10-29-2014, 01:43 PM
I'm pretty wishy-washy on this point. If you take the 3.75 years of the Shaw administration so far, we've got:
1) a really good year (when we should've had a really good year)
2) a mediocre year (that I think more-or-less fulfilled its talent level)
3) a solid year (again, more-or-less fulfilling its talent level)
4) an awful year (...with issues that don't seem easily reducible to a sentence-level summation as in previous years)
So my belief is that a change would be a pretty good idea, but I'm agnostic as to how this should be achieved. You see instances of switching OCs/systems working...and not working. You've also seen instances of switching systems without a staff overhaul (e.g. Sark's switch at UW to a no-huddle/spread,pro-stylish hybrid system).
Specifically, I think years 1-3's summations are a bit deceptive. That reflects the talent level available, but I'm convinced the staff can do a better job at getting more talent available. If 2014's TEs were available last year, does that result in an extra win? Considering the closeness of each three loss, that seems probable. You can go up an down the list. A lot of timing issues involved in our offense, with talent arriving at just slightly the wrong time.
Can that be fixed through scheme (e.g. a simpler scheme getting talent available more quickly)? Better recruitment? It seems like the Shaw regime is fine or even good at identifying and developing talent -- basically every position group has featured at least an above-Pac-12-average talent -- but that talent is not well-clustered enough. This suggests to me that recruiting is not quite right. Let's say we have the ideal scenario for the class of 2015: something like Irwin/Arcega-Whiteside/Scarlett/Warren/Love ... these are all good players. But no TE and QB. (Particularly disappointing since Tyler Petite was a local and the 2015 QB class was, apparently, loaded with players interested in us.)
This looks like the same pattern as in the latter parts of the Harbaugh era, where you'd get good players at some positions, followed by attempts to remedy that in future classes. This inevitably results in holes and steep dropoffs (that is, how you can go from Ertz/Toilolo/Navjar/Hewitt in one class...followed by several busts/holes).
I feel much more certain in this latter point than the scheme/teaching point, which requires more expertise and inside knowledge than I possess. But there's no reason we can't improve on both points, really.
1) a really good year (when we should've had a really good year)
2) a mediocre year (that I think more-or-less fulfilled its talent level)
3) a solid year (again, more-or-less fulfilling its talent level)
4) an awful year (...with issues that don't seem easily reducible to a sentence-level summation as in previous years)
So my belief is that a change would be a pretty good idea, but I'm agnostic as to how this should be achieved. You see instances of switching OCs/systems working...and not working. You've also seen instances of switching systems without a staff overhaul (e.g. Sark's switch at UW to a no-huddle/spread,pro-stylish hybrid system).
Specifically, I think years 1-3's summations are a bit deceptive. That reflects the talent level available, but I'm convinced the staff can do a better job at getting more talent available. If 2014's TEs were available last year, does that result in an extra win? Considering the closeness of each three loss, that seems probable. You can go up an down the list. A lot of timing issues involved in our offense, with talent arriving at just slightly the wrong time.
Can that be fixed through scheme (e.g. a simpler scheme getting talent available more quickly)? Better recruitment? It seems like the Shaw regime is fine or even good at identifying and developing talent -- basically every position group has featured at least an above-Pac-12-average talent -- but that talent is not well-clustered enough. This suggests to me that recruiting is not quite right. Let's say we have the ideal scenario for the class of 2015: something like Irwin/Arcega-Whiteside/Scarlett/Warren/Love ... these are all good players. But no TE and QB. (Particularly disappointing since Tyler Petite was a local and the 2015 QB class was, apparently, loaded with players interested in us.)
This looks like the same pattern as in the latter parts of the Harbaugh era, where you'd get good players at some positions, followed by attempts to remedy that in future classes. This inevitably results in holes and steep dropoffs (that is, how you can go from Ertz/Toilolo/Navjar/Hewitt in one class...followed by several busts/holes).
I feel much more certain in this latter point than the scheme/teaching point, which requires more expertise and inside knowledge than I possess. But there's no reason we can't improve on both points, really.