[OutsiderFan]

Just out of curiosity, is the statute of limitations for Harbaugh’s influence coincidentally 8 years?

One can not like how the last three years have gone under Shaw, without denigrating his many accomplishments even after all of Harbaugh’s recruits had graduated.

BC

The statute of limitations on Harbaugh is whatever the poster decides it should be to help him make his point that Shaw basically sucks.

There is no statute of limitations necessary to demonstrate Shaw is no longer capable of winning the North division of the Pac-12.

Oh, OK. Now that we have that settled.......

Ah, I see we have identified David Shaw's burner account.

Seriously, this is the CardBoard. You don't get to make claims without bringing receipts to back them up. So let's see them, shall we? Make your case for why David Shaw will return Stanford Football to even 2nd place in the Pac-12 North. I would have thought the evidence to the contrary would be convincing enough, but maybe the majority of us are just not seeing it?

[OutsiderFan]

Just out of curiosity, is the statute of limitations for Harbaugh’s influence coincidentally 8 years?

One can not like how the last three years have gone under Shaw, without denigrating his many accomplishments even after all of Harbaugh’s recruits had graduated.

BC

The statute of limitations on Harbaugh is whatever the poster decides it should be to help him make his point that Shaw basically sucks.

There is no statute of limitations necessary to demonstrate Shaw is no longer capable of winning the North division of the Pac-12.

Oh, OK. Now that we have that settled.......

Ah, I see we have identified David Shaw's burner account.

Seriously, this is the CardBoard. You don't get to make claims without bringing receipts to back them up. So let's see them, shall we? Make your case for why David Shaw will return Stanford Football to even 2nd place in the Pac-12 North. I would have thought the evidence to the contrary would be convincing enough, but maybe the majority of us are just not seeing it?

[2006alum]

Is there any good reason to think deciding whether to accept early enrollees or allow official visits before January was Shaw's alone to make? I can maybe believe he had the decider's pen on official visits, but my understanding was that the University as a whole has strongly opposed early enrollment and that this had to be negotiated as a limited and conditional exception for football recruits. For as long as I've been associated with Stanford, Stanford has never permitted early enrollment prior to summer session preceding one's frosh year (and again, even that was generally limited to athletes).

[2006alum]

Is there any good reason to think deciding whether to accept early enrollees or allow official visits before January was Shaw's alone to make? I can maybe believe he had the decider's pen on official visits, but my understanding was that the University as a whole has strongly opposed early enrollment and that this had to be negotiated as a limited and conditional exception for football recruits. For as long as I've been associated with Stanford, Stanford has never permitted early enrollment prior to summer session preceding one's frosh year (and again, even that was generally limited to athletes).

[OutsiderFan]

Is there any good reason to think deciding whether to accept early enrollees or allow official visits before January was Shaw's alone to make? I can maybe believe he had the decider's pen on official visits, but my understanding was that the University as a whole has strongly opposed early enrollment and that this had to be negotiated as a limited and conditional exception for football recruits. For as long as I've been associated with Stanford, Stanford has never permitted early enrollment prior to summer session preceding one's frosh year (and again, even that was generally limited to athletes).

This is a good point on early enrollees, and I almost brought it up as a caveat, knowing someone would point it out. I didn't, because David Shaw runs the most important program to any athletic department and he should have been "jumping on the table" to address the issue with other programs and admin before experiencing the damage done by not addressing it.

David Shaw's history is to let the damage be done, then react, rather than foresee it and be proactive to stop it from happening, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me on the early enrollment matter, just like he doesn't on delaying early OVs.

[OutsiderFan]

Is there any good reason to think deciding whether to accept early enrollees or allow official visits before January was Shaw's alone to make? I can maybe believe he had the decider's pen on official visits, but my understanding was that the University as a whole has strongly opposed early enrollment and that this had to be negotiated as a limited and conditional exception for football recruits. For as long as I've been associated with Stanford, Stanford has never permitted early enrollment prior to summer session preceding one's frosh year (and again, even that was generally limited to athletes).

This is a good point on early enrollees, and I almost brought it up as a caveat, knowing someone would point it out. I didn't, because David Shaw runs the most important program to any athletic department and he should have been "jumping on the table" to address the issue with other programs and admin before experiencing the damage done by not addressing it.

David Shaw's history is to let the damage be done, then react, rather than foresee it and be proactive to stop it from happening, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me on the early enrollment matter, just like he doesn't on delaying early OVs.

[lex24]

Is there any good reason to think deciding whether to accept early enrollees or allow official visits before January was Shaw's alone to make? I can maybe believe he had the decider's pen on official visits, but my understanding was that the University as a whole has strongly opposed early enrollment and that this had to be negotiated as a limited and conditional exception for football recruits. For as long as I've been associated with Stanford, Stanford has never permitted early enrollment prior to summer session preceding one's frosh year (and again, even that was generally limited to athletes).

This is a good point on early enrollees, and I almost brought it up as a caveat, knowing someone would point it out. I didn't, because David Shaw runs the most important program to any athletic department and he should have been "jumping on the table" to address the issue with other programs and admin before experiencing the damage done by not addressing it.

David Shaw's history is to let the damage be done, then react, rather than foresee it and be proactive to stop it from happening, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me on the early enrollment matter, just like he doesn't on delaying early OVs.

So, please tell us - what did Shaw do to try address these issues.  Be specific. Who and when did he meet with to try and deal with the changing landscape.  And please, give us your sources.

Maybe he was slow to adjust.  Maybe he tried to get the University to make changes and failed. I have no clue. (I like to throw softballs….) Do you?  

As for Stanford losing its identity, agree completely.

[lex24]

Is there any good reason to think deciding whether to accept early enrollees or allow official visits before January was Shaw's alone to make? I can maybe believe he had the decider's pen on official visits, but my understanding was that the University as a whole has strongly opposed early enrollment and that this had to be negotiated as a limited and conditional exception for football recruits. For as long as I've been associated with Stanford, Stanford has never permitted early enrollment prior to summer session preceding one's frosh year (and again, even that was generally limited to athletes).

This is a good point on early enrollees, and I almost brought it up as a caveat, knowing someone would point it out. I didn't, because David Shaw runs the most important program to any athletic department and he should have been "jumping on the table" to address the issue with other programs and admin before experiencing the damage done by not addressing it.

David Shaw's history is to let the damage be done, then react, rather than foresee it and be proactive to stop it from happening, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me on the early enrollment matter, just like he doesn't on delaying early OVs.

So, please tell us - what did Shaw do to try address these issues.  Be specific. Who and when did he meet with to try and deal with the changing landscape.  And please, give us your sources.

Maybe he was slow to adjust.  Maybe he tried to get the University to make changes and failed. I have no clue. (I like to throw softballs….) Do you?  

As for Stanford losing its identity, agree completely.

[82lsju]

Is there any good reason to think deciding whether to accept early enrollees or allow official visits before January was Shaw's alone to make? I can maybe believe he had the decider's pen on official visits, but my understanding was that the University as a whole has strongly opposed early enrollment and that this had to be negotiated as a limited and conditional exception for football recruits. For as long as I've been associated with Stanford, Stanford has never permitted early enrollment prior to summer session preceding one's frosh year (and again, even that was generally limited to athletes).

This is a good point on early enrollees, and I almost brought it up as a caveat, knowing someone would point it out. I didn't, because David Shaw runs the most important program to any athletic department and he should have been "jumping on the table" to address the issue with other programs and admin before experiencing the damage done by not addressing it.

David Shaw's history is to let the damage be done, then react, rather than foresee it and be proactive to stop it from happening, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me on the early enrollment matter, just like he doesn't on delaying early OVs.

So, please tell us - what did Shaw do to try address these issues.  Be specific. Who and when did he meet with to try and deal with the changing landscape.  And please, give us your sources.

Maybe he was slow to adjust.  Maybe he tried to get the University to make changes and failed. I have no clue. (I like to throw softballs….) Do you?  

As for Stanford losing its identity, agree completely.

couple of similar articles on the approval of early enrollees by the academic senate in June 2021, currently in a three year pilot...

no real details on how it eventually got to the academic senate for a vote

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2021/06...-athletes/

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/06/11/fac...t-program/

[82lsju]

Is there any good reason to think deciding whether to accept early enrollees or allow official visits before January was Shaw's alone to make? I can maybe believe he had the decider's pen on official visits, but my understanding was that the University as a whole has strongly opposed early enrollment and that this had to be negotiated as a limited and conditional exception for football recruits. For as long as I've been associated with Stanford, Stanford has never permitted early enrollment prior to summer session preceding one's frosh year (and again, even that was generally limited to athletes).

This is a good point on early enrollees, and I almost brought it up as a caveat, knowing someone would point it out. I didn't, because David Shaw runs the most important program to any athletic department and he should have been "jumping on the table" to address the issue with other programs and admin before experiencing the damage done by not addressing it.

David Shaw's history is to let the damage be done, then react, rather than foresee it and be proactive to stop it from happening, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me on the early enrollment matter, just like he doesn't on delaying early OVs.

So, please tell us - what did Shaw do to try address these issues.  Be specific. Who and when did he meet with to try and deal with the changing landscape.  And please, give us your sources.

Maybe he was slow to adjust.  Maybe he tried to get the University to make changes and failed. I have no clue. (I like to throw softballs….) Do you?  

As for Stanford losing its identity, agree completely.

couple of similar articles on the approval of early enrollees by the academic senate in June 2021, currently in a three year pilot...

no real details on how it eventually got to the academic senate for a vote

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2021/06...-athletes/

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/06/11/fac...t-program/

[2006alum]

Thanks 82 - helpful links. That was my recollection - that key decision makers had to approve and there was a bureaucratic process involved to do this.

There's lots of things to knock Shaw for, and I continue to think his failure to turn over his assistants is chief among them given that he has near total control over that. But until someone provides evidence he unilaterally refused to take action to get early enrolment approved, I'm not inclined to pile that on his shoulders, because I just think that's one issue where Stanford's culture and administration was disinclined from the outset and had to be shown the light.

[2006alum]

Thanks 82 - helpful links. That was my recollection - that key decision makers had to approve and there was a bureaucratic process involved to do this.

There's lots of things to knock Shaw for, and I continue to think his failure to turn over his assistants is chief among them given that he has near total control over that. But until someone provides evidence he unilaterally refused to take action to get early enrolment approved, I'm not inclined to pile that on his shoulders, because I just think that's one issue where Stanford's culture and administration was disinclined from the outset and had to be shown the light.

[fullmetal]

I was going to make the joke that JAF made...but really, where are we getting the DL depth that allows us to run a 4-3??  Or is the linebacking situation that bad?

I echo dabigV's sentiment that Shaw is not a Buddy, and Shaw is certainly not a Wlat in terms of what these coaches have done with the program.  Wlat took a mediocre team and drove it into the ground.  Buddy took a functional team and could not even maintain that.  Shaw took a Ferrari and treated it like a daily driver...and whether we can even regress/progress to the program mean/median remains to be seen.

I also did not like the comment that "I like where we are."  Where we are is 3-9 with little translation from recruiting stars to football results.  No one should be comfortable here.  If the program is trending up in some hidden way, maybe Shaw can say that he likes where the program is going...but where we are is at the bottom right now.

Kudos to Mandel for the article though.  I would like a little more Stanford coverage from him now that he's living in the Bay Area ;)  He, DeFord, and Zimmerman were my favorite authors from the classic SI.com era of the early 2000s.

Also sidenote: As far as that "A's hire A's, B's hire C's" saying goes...has anyone looked at how close Bloomgren is to turning into another Wlat? If he hasn't already...

[fullmetal]

I was going to make the joke that JAF made...but really, where are we getting the DL depth that allows us to run a 4-3??  Or is the linebacking situation that bad?

I echo dabigV's sentiment that Shaw is not a Buddy, and Shaw is certainly not a Wlat in terms of what these coaches have done with the program.  Wlat took a mediocre team and drove it into the ground.  Buddy took a functional team and could not even maintain that.  Shaw took a Ferrari and treated it like a daily driver...and whether we can even regress/progress to the program mean/median remains to be seen.

I also did not like the comment that "I like where we are."  Where we are is 3-9 with little translation from recruiting stars to football results.  No one should be comfortable here.  If the program is trending up in some hidden way, maybe Shaw can say that he likes where the program is going...but where we are is at the bottom right now.

Kudos to Mandel for the article though.  I would like a little more Stanford coverage from him now that he's living in the Bay Area ;)  He, DeFord, and Zimmerman were my favorite authors from the classic SI.com era of the early 2000s.

Also sidenote: As far as that "A's hire A's, B's hire C's" saying goes...has anyone looked at how close Bloomgren is to turning into another Wlat? If he hasn't already...

[msqueri]

To the extent one views early enrollees and other recent changes in Stanford's approach to recruiting to adjust to the new national landscape as a good thing (I respect the view of BostonCard and others that these changes are lamentable....I myself think there are pros and cons and am not sure exactly where I land), it seems to me that Shaw managed the whole thing deftly. There were (are?) serious antibodies at Stanford against changes like this and banging his fist on the table doesn't strike me as likely to have gotten a "better" (again, to the extent one views early enrollment and such as a good thing) result. I think there's a plausible case to be made that Shaw quietly worked behind the scenes to soften up the administration on this issue and has pursued exactly the kind of gradual, evolutionary approach to change that is more likely to make these changes stick. If the Stanford administration is going to make big changes in how it evaluates admissions and integrates incoming freshmen, it increases the likelihood the body doesn't reject the medicine, so to speak, if you ease into those changes. Maybe Shaw chipped away at resistance, then found an opportunity for a few pilot cases, then expanded the pilot further, and now is on the verge of more wholesale change.

On the question of whether we can do much worse than Shaw, I am in a different place than dabigv13 despite being on campus for the exact same four years and experiencing previous football irrelevance. Shaw's last four years are near the bottom of the barrel of Power Five coaching. It wouldn't be hard at all for a program of Stanford's reputation to hire somebody who could do better than that. Both the performance of other Power Five teams nationally and Stanford's historical experience (e.g., according to Sagarin, Buddy Teevens was actually a markedly better coach than the 2019-2021 version of David Shaw).

Maybe if I have time today around lunch I can update my previous breakdown of Power Five coaching records. It's not pretty where Shaw ranks in recent years.

---

I was going to make the joke that JAF made...but really, where are we getting the DL depth that allows us to run a 4-3??  Or is the linebacking situation that bad?

I echo dabigV's sentiment that Shaw is not a Buddy, and Shaw is certainly not a Wlat in terms of what these coaches have done with the program.  Wlat took a mediocre team and drove it into the ground.  Buddy took a functional team and could not even maintain that.  Shaw took a Ferrari and treated it like a daily driver...and whether we can even regress/progress to the program mean/median remains to be seen.

I also did not like the comment that "I like where we are."  Where we are is 3-9 with little translation from recruiting stars to football results.  No one should be comfortable here.  If the program is trending up in some hidden way, maybe Shaw can say that he likes where the program is going...but where we are is at the bottom right now.

Kudos to Mandel for the article though.  I would like a little more Stanford coverage from him now that he's living in the Bay Area ;)  He, DeFord, and Zimmerman were my favorite authors from the classic SI.com era of the early 2000s.

Also sidenote: As far as that "A's hire A's, B's hire C's" saying goes...has anyone looked at how close Bloomgren is to turning into another Wlat?  If he hasn't already...

I think your read of Buddy Teevens is off. Teevens did not inherit a functional team. Yes, the team performed functionally in the years prior to Teevens, but Willingham completely neglected to do his job in recruiting and set Teevens up to fail. Over a three year stretch leading up to Teevens, Willingham brought in four offensive linemen. Four linemen. In three years. For reference, the egregious recruiting that torpedoed Stanford's offensive line in recent years was nine linemen in three years. There are just no words for Willingham deciding not to do his job. To say the cupboard was bare would be an understatement. Having a recruiting pipeline of four linemen in three years made it impossible for Teevens to ever have a good offense.

With that miserable bequest, Teevens soldiered through and eventually had good defense, though they would sometimes break under the pressure of having to always be on the field and never getting support from the offense. Overall, Teevens' teams improved year-to-year and eventually he had a top 50 team before being fired. 

Teevens failed at Stanford but he wasn't that bad and, most importantly, really never had a chance to succeed. He's been legendarily successful at a lower level post-Stanford.

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

[msqueri]

To the extent one views early enrollees and other recent changes in Stanford's approach to recruiting to adjust to the new national landscape as a good thing (I respect the view of BostonCard and others that these changes are lamentable....I myself think there are pros and cons and am not sure exactly where I land), it seems to me that Shaw managed the whole thing deftly. There were (are?) serious antibodies at Stanford against changes like this and banging his fist on the table doesn't strike me as likely to have gotten a "better" (again, to the extent one views early enrollment and such as a good thing) result. I think there's a plausible case to be made that Shaw quietly worked behind the scenes to soften up the administration on this issue and has pursued exactly the kind of gradual, evolutionary approach to change that is more likely to make these changes stick. If the Stanford administration is going to make big changes in how it evaluates admissions and integrates incoming freshmen, it increases the likelihood the body doesn't reject the medicine, so to speak, if you ease into those changes. Maybe Shaw chipped away at resistance, then found an opportunity for a few pilot cases, then expanded the pilot further, and now is on the verge of more wholesale change.

On the question of whether we can do much worse than Shaw, I am in a different place than dabigv13 despite being on campus for the exact same four years and experiencing previous football irrelevance. Shaw's last four years are near the bottom of the barrel of Power Five coaching. It wouldn't be hard at all for a program of Stanford's reputation to hire somebody who could do better than that. Both the performance of other Power Five teams nationally and Stanford's historical experience (e.g., according to Sagarin, Buddy Teevens was actually a markedly better coach than the 2019-2021 version of David Shaw).

Maybe if I have time today around lunch I can update my previous breakdown of Power Five coaching records. It's not pretty where Shaw ranks in recent years.

---

I was going to make the joke that JAF made...but really, where are we getting the DL depth that allows us to run a 4-3??  Or is the linebacking situation that bad?

I echo dabigV's sentiment that Shaw is not a Buddy, and Shaw is certainly not a Wlat in terms of what these coaches have done with the program.  Wlat took a mediocre team and drove it into the ground.  Buddy took a functional team and could not even maintain that.  Shaw took a Ferrari and treated it like a daily driver...and whether we can even regress/progress to the program mean/median remains to be seen.

I also did not like the comment that "I like where we are."  Where we are is 3-9 with little translation from recruiting stars to football results.  No one should be comfortable here.  If the program is trending up in some hidden way, maybe Shaw can say that he likes where the program is going...but where we are is at the bottom right now.

Kudos to Mandel for the article though.  I would like a little more Stanford coverage from him now that he's living in the Bay Area ;)  He, DeFord, and Zimmerman were my favorite authors from the classic SI.com era of the early 2000s.

Also sidenote: As far as that "A's hire A's, B's hire C's" saying goes...has anyone looked at how close Bloomgren is to turning into another Wlat?  If he hasn't already...

I think your read of Buddy Teevens is off. Teevens did not inherit a functional team. Yes, the team performed functionally in the years prior to Teevens, but Willingham completely neglected to do his job in recruiting and set Teevens up to fail. Over a three year stretch leading up to Teevens, Willingham brought in four offensive linemen. Four linemen. In three years. For reference, the egregious recruiting that torpedoed Stanford's offensive line in recent years was nine linemen in three years. There are just no words for Willingham deciding not to do his job. To say the cupboard was bare would be an understatement. Having a recruiting pipeline of four linemen in three years made it impossible for Teevens to ever have a good offense.

With that miserable bequest, Teevens soldiered through and eventually had good defense, though they would sometimes break under the pressure of having to always be on the field and never getting support from the offense. Overall, Teevens' teams improved year-to-year and eventually he had a top 50 team before being fired. 

Teevens failed at Stanford but he wasn't that bad and, most importantly, really never had a chance to succeed. He's been legendarily successful at a lower level post-Stanford.

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

[Phogge]

Dartmouth is 27-3 in Buddy's last three years. Two co-Ivy titles. The conference does not participate in the FCS tourney.

When Stanford is admitted into the Ivy League-West perhaps a Teevens assistant will be the right man for the job.

[Phogge]

Dartmouth is 27-3 in Buddy's last three years. Two co-Ivy titles. The conference does not participate in the FCS tourney.

When Stanford is admitted into the Ivy League-West perhaps a Teevens assistant will be the right man for the job.

[OutsiderFan]

I was going to make the joke that JAF made...but really, where are we getting the DL depth that allows us to run a 4-3??  Or is the linebacking situation that bad?

Far be it from me to claim the Defensive Line situation is ideal, but it MIGHT not be as bad as it seems.  The thing that came clear to me about the 3-4 to 4-3 change portion of Mandel's article is the fact Stanford has several pretty good DE types.

Herron Jr., Aybar, Armitage, and Bailey are pretty top end talents at the position. You need big guys to play a 3-4 effectively, and then speedy LBs. Stanford had a couple big guys for the 3-4 but lacked the speedy LBs apparently? For the 4-3, the emphasis is more on speed at DE than size.

It's possible that due to the lack of DT size and depth, Stanford could roll with some smaller, quicker DL and be a much more aggressive unit that relies on penetration (a force philosophy rather than a read one). They could be able to fill their gaps quicker and be better at stopping the run, pressuring QBs, and causing turnovers.

Tobin Phillips is the only DT with any size, so he will be critical to stay healthy. No player on the team outside of McKee is more important to play the whole season. And it would seem they are going to need a contribution from True Frosh Jaxson Moi. I don't get why Stanford has him listed as a DE when he is needed at DT. Zach Rowell could potentially move inside too?

[OutsiderFan]

I was going to make the joke that JAF made...but really, where are we getting the DL depth that allows us to run a 4-3??  Or is the linebacking situation that bad?

Far be it from me to claim the Defensive Line situation is ideal, but it MIGHT not be as bad as it seems.  The thing that came clear to me about the 3-4 to 4-3 change portion of Mandel's article is the fact Stanford has several pretty good DE types.

Herron Jr., Aybar, Armitage, and Bailey are pretty top end talents at the position. You need big guys to play a 3-4 effectively, and then speedy LBs. Stanford had a couple big guys for the 3-4 but lacked the speedy LBs apparently? For the 4-3, the emphasis is more on speed at DE than size.

It's possible that due to the lack of DT size and depth, Stanford could roll with some smaller, quicker DL and be a much more aggressive unit that relies on penetration (a force philosophy rather than a read one). They could be able to fill their gaps quicker and be better at stopping the run, pressuring QBs, and causing turnovers.

Tobin Phillips is the only DT with any size, so he will be critical to stay healthy. No player on the team outside of McKee is more important to play the whole season. And it would seem they are going to need a contribution from True Frosh Jaxson Moi. I don't get why Stanford has him listed as a DE when he is needed at DT. Zach Rowell could potentially move inside too?

[cardcrimson]

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

Wow. Just wow.

[cardcrimson]

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

Wow. Just wow.

[JohnR34231]

To the extent one views early enrollees and other recent changes in Stanford's approach to recruiting to adjust to the new national landscape as a good thing (I respect the view of BostonCard and others that these changes are lamentable....I myself think there are pros and cons and am not sure exactly where I land), it seems to me that Shaw managed the whole thing deftly. There were (are?) serious antibodies at Stanford against changes like this and banging his fist on the table doesn't strike me as likely to have gotten a "better" (again, to the extent one views early enrollment and such as a good thing) result. I think there's a plausible case to be made that Shaw quietly worked behind the scenes to soften up the administration on this issue and has pursued exactly the kind of gradual, evolutionary approach to change that is more likely to make these changes stick. If the Stanford administration is going to make big changes in how it evaluates admissions and integrates incoming freshmen, it increases the likelihood the body doesn't reject the medicine, so to speak, if you ease into those changes. Maybe Shaw chipped away at resistance, then found an opportunity for a few pilot cases, then expanded the pilot further, and now is on the verge of more wholesale change.

On the question of whether we can do much worse than Shaw, I am in a different place than dabigv13 despite being on campus for the exact same four years and experiencing previous football irrelevance. Shaw's last four years are near the bottom of the barrel of Power Five coaching. It wouldn't be hard at all for a program of Stanford's reputation to hire somebody who could do better than that. Both the performance of other Power Five teams nationally and Stanford's historical experience (e.g., according to Sagarin, Buddy Teevens was actually a markedly better coach than the 2019-2021 version of David Shaw).

Maybe if I have time today around lunch I can update my previous breakdown of Power Five coaching records. It's not pretty where Shaw ranks in recent years.

---

I was going to make the joke that JAF made...but really, where are we getting the DL depth that allows us to run a 4-3??  Or is the linebacking situation that bad?

I echo dabigV's sentiment that Shaw is not a Buddy, and Shaw is certainly not a Wlat in terms of what these coaches have done with the program.  Wlat took a mediocre team and drove it into the ground.  Buddy took a functional team and could not even maintain that.  Shaw took a Ferrari and treated it like a daily driver...and whether we can even regress/progress to the program mean/median remains to be seen.

I also did not like the comment that "I like where we are."  Where we are is 3-9 with little translation from recruiting stars to football results.  No one should be comfortable here.  If the program is trending up in some hidden way, maybe Shaw can say that he likes where the program is going...but where we are is at the bottom right now.

Kudos to Mandel for the article though.  I would like a little more Stanford coverage from him now that he's living in the Bay Area ;)  He, DeFord, and Zimmerman were my favorite authors from the classic SI.com era of the early 2000s.

Also sidenote: As far as that "A's hire A's, B's hire C's" saying goes...has anyone looked at how close Bloomgren is to turning into another Wlat?  If he hasn't already...

I think your read of Buddy Teevens is off. Teevens did not inherit a functional team. Yes, the team performed functionally in the years prior to Teevens, but Willingham completely neglected to do his job in recruiting and set Teevens up to fail. Over a three year stretch leading up to Teevens, Willingham brought in four offensive linemen. Four linemen. In three years. For reference, the egregious recruiting that torpedoed Stanford's offensive line in recent years was nine linemen in three years. There are just no words for Willingham deciding not to do his job. To say the cupboard was bare would be an understatement. Having a recruiting pipeline of four linemen in three years made it impossible for Teevens to ever have a good offense.

With that miserable bequest, Teevens soldiered through and eventually had good defense, though they would sometimes break under the pressure of having to always be on the field and never getting support from the offense. Overall, Teevens' teams improved year-to-year and eventually he had a top 50 team before being fired. 

Teevens failed at Stanford but he wasn't that bad and, most importantly, really never had a chance to succeed. He's been legendarily successful at a lower level post-Stanford.

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

In Buddy's last year at Stanford he went 4-7. That's a top 50 team?

[JohnR34231]

To the extent one views early enrollees and other recent changes in Stanford's approach to recruiting to adjust to the new national landscape as a good thing (I respect the view of BostonCard and others that these changes are lamentable....I myself think there are pros and cons and am not sure exactly where I land), it seems to me that Shaw managed the whole thing deftly. There were (are?) serious antibodies at Stanford against changes like this and banging his fist on the table doesn't strike me as likely to have gotten a "better" (again, to the extent one views early enrollment and such as a good thing) result. I think there's a plausible case to be made that Shaw quietly worked behind the scenes to soften up the administration on this issue and has pursued exactly the kind of gradual, evolutionary approach to change that is more likely to make these changes stick. If the Stanford administration is going to make big changes in how it evaluates admissions and integrates incoming freshmen, it increases the likelihood the body doesn't reject the medicine, so to speak, if you ease into those changes. Maybe Shaw chipped away at resistance, then found an opportunity for a few pilot cases, then expanded the pilot further, and now is on the verge of more wholesale change.

On the question of whether we can do much worse than Shaw, I am in a different place than dabigv13 despite being on campus for the exact same four years and experiencing previous football irrelevance. Shaw's last four years are near the bottom of the barrel of Power Five coaching. It wouldn't be hard at all for a program of Stanford's reputation to hire somebody who could do better than that. Both the performance of other Power Five teams nationally and Stanford's historical experience (e.g., according to Sagarin, Buddy Teevens was actually a markedly better coach than the 2019-2021 version of David Shaw).

Maybe if I have time today around lunch I can update my previous breakdown of Power Five coaching records. It's not pretty where Shaw ranks in recent years.

---

I was going to make the joke that JAF made...but really, where are we getting the DL depth that allows us to run a 4-3??  Or is the linebacking situation that bad?

I echo dabigV's sentiment that Shaw is not a Buddy, and Shaw is certainly not a Wlat in terms of what these coaches have done with the program.  Wlat took a mediocre team and drove it into the ground.  Buddy took a functional team and could not even maintain that.  Shaw took a Ferrari and treated it like a daily driver...and whether we can even regress/progress to the program mean/median remains to be seen.

I also did not like the comment that "I like where we are."  Where we are is 3-9 with little translation from recruiting stars to football results.  No one should be comfortable here.  If the program is trending up in some hidden way, maybe Shaw can say that he likes where the program is going...but where we are is at the bottom right now.

Kudos to Mandel for the article though.  I would like a little more Stanford coverage from him now that he's living in the Bay Area ;)  He, DeFord, and Zimmerman were my favorite authors from the classic SI.com era of the early 2000s.

Also sidenote: As far as that "A's hire A's, B's hire C's" saying goes...has anyone looked at how close Bloomgren is to turning into another Wlat?  If he hasn't already...

I think your read of Buddy Teevens is off. Teevens did not inherit a functional team. Yes, the team performed functionally in the years prior to Teevens, but Willingham completely neglected to do his job in recruiting and set Teevens up to fail. Over a three year stretch leading up to Teevens, Willingham brought in four offensive linemen. Four linemen. In three years. For reference, the egregious recruiting that torpedoed Stanford's offensive line in recent years was nine linemen in three years. There are just no words for Willingham deciding not to do his job. To say the cupboard was bare would be an understatement. Having a recruiting pipeline of four linemen in three years made it impossible for Teevens to ever have a good offense.

With that miserable bequest, Teevens soldiered through and eventually had good defense, though they would sometimes break under the pressure of having to always be on the field and never getting support from the offense. Overall, Teevens' teams improved year-to-year and eventually he had a top 50 team before being fired. 

Teevens failed at Stanford but he wasn't that bad and, most importantly, really never had a chance to succeed. He's been legendarily successful at a lower level post-Stanford.

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

In Buddy's last year at Stanford he went 4-7. That's a top 50 team?

[msqueri]

Yes, the 4-7 2004 team was a top 50 team. The Pac-10 was good back then and we lost five games by a combined 20 points. Notably, we lost by 3 points to the national champion dynasty USC team, lost by 3 on the road to top 20 Arizona State, and lost by eight on the road against Notre Dame. The computer rankings had that team as the #46 team in the country. That team was arguably better than any Shaw team since 2018 (the 2020 pandemic-shortened season is the only one even arguably on Teevens' level but adjusting for opponent/margin/etc. 2004 was probably better).

---

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

Wow. Just wow.

Wow that Shaw has fallen so far or wow that I would disparage Shaw so?

Shaw's win percentage the last three years is .367 whereas Buddy Teevens' career win percentage is .464. Just looking at Teevens' Stanford win percentage, that was .303 at a time when the Pac-10 was one of the best conferences in the country whereas Shaw's .367 is at a time when the Pac-12 is by far the worst Power Five conference in the country.

Looking at computer rankings, Shaw's median in the last three years is #73 or #75 depending on what algorithm you use for the pandemic-shortened season whereas Teevens' median in his three years at Stanford was #69.

[msqueri]

Yes, the 4-7 2004 team was a top 50 team. The Pac-10 was good back then and we lost five games by a combined 20 points. Notably, we lost by 3 points to the national champion dynasty USC team, lost by 3 on the road to top 20 Arizona State, and lost by eight on the road against Notre Dame. The computer rankings had that team as the #46 team in the country. That team was arguably better than any Shaw team since 2018 (the 2020 pandemic-shortened season is the only one even arguably on Teevens' level but adjusting for opponent/margin/etc. 2004 was probably better).

---

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

Wow. Just wow.

Wow that Shaw has fallen so far or wow that I would disparage Shaw so?

Shaw's win percentage the last three years is .367 whereas Buddy Teevens' career win percentage is .464. Just looking at Teevens' Stanford win percentage, that was .303 at a time when the Pac-10 was one of the best conferences in the country whereas Shaw's .367 is at a time when the Pac-12 is by far the worst Power Five conference in the country.

Looking at computer rankings, Shaw's median in the last three years is #73 or #75 depending on what algorithm you use for the pandemic-shortened season whereas Teevens' median in his three years at Stanford was #69.

[SamuelMcF]

Tobin Phillips is the only DT with any size, so he will be critical to stay healthy. No player on the team outside of McKee is more important to play the whole season. And it would seem they are going to need a contribution from True Frosh Jaxson Moi. I don't get why Stanford has him listed as a DE when he is needed at DT. Zach Rowell could potentially move inside too?

THERE IS NO "DE" AND "DT" ANYMORE. How many times do I need to keep saying it?

Stanford listed the #CardClass2022 recruits tab with their positions PRIOR to the official 4-3 shift. Note that the OLBs are still called OLBs on that page. 

Moi (and Zach Rowell, and Pat Caughey) are all considered DL now, and will all be at those 2 inside spots.

[SamuelMcF]

Tobin Phillips is the only DT with any size, so he will be critical to stay healthy. No player on the team outside of McKee is more important to play the whole season. And it would seem they are going to need a contribution from True Frosh Jaxson Moi. I don't get why Stanford has him listed as a DE when he is needed at DT. Zach Rowell could potentially move inside too?

THERE IS NO "DE" AND "DT" ANYMORE. How many times do I need to keep saying it?

Stanford listed the #CardClass2022 recruits tab with their positions PRIOR to the official 4-3 shift. Note that the OLBs are still called OLBs on that page. 

Moi (and Zach Rowell, and Pat Caughey) are all considered DL now, and will all be at those 2 inside spots.

[msqueri]

Tobin Phillips is the only DT with any size, so he will be critical to stay healthy. No player on the team outside of McKee is more important to play the whole season. And it would seem they are going to need a contribution from True Frosh Jaxson Moi. I don't get why Stanford has him listed as a DE when he is needed at DT. Zach Rowell could potentially move inside too?

THERE IS NO "DE" AND "DT" ANYMORE. How many times do I need to keep saying it?

Stanford listed the #CardClass2022 recruits tab with their positions PRIOR to the official 4-3 shift. Note that the OLBs are still called OLBs on that page. 

Moi (and Zach Rowell, and Pat Caughey) are all considered DL now, and will all be at those 2 inside spots.

And just to clarify what may be leading some to be confused: the 4 part of the 4-3 is comprised of two DL and two OLBs (now called edge). People who think we need four DL for a 4-3 don't understand Stanford's roster or scheme. If it helps, think of the DL as synonymous with DT and what you used to think of as DE as synonymous with what Stanford calls edge.

[msqueri]

Tobin Phillips is the only DT with any size, so he will be critical to stay healthy. No player on the team outside of McKee is more important to play the whole season. And it would seem they are going to need a contribution from True Frosh Jaxson Moi. I don't get why Stanford has him listed as a DE when he is needed at DT. Zach Rowell could potentially move inside too?

THERE IS NO "DE" AND "DT" ANYMORE. How many times do I need to keep saying it?

Stanford listed the #CardClass2022 recruits tab with their positions PRIOR to the official 4-3 shift. Note that the OLBs are still called OLBs on that page. 

Moi (and Zach Rowell, and Pat Caughey) are all considered DL now, and will all be at those 2 inside spots.

And just to clarify what may be leading some to be confused: the 4 part of the 4-3 is comprised of two DL and two OLBs (now called edge). People who think we need four DL for a 4-3 don't understand Stanford's roster or scheme. If it helps, think of the DL as synonymous with DT and what you used to think of as DE as synonymous with what Stanford calls edge.

[Phogge]

Relax Sam. It's just college football.

[Phogge]

Relax Sam. It's just college football.

[lex24]

Yes, the 4-7 2004 team was a top 50 team. The Pac-10 was good back then and we lost five games by a combined 20 points. Notably, we lost by 3 points to the national champion dynasty USC team, lost by 3 on the road to top 20 Arizona State, and lost by eight on the road against Notre Dame. The computer rankings had that team as the #46 team in the country. That team was arguably better than any Shaw team since 2018 (the 2020 pandemic-shortened season is the only one even arguably on Teevens' level but adjusting for opponent/margin/etc. 2004 was probably better).

---

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

Wow. Just wow.

Wow that Shaw has fallen so far or wow that I would disparage Shaw so?

Shaw's win percentage the last three years is .367 whereas Buddy Teevens' career win percentage is .464. Just looking at Teevens' Stanford win percentage, that was .303 at a time when the Pac-10 was one of the best conferences in the country whereas Shaw's .367 is at a time when the Pac-12 is by far the worst Power Five conference in the country.

Looking at computer rankings, Shaw's median in the last three years is #73 or #75 depending on what algorithm you use for the pandemic-shortened season whereas Teevens' median in his three years at Stanford was #69.

Irrelevant.  Had Teevens achieved what Shaw achieved then your comparison would matter.  But Teevens failed from (almost) day 1. While Shaw succeeded beyond any coach in modern Stanford history.  

‘19 was a bad year.  ‘21 atrocious.  ‘20 doesn’t really count.  So, he’s had a couple bad years. If next year doesn’t show some improvement, then perhaps the noise will reach levels where change happens.  I wish they’d made moves at the assistant level.  But they didn’t.  It’s on Shaw.  As essentially it’s always been (a fact recognized by folks when Stanford loses.  When Shaw was winning at levels not before seen - well that was, for many, someone else’s doing.  (Or, still not good enough cause suddenly winning an NC was the new standard) Which is the thing that ticks me off a bit).  But if they have another atrocious year, it’s more than justified to start calling for change at the top.  

I’m hoping they show some major improvement.  If not, let the howling begin.

[lex24]

Yes, the 4-7 2004 team was a top 50 team. The Pac-10 was good back then and we lost five games by a combined 20 points. Notably, we lost by 3 points to the national champion dynasty USC team, lost by 3 on the road to top 20 Arizona State, and lost by eight on the road against Notre Dame. The computer rankings had that team as the #46 team in the country. That team was arguably better than any Shaw team since 2018 (the 2020 pandemic-shortened season is the only one even arguably on Teevens' level but adjusting for opponent/margin/etc. 2004 was probably better).

---

I don't think there's any doubt that Buddy Teevens' record as a head coach is more impressive than what Shaw has done over the last three years.

Wow. Just wow.

Wow that Shaw has fallen so far or wow that I would disparage Shaw so?

Shaw's win percentage the last three years is .367 whereas Buddy Teevens' career win percentage is .464. Just looking at Teevens' Stanford win percentage, that was .303 at a time when the Pac-10 was one of the best conferences in the country whereas Shaw's .367 is at a time when the Pac-12 is by far the worst Power Five conference in the country.

Looking at computer rankings, Shaw's median in the last three years is #73 or #75 depending on what algorithm you use for the pandemic-shortened season whereas Teevens' median in his three years at Stanford was #69.

Irrelevant.  Had Teevens achieved what Shaw achieved then your comparison would matter.  But Teevens failed from (almost) day 1. While Shaw succeeded beyond any coach in modern Stanford history.  

‘19 was a bad year.  ‘21 atrocious.  ‘20 doesn’t really count.  So, he’s had a couple bad years. If next year doesn’t show some improvement, then perhaps the noise will reach levels where change happens.  I wish they’d made moves at the assistant level.  But they didn’t.  It’s on Shaw.  As essentially it’s always been (a fact recognized by folks when Stanford loses.  When Shaw was winning at levels not before seen - well that was, for many, someone else’s doing.  (Or, still not good enough cause suddenly winning an NC was the new standard) Which is the thing that ticks me off a bit).  But if they have another atrocious year, it’s more than justified to start calling for change at the top.  

I’m hoping they show some major improvement.  If not, let the howling begin.

[fullmetal]

JohnR -- Thanks for the Tyrone/Teevens recruiting reminder; that does provide perspective.  I'm not sure I'd call Teevens more successful than Shaw part 2, but I will retract my statement that Teevens inherited a functional team.

I noted that the coaching staff list has a DL coach and an ILB coach -- so it stands to reason that Stanford has already been operating with "OLB"-type players in the DL room for some time now.  As long as the smaller/faster builds have been doing their jobs well against TE/OT...no argument from me.  I don't think the trend in college football is smaller offensive tackles, however.  Diron Reynolds has yet to show some consistent results, but I'm not ready to put that on him.  Maybe I just respect Oklahoma too much.

[fullmetal]

JohnR -- Thanks for the Tyrone/Teevens recruiting reminder; that does provide perspective.  I'm not sure I'd call Teevens more successful than Shaw part 2, but I will retract my statement that Teevens inherited a functional team.

I noted that the coaching staff list has a DL coach and an ILB coach -- so it stands to reason that Stanford has already been operating with "OLB"-type players in the DL room for some time now.  As long as the smaller/faster builds have been doing their jobs well against TE/OT...no argument from me.  I don't think the trend in college football is smaller offensive tackles, however.  Diron Reynolds has yet to show some consistent results, but I'm not ready to put that on him.  Maybe I just respect Oklahoma too much.

[Goose]

Is there any good reason to think deciding whether to accept early enrollees or allow official visits before January was Shaw's alone to make? I can maybe believe he had the decider's pen on official visits, but my understanding was that the University as a whole has strongly opposed early enrollment and that this had to be negotiated as a limited and conditional exception for football recruits. For as long as I've been associated with Stanford, Stanford has never permitted early enrollment prior to summer session preceding one's frosh year (and again, even that was generally limited to athletes).

This is a good point on early enrollees, and I almost brought it up as a caveat, knowing someone would point it out. I didn't, because David Shaw runs the most important program to any athletic department and he should have been "jumping on the table" to address the issue with other programs and admin before experiencing the damage done by not addressing it.

First of all, as I am sure you are aware that in some meetings jumping on the table is strictly frowned upon. Second of all, you weren't in those meetings so you have no idea what Shaw said or did not say. Shaw is a measured individual, at least in public. He isn't going to throw the administration under the bus because he didn't get what he wanted immediately every time. He is also going to pick his battles, because some he can't win and it will just piss people off. I think that is probably a net positive.

David Shaw's history is to let the damage be done, then react, rather than foresee it and be proactive to stop it from happening, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me on the early enrollment matter, just like he doesn't on delaying early OVs.

I would suggest that it is more a case that since David Shaw doesn't always publicly agree that a certain problem exists and then doesn't unilaterally with his unrestrained power immediately adopt the solution you propose or bitch about not being able to do so in public he must not foresee those problems and is doing nothing to address the situation. There are some cases, like the "early" visits, where he clearly preferred the "old" way and was probably wrong, as evidenced by him eventually changing the approach. That is a legitimate gripe IMHO, but it doesn't mean he is always unaware of the problems.

[Goose]

Is there any good reason to think deciding whether to accept early enrollees or allow official visits before January was Shaw's alone to make? I can maybe believe he had the decider's pen on official visits, but my understanding was that the University as a whole has strongly opposed early enrollment and that this had to be negotiated as a limited and conditional exception for football recruits. For as long as I've been associated with Stanford, Stanford has never permitted early enrollment prior to summer session preceding one's frosh year (and again, even that was generally limited to athletes).

This is a good point on early enrollees, and I almost brought it up as a caveat, knowing someone would point it out. I didn't, because David Shaw runs the most important program to any athletic department and he should have been "jumping on the table" to address the issue with other programs and admin before experiencing the damage done by not addressing it.

First of all, as I am sure you are aware that in some meetings jumping on the table is strictly frowned upon. Second of all, you weren't in those meetings so you have no idea what Shaw said or did not say. Shaw is a measured individual, at least in public. He isn't going to throw the administration under the bus because he didn't get what he wanted immediately every time. He is also going to pick his battles, because some he can't win and it will just piss people off. I think that is probably a net positive.

David Shaw's history is to let the damage be done, then react, rather than foresee it and be proactive to stop it from happening, so he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me on the early enrollment matter, just like he doesn't on delaying early OVs.

I would suggest that it is more a case that since David Shaw doesn't always publicly agree that a certain problem exists and then doesn't unilaterally with his unrestrained power immediately adopt the solution you propose or bitch about not being able to do so in public he must not foresee those problems and is doing nothing to address the situation. There are some cases, like the "early" visits, where he clearly preferred the "old" way and was probably wrong, as evidenced by him eventually changing the approach. That is a legitimate gripe IMHO, but it doesn't mean he is always unaware of the problems.

[msqueri]

JohnR -- Thanks for the Tyrone/Teevens recruiting reminder; that does provide perspective.  I'm not sure I'd call Teevens more successful than Shaw part 2, but I will retract my statement that Teevens inherited a functional team.

I noted that the coaching staff list has a DL coach and an ILB coach -- so it stands to reason that Stanford has already been operating with "OLB"-type players in the DL room for some time now.  As long as the smaller/faster builds have been doing their jobs well against TE/OT...no argument from me.  I don't think the trend in college football is smaller offensive tackles, however.  Diron Reynolds has yet to show some consistent results, but I'm not ready to put that on him.  Maybe I just respect Oklahoma too much.

Respect for Oklahoma should be the first cause for major skepticism about Diron Reynolds. He coached at Oklahoma for one year and then immediately took a much, much worse job at Stanford. Seems pretty obvious he failed spectacularly (one year!) at Oklahoma.

Bottom line is you should be ready to put a lot of blame on Reynolds. He has always been one of our least visible and enthusiastic recruiters, does not have recruiting success to point to, and has presided over a problematic position group for years. The players he's had who've stood out received significant early career instruction from all-time great position coach Randy Hart, with the sole exception of Thomas Booker, who had a nice career but culminated it in a disappointing year.

A program with any accountability would have moved on from Reynolds. He's probably the most obvious person to fire in the football office (a distinction that certainly has competition!).

[msqueri]

JohnR -- Thanks for the Tyrone/Teevens recruiting reminder; that does provide perspective.  I'm not sure I'd call Teevens more successful than Shaw part 2, but I will retract my statement that Teevens inherited a functional team.

I noted that the coaching staff list has a DL coach and an ILB coach -- so it stands to reason that Stanford has already been operating with "OLB"-type players in the DL room for some time now.  As long as the smaller/faster builds have been doing their jobs well against TE/OT...no argument from me.  I don't think the trend in college football is smaller offensive tackles, however.  Diron Reynolds has yet to show some consistent results, but I'm not ready to put that on him.  Maybe I just respect Oklahoma too much.

Respect for Oklahoma should be the first cause for major skepticism about Diron Reynolds. He coached at Oklahoma for one year and then immediately took a much, much worse job at Stanford. Seems pretty obvious he failed spectacularly (one year!) at Oklahoma.

Bottom line is you should be ready to put a lot of blame on Reynolds. He has always been one of our least visible and enthusiastic recruiters, does not have recruiting success to point to, and has presided over a problematic position group for years. The players he's had who've stood out received significant early career instruction from all-time great position coach Randy Hart, with the sole exception of Thomas Booker, who had a nice career but culminated it in a disappointing year.

A program with any accountability would have moved on from Reynolds. He's probably the most obvious person to fire in the football office (a distinction that certainly has competition!).