(10-22-2021, 07:52 AM)lex24 Wrote: Asked before, I’ll ask again - if not Shaw, who? Stanford is not going to get a “name” to replace him. So it’s from the staff or a so called up and comer. Like Scott Frost was. Or Wilcox. Not so much, today. Which is the problem looking for “up and comers.”
It’s not just a matter of how “good” is Shaw. It’s can you hire better. Crapshoot to say the least. And if you do strike gold, how long does he stay.
I don’t get the feeling that there is any emphasis on Football from either the AD or Admin. The newer recruiting and transfer rules hurt Stanford. Shaw needs to up his recruiting game, no doubt. Depth is non existent. And the talent level has dropped.
Not a good situation at this point.
Shaws not going anywhere. And he deserves some time to try and turn this back around. He’s earned that. How long is anyone’s guess.
Shaking things up within his assistants is another option, of course. He’s never done that. To a point I admire his loyalty. But only to a point.
At the end of the day, I think Shaw needs to figure out how to get back to “intellectual brutality”. Or whatever they called it. If Stanford is going to win consistently, it starts in the trenches. Otherwise, they may have a few Oregon wins sprinkled in. But they will not be anything other than a team flirting with .500 and the occasional 8-4. In other words, what Stanford has historically been.
McKee gives them a chance in games this year. Having a top flight QB generally will. But it doesn’t make up for a lack of being physical and a lack of team speed. They can and should recruit hard to solve the former. Speed is always harder for Stanford.
So if it’s me, I go back to the old blueprint. Recruit and aim towards power football. And stick to it. It’s not sexy. But it’s the only way, IMO they can consistently win.
1. Stanford has never been more of an independent draw - as the "it" university that everyone wants to attend - than it has been during Shaw's tenure (which, btw, has nothing to do with Shaw);
2. Shaw was given what no Stanford coach in history ever enjoyed: a Top 5 football program, loaded with players, including on the defensive side. Combine that with #1, above, and you had quite an incredible draw to Stanford, even for Football First Studs.
3. Shaw was able to recruit in his early tenure off the program status handed off by Harbs. Having said that, I think Shaw has generally been an above average recruiter for Stanford (edit: by historic standards, not by Peak Stanford Recruiting standards, which as noted, occurred late Harbs, very early Shaw).
4. Shaw has been a below average game coach - underperforming to talent on O (consistently, imo) and costing games here and there.
5. As #4 has been more widely recognized beyond those close followers who sounded the alarm early, it has impacted 3 (recruiting). And lesser recruiting + below average game coaching is a bad combo that will show up in the W/L column (which we have seen and are seeing). We are getting a better picture of Shaw at sea level - i.e., what he is as a coach heading a program where everything about the program is his, without any lingering players or goodwill from prior regime - and it looks an awful lot like The Old Days.
6. Lex, your statement about the need to recruit stud OL is true and always has been. That is the foundation of any good offense. However, your insistence on ground and pound is such a surrender attitude. Get the OL, get the QB, get the TE, and your RBs and WRs don't even have to be exceptional to have a good, varied offense. But Stanford should have no problem recruiting exceptional players at virtually all offensive positions, with possible exception of WRs with elite speed. But you don't need that to have an excellent O, though it certainly helps. Walters, Pitts, Easy Ed, Harris, etc. etc. There are a litany of very good WRs at Stanford who did not have elite foot speed.
7. Go back and watch the 1990 or 1992 games against ND; watch the 2001 game at Oregon (recently aired on P12 Network); watch Boise State the year it beat Oklahoma. Stanford doesn't have to be Heavy/Plodding O to be successful. But Stanford does need an O that is well-conceived and plays off itself to scheme people open. We haven't seen an offense like that in years and years and years.
8. Finally, your assumption that any good coach/up-and-comer would leave is based on the old model, when Stanford was "not Nebraska." $2-$3M/year can get them here; and $4-$5M/season is a sticky comp level. (Indeed, the current guy would have easily stayed for that amount, but Bernie decided to be a "hard bargainer" and give him significantly more than that). So the old notion that Stanford can't retain an excellent coach is invalid, imo.
P.S. One final add: the thing Shaw has going for him now is that the Pac 12 is weak - perhaps as weak as it has ever been. Thus, it's possible to get Ws without having a good team. I mean, take the rest of the schedule. They're all losable; but they're all winnable, too (with ND a big stretch on that front . . . and perhaps Utah, too). But UW, Cal, and OSU . . . eminently winnable because they're mediocre squads, too.