numbers given above however. If the "pool" is nominally 150 OL who are in the top 1K, if you use the Stanford admissions percentage of 0.04, that is 6 guys. Even if you allow for the OL being "more cerebral" :-) and a bit of a boost from being an athlete that comes out as maybe 10 guys, a dozen at most. Not "dozens". Of those 10, how many actually want to attend Stanford? I am pretty sure not all of them. Characterizing them as "low hanging fruit" is IMO a mistake. The extra work to be admitted is a deterrent. Anyway, there is a big enough pool to get 5 most years, but only that.

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 mostly agree with this, but if recruiting was "fixed" by Bloomgren's departure I would expect a year over year improvement, which I don't think we saw. I think the idea that an OL is determined solely by it's seniors just isn't supportable. Yes, the "old men" can help a lot if they are present, but failing that the other guys can play. As I said, Michigan in 2021 started two sophomores. Of course, you need to have the "right" guys, and possibly we weren't getting them. The "something happened" explanation for 2022 is possible, but equally possible IMO, especially given the lack of year over year improvement under different coaches is that we just lacked the correct "Jesse and Joe" in too many cases. Even when we had (marginally) enough bodies, it wasn't sufficient.