[OutsiderFan]

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.

At least this one more time so I could see it for the first time :)

That's good news, but why didn't anyone comment on my "positive" interpretation re: DL in general? Why is everyone pedantic, and not want to discuss the wider thrust of posts?  

Does anyone see the possibility of a faster, more attacking DL beyond myself?

And has anyone seen or heard anything about Aristotle Taylor possibly getting on the field, or otherwise anything about his development?

[OutsiderFan]

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.

At least this one more time so I could see it for the first time :)

That's good news, but why didn't anyone comment on my "positive" interpretation re: DL in general? Why is everyone pedantic, and not want to discuss the wider thrust of posts?  

Does anyone see the possibility of a faster, more attacking DL beyond myself?

And has anyone seen or heard anything about Aristotle Taylor possibly getting on the field, or otherwise anything about his development?

[lex24]

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!).

Don’t know anything about Reynolds beyond his resume.  Which is fairly impressive actually.  I do know replacing Randy Hart was no easy task.  He was terrific.

[lex24]

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!).

Don’t know anything about Reynolds beyond his resume.  Which is fairly impressive actually.  I do know replacing Randy Hart was no easy task.  He was terrific.

[winflop]

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.

I didn't like it either and I agree with you, but in Shaw's mind that's where we WERE not where we ARE.

[winflop]

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.

I didn't like it either and I agree with you, but in Shaw's mind that's where we WERE not where we ARE.

[winflop]

I do know replacing Randy Hart was no easy task.  He was terrific.

Tough to replace a guy like that but Shaw has abjectly failed, not because he hired Reynolds but because he hasn't replaced him. On paper Reynolds seemed like a good hire at the time, but the failures on DL over the last few seasons should have resulted in him being shown the door after this past season (if not sooner)

[winflop]

I do know replacing Randy Hart was no easy task.  He was terrific.

Tough to replace a guy like that but Shaw has abjectly failed, not because he hired Reynolds but because he hasn't replaced him. On paper Reynolds seemed like a good hire at the time, but the failures on DL over the last few seasons should have resulted in him being shown the door after this past season (if not sooner)

[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.

At least this one more time so I could see it for the first time :)

That's good news, but why didn't anyone comment on my "positive" interpretation re: DL in general? Why is everyone pedantic, and not want to discuss the wider thrust of posts?  

Does anyone see the possibility of a faster, more attacking DL beyond myself?

And has anyone seen or heard anything about Aristotle Taylor possibly getting on the field, or otherwise anything about his development?

For the record I actually agree and do see the possibility of a faster front 4, but it's a "show me the money" situation for me. A shift to a 4-3 really means wanting the OLBs (now EDGEs) to be a little bigger, and does make up a bit for smaller inner 2's. Guys like Keneley and Armitage that are in the 250-260 range fit the bill more. It got really exhausting seeing 230lb guys like Jordan Fox and Gabe Reid continually getting blown off the ball playing a position they really shouldn't have been (they would both be better suited as 4-3 strongside backers).

I think we'll have to see how the non-Phillips guys look weight-wise. I'd want them to ideally be at least 280.

Radio silence on Taylor, who was hurt all year and is also now listed as an EDGE.

[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.

At least this one more time so I could see it for the first time :)

That's good news, but why didn't anyone comment on my "positive" interpretation re: DL in general? Why is everyone pedantic, and not want to discuss the wider thrust of posts?  

Does anyone see the possibility of a faster, more attacking DL beyond myself?

And has anyone seen or heard anything about Aristotle Taylor possibly getting on the field, or otherwise anything about his development?

For the record I actually agree and do see the possibility of a faster front 4, but it's a "show me the money" situation for me. A shift to a 4-3 really means wanting the OLBs (now EDGEs) to be a little bigger, and does make up a bit for smaller inner 2's. Guys like Keneley and Armitage that are in the 250-260 range fit the bill more. It got really exhausting seeing 230lb guys like Jordan Fox and Gabe Reid continually getting blown off the ball playing a position they really shouldn't have been (they would both be better suited as 4-3 strongside backers).

I think we'll have to see how the non-Phillips guys look weight-wise. I'd want them to ideally be at least 280.

Radio silence on Taylor, who was hurt all year and is also now listed as an EDGE.

[Goose]

It's remarkable how slow to adapt and innovate Stanford Football is when it is smack dab in the middle of an area with a culture that is all about it.

I think this is an interesting point. It is well to keep in mind the mechanisms that support that innovative culture. 75% of startups fail. Most are financed by OPM so the risks to the founders are limited. These innovations are almost exclusively created by a small group of people that have split off from a larger organization (or academic institution). They are, in general, not intending to play the same game the organizations they left are playing. They want to generate a new game with new rules where they have the advantage. When it works, it can be h,uge.

Large organizations are generally speaking very poor innovators. There is a long history in the Bay Area of companies who have attempted to continue innovation as they did in the early years. In general these efforts have entirely failed, and in those cases that did succeed generally did so by creating separate spin-offs or "skunk works" that were outside corporate control.

Football is a game that has been around for a long time. The opportunities to innovate are few. Most opportunities available are created by rule changes, not discovering something nobody had previously imagined. It is very much like running a railroad. There are parameters you can tweak but fundamentally everyone is constrained by the nature of the business. Things like "Precision Scheduled Railroading" and Chip Kelly "playing fast" at Oregon are regarded as innovative by many, but they are really more like fads. There is nothing fundamentally innovative about them, they are a change of emphasis that have good points and bad points and are not disjoint from the standard of practice in the industry. UCLA doesn't play fast. It is too hard on the defense. The "good part" of such change is easily duplicated by the competition. The payoff is short lived.

David Shaw is indeed not an aggressive innovator IMHO. He is a "school solution" kind of guy. However, he has shown that he will make changes in the context of what he already knows. Clearly, Stanford's offense is vastly different today than it was in 2015. Shaw is going to look for the solution to any problem in the light of "conventional wisdom" and his own educated and studied analysis of the situation. That causes a slower response than perhaps many here would prefer. However, this approach can also avoid major blunders in some cases. It is also true that a big organization, which the Stanford Football team certainly is, cannot change course instantaneously. If you decide you are going to an Air Raid for example, recruiting the personnel will probably take a couple of years to accomplish, at least. You will have to change some assistant coaches. The defense will have to adjust to being on the field longer. Changing your mind after year one isn't viable because now you have athletes/coaches that can't do either your old offense or the new one. Making good decisions therefore can be better than making quick decisions. Sometimes, you can make a good, quick decision, but more often you can't.

Harbaugh was much more of an innovator than Shaw. Not so much at Stanford, because of his short tenure. Going with a mobile QB at the 49ers was definitely a decision he made, not an accident. Arguably, he was looking for Mahomes before that approach became trendy. That was probably a good move that Shaw in the same situation would not make. OTOH at Michigan, JH has been trying to improve their speed and emphasize the passing game for years. Up to now, he has failed to do that/make that work. Last year they won with a team that had abandoned that "innovative" approach because they clearly couldn't execute it. What JH does this year will be interesting. Trying to innovate can be a two edged sword. At the end of the day, Al Davis was correct. "Just win baby".

[Goose]

It's remarkable how slow to adapt and innovate Stanford Football is when it is smack dab in the middle of an area with a culture that is all about it.

I think this is an interesting point. It is well to keep in mind the mechanisms that support that innovative culture. 75% of startups fail. Most are financed by OPM so the risks to the founders are limited. These innovations are almost exclusively created by a small group of people that have split off from a larger organization (or academic institution). They are, in general, not intending to play the same game the organizations they left are playing. They want to generate a new game with new rules where they have the advantage. When it works, it can be h,uge.

Large organizations are generally speaking very poor innovators. There is a long history in the Bay Area of companies who have attempted to continue innovation as they did in the early years. In general these efforts have entirely failed, and in those cases that did succeed generally did so by creating separate spin-offs or "skunk works" that were outside corporate control.

Football is a game that has been around for a long time. The opportunities to innovate are few. Most opportunities available are created by rule changes, not discovering something nobody had previously imagined. It is very much like running a railroad. There are parameters you can tweak but fundamentally everyone is constrained by the nature of the business. Things like "Precision Scheduled Railroading" and Chip Kelly "playing fast" at Oregon are regarded as innovative by many, but they are really more like fads. There is nothing fundamentally innovative about them, they are a change of emphasis that have good points and bad points and are not disjoint from the standard of practice in the industry. UCLA doesn't play fast. It is too hard on the defense. The "good part" of such change is easily duplicated by the competition. The payoff is short lived.

David Shaw is indeed not an aggressive innovator IMHO. He is a "school solution" kind of guy. However, he has shown that he will make changes in the context of what he already knows. Clearly, Stanford's offense is vastly different today than it was in 2015. Shaw is going to look for the solution to any problem in the light of "conventional wisdom" and his own educated and studied analysis of the situation. That causes a slower response than perhaps many here would prefer. However, this approach can also avoid major blunders in some cases. It is also true that a big organization, which the Stanford Football team certainly is, cannot change course instantaneously. If you decide you are going to an Air Raid for example, recruiting the personnel will probably take a couple of years to accomplish, at least. You will have to change some assistant coaches. The defense will have to adjust to being on the field longer. Changing your mind after year one isn't viable because now you have athletes/coaches that can't do either your old offense or the new one. Making good decisions therefore can be better than making quick decisions. Sometimes, you can make a good, quick decision, but more often you can't.

Harbaugh was much more of an innovator than Shaw. Not so much at Stanford, because of his short tenure. Going with a mobile QB at the 49ers was definitely a decision he made, not an accident. Arguably, he was looking for Mahomes before that approach became trendy. That was probably a good move that Shaw in the same situation would not make. OTOH at Michigan, JH has been trying to improve their speed and emphasize the passing game for years. Up to now, he has failed to do that/make that work. Last year they won with a team that had abandoned that "innovative" approach because they clearly couldn't execute it. What JH does this year will be interesting. Trying to innovate can be a two edged sword. At the end of the day, Al Davis was correct. "Just win baby".

[gailtate]

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.

I didn't like it either and I agree with you, but in Shaw's mind that's where we WERE not where we ARE.

More and more, Shaw describes games, performance and personnel in terms of fantasy not fact. Personnel includes his assistants along with players. His decisions are consistent with a head coach who wants to be the head of a calm, loving family and not the wrangler of firebrands. Seems this should not an either/or issue but he can't process it.  I would think his need for family should be fulfilled at home. Of course, in his mind, he has achieved enough on his HC resume to merit an equal number of more leisurely years. He has said as much. And there seems to be no shortage of folks with whom this mindset is just fine, thank you very much. Perhaps there's a connection here? Stay tuned for the new season of All In The Family  beginning in September.

[gailtate]

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.

I didn't like it either and I agree with you, but in Shaw's mind that's where we WERE not where we ARE.

More and more, Shaw describes games, performance and personnel in terms of fantasy not fact. Personnel includes his assistants along with players. His decisions are consistent with a head coach who wants to be the head of a calm, loving family and not the wrangler of firebrands. Seems this should not an either/or issue but he can't process it.  I would think his need for family should be fulfilled at home. Of course, in his mind, he has achieved enough on his HC resume to merit an equal number of more leisurely years. He has said as much. And there seems to be no shortage of folks with whom this mindset is just fine, thank you very much. Perhaps there's a connection here? Stay tuned for the new season of All In The Family  beginning in September.

[Brickcity]

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.

I didn't like it either and I agree with you, but in Shaw's mind that's where we WERE not where we ARE.

More and more, Shaw describes games, performance and personnel in terms of fantasy not fact. Personnel includes his assistants along with players. His decisions are consistent with a head coach who wants to be the head of a calm, loving family and not the wrangler of firebrands. Seems this should not an either/or issue but he can't process it.  I would think his need for family should be fulfilled at home. Of course, in his mind, he has achieved enough on his HC resume to merit an equal number of more leisurely years. He has said as much. And there seems to be no shortage of folks with whom this mindset is just fine, thank you very much. Perhaps there's a connection here? Stay tuned for the new season of All In The Family  beginning in September.

I think you summed up Shaw's thinking perfectly. Most interesting was your point about this not needing to be an "either/or" situation. One can simultaneously be a good, honest, transparent leader while still making the tough choices one has to make as a head coach to consistently win. But, to do the latter, you also have to have fire in your belly. Shaw, conversely, just wants to be comfortable and hang out with his coaching buddy friends.

[Brickcity]

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.

I didn't like it either and I agree with you, but in Shaw's mind that's where we WERE not where we ARE.

More and more, Shaw describes games, performance and personnel in terms of fantasy not fact. Personnel includes his assistants along with players. His decisions are consistent with a head coach who wants to be the head of a calm, loving family and not the wrangler of firebrands. Seems this should not an either/or issue but he can't process it.  I would think his need for family should be fulfilled at home. Of course, in his mind, he has achieved enough on his HC resume to merit an equal number of more leisurely years. He has said as much. And there seems to be no shortage of folks with whom this mindset is just fine, thank you very much. Perhaps there's a connection here? Stay tuned for the new season of All In The Family  beginning in September.

I think you summed up Shaw's thinking perfectly. Most interesting was your point about this not needing to be an "either/or" situation. One can simultaneously be a good, honest, transparent leader while still making the tough choices one has to make as a head coach to consistently win. But, to do the latter, you also have to have fire in your belly. Shaw, conversely, just wants to be comfortable and hang out with his coaching buddy friends.

[Maple Leaf]

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.

I didn't like it either and I agree with you, but in Shaw's mind that's where we WERE not where we ARE.

More and more, Shaw describes games, performance and personnel in terms of fantasy not fact. Personnel includes his assistants along with players. His decisions are consistent with a head coach who wants to be the head of a calm, loving family and not the wrangler of firebrands. Seems this should not an either/or issue but he can't process it.  I would think his need for family should be fulfilled at home. Of course, in his mind, he has achieved enough on his HC resume to merit an equal number of more leisurely years. He has said as much. And there seems to be no shortage of folks with whom this mindset is just fine, thank you very much. Perhaps there's a connection here? Stay tuned for the new season of All In The Family  beginning in September.

who is playing the role of Archie Bunker?

Good Lord this email did not occur on the Thunderdoom.

[Maple Leaf]

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.

I didn't like it either and I agree with you, but in Shaw's mind that's where we WERE not where we ARE.

More and more, Shaw describes games, performance and personnel in terms of fantasy not fact. Personnel includes his assistants along with players. His decisions are consistent with a head coach who wants to be the head of a calm, loving family and not the wrangler of firebrands. Seems this should not an either/or issue but he can't process it.  I would think his need for family should be fulfilled at home. Of course, in his mind, he has achieved enough on his HC resume to merit an equal number of more leisurely years. He has said as much. And there seems to be no shortage of folks with whom this mindset is just fine, thank you very much. Perhaps there's a connection here? Stay tuned for the new season of All In The Family  beginning in September.

who is playing the role of Archie Bunker?

Good Lord this email did not occur on the Thunderdoom.

[Goose]

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.

I didn't like it either and I agree with you, but in Shaw's mind that's where we WERE not where we ARE.

More and more, Shaw describes games, performance and personnel in terms of fantasy not fact. Personnel includes his assistants along with players. His decisions are consistent with a head coach who wants to be the head of a calm, loving family and not the wrangler of firebrands. Seems this should not an either/or issue but he can't process it.  I would think his need for family should be fulfilled at home. Of course, in his mind, he has achieved enough on his HC resume to merit an equal number of more leisurely years. He has said as much. And there seems to be no shortage of folks with whom this mindset is just fine, thank you very much. Perhaps there's a connection here? Stay tuned for the new season of All In The Family  beginning in September.

who is playing the role of Archie Bunker?

Good Lord this email did not occur on the Thunderdoom.

I want to know who is playing Edith.

[Goose]

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.

I didn't like it either and I agree with you, but in Shaw's mind that's where we WERE not where we ARE.

More and more, Shaw describes games, performance and personnel in terms of fantasy not fact. Personnel includes his assistants along with players. His decisions are consistent with a head coach who wants to be the head of a calm, loving family and not the wrangler of firebrands. Seems this should not an either/or issue but he can't process it.  I would think his need for family should be fulfilled at home. Of course, in his mind, he has achieved enough on his HC resume to merit an equal number of more leisurely years. He has said as much. And there seems to be no shortage of folks with whom this mindset is just fine, thank you very much. Perhaps there's a connection here? Stay tuned for the new season of All In The Family  beginning in September.

who is playing the role of Archie Bunker?

Good Lord this email did not occur on the Thunderdoom.

I want to know who is playing Edith.

[fullmetal]

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.

Reynolds had a number of years in the NFL before coming to Stanford as a defensive assistant for one (partial?) year in 2014.  He then took the Oklahoma DL coaching job for 2015.  His family stayed behind in California.  When Hart retired, Shaw offered the job to Reynolds for the 2016 season, and Reynolds probably couldn't say no to the prospect of living in the same house with his family while working in a program with which he was familiar.

I don't know if that context means anything with respect to his performance at Oklahoma...I have certainly lost track of time as he has been here a lot longer than I'd remembered, and injuries/bad recruiting misses can only serve as excuses for so long.

Maybe, like OL, the DL is a position that suffers disproportionately from the loss of Turley and effective athletic trainers.  (Of course it is, we need Shaw to hire Turley 2.0 asap.)

The optics of Reynolds being a "friend of Shaw" from having worked one year as a defensive assistant are not good.  Reynolds' resume prior to Stanford speaks for itself though, he ought to be really good.  Perhaps he's just a guy, capable of achieving when good players are healthy, and not capable of achieving through adversity (no easy task at Stanford, granted).

(Yeah that's a reference to "friend of Ted," lol)

[fullmetal]

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.

Reynolds had a number of years in the NFL before coming to Stanford as a defensive assistant for one (partial?) year in 2014.  He then took the Oklahoma DL coaching job for 2015.  His family stayed behind in California.  When Hart retired, Shaw offered the job to Reynolds for the 2016 season, and Reynolds probably couldn't say no to the prospect of living in the same house with his family while working in a program with which he was familiar.

I don't know if that context means anything with respect to his performance at Oklahoma...I have certainly lost track of time as he has been here a lot longer than I'd remembered, and injuries/bad recruiting misses can only serve as excuses for so long.

Maybe, like OL, the DL is a position that suffers disproportionately from the loss of Turley and effective athletic trainers.  (Of course it is, we need Shaw to hire Turley 2.0 asap.)

The optics of Reynolds being a "friend of Shaw" from having worked one year as a defensive assistant are not good.  Reynolds' resume prior to Stanford speaks for itself though, he ought to be really good.  Perhaps he's just a guy, capable of achieving when good players are healthy, and not capable of achieving through adversity (no easy task at Stanford, granted).

(Yeah that's a reference to "friend of Ted," lol)

[BostonCard]

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.

What you are describing sounds more like a 2-4-5 defensive alignment than the old, traditional 4-3 we used to play before we switched to the 3-4 a dozen plus years ago.  Maybe that makes sense, given that we are in the nickel more than 50% of the time, but I legitimately wonder what the alignment will be when we are in clear running downs (third and short).

The old 4-3 really did differentiate between interior defensive linemen and defensive ends.  The two DTs were not as big as a stereotypical nose tackle, but you aren’t merely taking the NT out and slotting two defensive ends in to play the a gaps. The whole reason we switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 was that it was much easier to recruit linebackers than interior defensive linemen.  The reason we are switching back is likely that true 3-4 nose tackles are unicorns, and it is easier to find two 300 lb 4-3 DTs than one 320 lb 3-4 NT who can chew up two blockers and cover both A gaps.

But again, now that most of our game is played in the nickel, it makes sense to rid ourselves of our undersized nose tackle, bring our defensive ends inside and hope we can grow them into DTs, take our outside linebackers and call the EDGEs, and play two MLBs.  That’s not really a traditional 4-3 front though, where we would have two DTs, a strong side and weak side DE, and a Sam, Will, and Mike LB on the strong, weak, and middle.

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

What you are describing sounds more like a 2-4-5 defensive alignment than the old, traditional 4-3 we used to play before we switched to the 3-4 a dozen plus years ago.  Maybe that makes sense, given that we are in the nickel more than 50% of the time, but I legitimately wonder what the alignment will be when we are in clear running downs (third and short).

The old 4-3 really did differentiate between interior defensive linemen and defensive ends.  The two DTs were not as big as a stereotypical nose tackle, but you aren’t merely taking the NT out and slotting two defensive ends in to play the a gaps. The whole reason we switched from a 4-3 to a 3-4 was that it was much easier to recruit linebackers than interior defensive linemen.  The reason we are switching back is likely that true 3-4 nose tackles are unicorns, and it is easier to find two 300 lb 4-3 DTs than one 320 lb 3-4 NT who can chew up two blockers and cover both A gaps.

But again, now that most of our game is played in the nickel, it makes sense to rid ourselves of our undersized nose tackle, bring our defensive ends inside and hope we can grow them into DTs, take our outside linebackers and call the EDGEs, and play two MLBs.  That’s not really a traditional 4-3 front though, where we would have two DTs, a strong side and weak side DE, and a Sam, Will, and Mike LB on the strong, weak, and middle.

BC

[SamuelMcF]

But again, now that most of our game is played in the nickel, it makes sense to rid ourselves of our undersized nose tackle, bring our defensive ends inside and hope we can grow them into DTs, take our outside linebackers and call the EDGEs, and play two MLBs.  That’s not really a traditional 4-3 front though, where we would have two DTs, a strong side and weak side DE, and a Sam, Will, and Mike LB on the strong, weak, and middle.

I believe David Bailey did an interview recently on TOS in which he stated he's learning both the Edge and Sam positions. That tells me Sam, Will, and Mike are going to be a thing in our new defense.

As far as strong-side vs. weak-side DEs (Edges), that one I'm not sure about. However I'd imagine the couple bigger Edges we have - Armitage and Keneley at 260 and 255 - would be on the strong-side. We also have Ernest Cooper coming in at a lean 235-240 with clear room to add weight, and a couple 2023 Edge recruits who are that big as well.

So of the 2022 guys, we'd likely have Cooper as a strong-side Edge, Bailey as a weak-side Edge and/or Sam depending on situation, and Teva Tafiti as a Sam since he's a little smaller than the other 2.

Personally I believe the Sam position would've fit a lot of our recent OLB/ILB "tweeners" and wished we'd made this change years ago (what else is new) - Curtis Robinson in particular comes to mind.

[SamuelMcF]

But again, now that most of our game is played in the nickel, it makes sense to rid ourselves of our undersized nose tackle, bring our defensive ends inside and hope we can grow them into DTs, take our outside linebackers and call the EDGEs, and play two MLBs.  That’s not really a traditional 4-3 front though, where we would have two DTs, a strong side and weak side DE, and a Sam, Will, and Mike LB on the strong, weak, and middle.

I believe David Bailey did an interview recently on TOS in which he stated he's learning both the Edge and Sam positions. That tells me Sam, Will, and Mike are going to be a thing in our new defense.

As far as strong-side vs. weak-side DEs (Edges), that one I'm not sure about. However I'd imagine the couple bigger Edges we have - Armitage and Keneley at 260 and 255 - would be on the strong-side. We also have Ernest Cooper coming in at a lean 235-240 with clear room to add weight, and a couple 2023 Edge recruits who are that big as well.

So of the 2022 guys, we'd likely have Cooper as a strong-side Edge, Bailey as a weak-side Edge and/or Sam depending on situation, and Teva Tafiti as a Sam since he's a little smaller than the other 2.

Personally I believe the Sam position would've fit a lot of our recent OLB/ILB "tweeners" and wished we'd made this change years ago (what else is new) - Curtis Robinson in particular comes to mind.