Over the past decade, Stanford has been the home of intellectual brutality. They controlled the ball and ran it down opponents’ throats with dominating offensive linemen and bruising running backs. The defense stacked the box with stud linebackers and dared opponents to throw. Stanford was known for their physicality and intelligence, and they found success with this identity. They won an Orange Bowl, almost won a Fiesta Bowl, and went to the Rose Bowl three times. They won three PAC-12 championships and were consistently regarded as one of the best teams in the country. Now, however, Stanford’s original and unique identity that once dominated the PAC-12 has slipped away.
Take these names: David DeCastro, Andrus Peat, Joshua Garnett, Kyle Murphy, and the list goes on. Stanford's offensive linemen were annually considered the nation's best just years ago. The team could tell the other team the play and still be able to run up the middle. In 2010, 2011, and 2013, the team averaged over five yards per carry and found themselves playing in a New Year's Six bowl each year, but it also didn't take Heisman-worthy backs to carry the ball.
Furthermore, Stanford can not longer bring out the jumbo package and rush for a yard or two at any time. Not too long ago, a fan could walk out of the room on 4th and 1, and expect Stanford to still have the ball when they came back. That's not the case anymore, and even David Shaw knows it.
Against San Diego State, he elected to kick a field goal on 4th and 1, and the decision ultimately cost Stanford the game. Against Utah, Shaw went for two late in the game, and instead of pounding it in, he threw it THREE straight times.
Stanford doesn’t have the ability this year to reliably convert short yardage situations. And as a result, the team can't extend drives and control the clock.
It's pretty obvious Stanford no longer controls the ball like they once did. In 2010, Stanford led the nation in time of possession and held the ball for almost 35 minutes per game. Now, Stanford is well below the bottom half of FBS teams in that category. That means the opposing team's offense gets more team on the field, and Stanford needs to rely more on their defense.
The defense was extremely physical and reliable not too long ago, and the front seven was feared across the conference. Between 2011-2013, the defense allowed less than 100 yards rushing per game, and the slogan #PartyInTheBackfield was born. The defense always had a superstar linebacker in Shayne Skov or Blake Martinez, and the defensive linemen all had a future in the NFL.
Today, that's not the case. The front seven allows 177.7 rushing yards per game, there's no linebacker on the level of past years, and Harrison Phillips is the only legitimate NFL prospect on the line. Frankly, the front seven gets bullied weekly.
When did the defensive front start truly deteriorating? Perhaps it can be traced to February 2016, the month that Randy Hart retired. He spent six seasons with Stanford, and during that span, the team won 66 games and went to five New Year's Six games. Hart’s players always spoke about him with fervor, and his work had a direct correlation to Stanford impressive record. He was the man behind #PartyInTheBackfield, and without him, Stanford’s defense has suffered.
Comments
Iron sharpens iron, diamonds shape diamonds
This article is spot on for the fact that both these developments are very much correlated. Benefit of hindsight gives us the full picture of the influence coach Randy Hart had on this program. He single handedly molded one of the best DL Stanford has had in Gardner, HenryA, Josh Mauro and not to forget the man who recruited and chose Solomon Thomas and Harrison Philips.
Our intellectual brutality comes from going against these studs daily in practice. Remember the spring games of 2012-14 when the offense couldn’t move an inch against the front but after facing that DL the rest of pac-12 became a doozy. Now we have a soft DL who aren’t preparing our OL for the tougher competition.
Just a look around the conference tells us how the wazzu DL really improved their OL, so much so it forced leach to lean on a run game. Washington got better because their front 7 was legitimate. Nationally Clemson won because of the talent at DL. So if we are to get back that glory it starts up front and especially the DL
By layman on 11.07.17 10:24am
list goes on
chase thomas and david parry also both products of Hart
By charliefoy on 11.07.17 11:35am
Yep
We don’t have the personnel we did then, and we also don’t seem to develop the personnel we have like we did then, either.
By Brendan Ross on 11.07.17 12:49pm
Agree
Player development just doesn’t seem to be as effective as in earlier years. When recruiting classes weren’t quite as strong, players would be coached up; and a 3 star would play like a 4 star. We seem to be getting the opposite phenomenon now.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 11.07.17 1:50pm
Personally, I disagree with these knocks on player development, and think it merits mentioning
The 2014 recruiting class of 20 guys produced Solomon Thomas and Christian McCaffrey, and key contributors like Harrison Phillips, Daniel Marx, Alijah Holder, and Joey Alfieri.
I agree that in some key areas Stanford hasn’t gotten consistent player development – on defense in particular – but throwing out that "Stanford can’t develop players well" just doesn’t seem like the correct assessment to me. Especially because the players, you know, have to have the grades to get into the school, too.
By Jack Blanchat on 11.07.17 6:33pm
Agree with you Jack
Posters claiming Stanford can no longer develop talent is low hanging fruit. It’s a statement that someone can make with zero evidence to back it up other than our defense isn’t as good as it used to be. In reality, we have no idea whether players are being "developed" or whether they actually just naturally have it or don’t. Was Andrew Luck a product of development or did he simply posses an innate ability to play the position? What about Solomon Thomas?
I believe the difference in our defense is a product of recruitment and scheme. It’s a simple fact that great players on defense are not easy to find. While I do believe that there are enough qualified difference makers that could be recruited, it’s like finding a needle in a haystack. Doug Baldwin is probably one of the top 10 receivers in the NFL. Doug’s path to Stanford was a fluke. So Stanford’s ability to produce league leading results is going to be dependent on whether the coaches can actually find those Solomon Thomas year in and year out.
And really stars don’t mean jack. There is no way the rating/star system can accurately tell us who is going to succeed or not. Or to put it another way, there are team full of David Parry’s out there…but that doesn’t mean we’re going to find them or that they want to come to Stanford.
Finally, we’ve lost some good assistant coaches. Losing Derrick Mason was a set back.
By Blackjoy on 11.07.17 10:33pm
If we assume that recruiting rankings are meaningless
Then your point is certainly valid. My assessment is that our recruiting rankings have been really good the past number of years, but that does not seem to be translating into the same or better performance on the field. These are the rankings of recruiting classes going back to 2006 (i.e., two years before Harbaugh’s first full recruiting class in 2008):
2006 24
2007 63
2008 47
2009 21
2010 25
2011 22
2012 7
2013 52
2014 13
2015 24
2016 16
2017 14
Our recruiting rankings since 2012 (with one notable exception in 2013) have been excellent (top ten once, top twenty three times, top twenty-five once). Before that, no recruiting class cracked the top twenty. In theory, our teams should be stronger; but we are seeing a decline in competitiveness vs. the strongest teams in the conference. Our front seven is the most glaring example (with the very positive exception of Harrison Phillips). If our performance on the field is not in line with our recruiting rankings, then the only explanations are: 1) rankings are meaningless or 2) the talent is not panning out or 3) player development is deficient or 4) a combination of all of these.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 11.08.17 8:35am
Other programs can recruit and coach talent too, you know.
These rankings don’t happen in a vacuum.
By Jack Blanchat on 11.08.17 8:49am
This is true...
…it is possible that other teams have simply closed the gap. It is certainly so when considering UW and USC. It’s probably true with WSU, Utah, and Colorado too.
By Chris Landon on 11.08.17 11:27am
Yes, Chris: I agree
When Stanford and Oregon dominated the conference, USC was struggling through the last effects of recruiting sanctions and coaching instability; Washington was also trying to come back from a low point in the first decade of the new millennium; Colorado was way down; Cal was in a funk; the Arizonas were up and down; Utah was reasonably stable under Whittingham and could surprise with very good results, but was never really consistent; WSU was a doormat; and UCLA under Mora started out strong, but could never really challenge. Now the Dawgs are back, the Cougars are up; Troy is finding its way back to new strength; Colorado has improved (though they’ve taken a step back this year); Arizona and ASU have come on strongly after mid season; even Cal is showing flashes. This is a tougher conference than it was at the beginning of the decade; and this only magnifies any regression the Stanford team might be experiencing.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 11.08.17 1:00pm
Of course they don't happen in a vacuum
But they are relative rankings. And if they have any significance at all, they give some indication of the talent each school was able to recruit relative to other schools. At Stanford, we used to pride ourselves in making the most out of our talent, while USC would be flush with excellent recruits and still lose to us. The belief here was that we had a superior player development system and superior coaching that made the team greater than the sum of the parts. Is that still the case? Our current challenges would indicate that we are no longer "superior" to the others.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 11.08.17 12:51pm
Certainly a combination
If it were easy to figure out what makes a superior defense, someone would right a book about it, and then everyone would be able to do it…like algebra. I think the secret to a better defense is an indivisible combination of the following elements:
1) The DC’s game planning and defensive scheme – How well can the DC break down the other team’s tendencies and prepare his team to exploit them. The best example of this I saw was when the Derek Mason lead defense held Heisman worthy Marcus Mariota and Oregon to 14 points at Oregon. That Fishduck website did a detailed schematic breakdown of Stanford’s defensive game plane. That guy showed specifically what Stanford did that countered what Oregon liked to do.
As an aside, that pro-Oregon site also pointed out that Chip Kelly was not able to adjust quick enough, or at all. Which seems to be a constant criticism of Shaw. One can only imagine that Chip Kelly was not willing abandon his game plan because it had worked like gangbusters on everyone else on the schedule;
2) Talent. In that same Oregon game, you have players like Skov making a TD saving tackles and creating turnover on the same play. That kind of stuff must not be easy to coach, if it were defenses would be a lot better all over the country. Some kids have it. It being that inner fire/motor/drive/intuition. While I think some coaches can inspire that to some degree a Harbaugh, it is really about the character of the kid involved.
I do think Harbaugh was a better motivator than Shaw, but it’ll be interesting to see how sustainable Harbaugh is at the college level. I suspect Harbaugh’s indoctrination/approach will work in college because 1/4-1/3 of the players are constantly being refreshed as opposed to the pros;
3) The identification/leveraging of talent. Perhaps the most important job of the coaching staff is to find kinds that can execute the system that the DC wants to implement. If you are running a "speed" defense, then you need fast guys. If you want to be a run stuffing defense, then you need big huge nose tackles to eat up blocks and free up your LB’s. If you want to play a lot of man-to-man, then you need fast QB’s. If you’re going to do a lot of blitzing, then you want strong DB’s that can jam receivers at the LOS.
The important thing to understand here is that there is no consensus on who the perfect kid is going to be across different coaches. And perhaps the biggest separator between one staff and another is that staff’s ability to identify kids who can execute the system and ignore the recruit rankings.
Recruit rankings can/are probably the biggest pitfall for coaches. Let me give you an anecdote. Remember Mike Stoops? Coached at UofA and had some success. I read an interview with Stoops and he said one of his biggest mistakes was chasing the recruit rankings. Instead of actually determining whether these highly ranked kids were right for his program, Stoops started to just go by the rankings when recruiting kids.
The ability to find kids, regardless of ranking, who can excel in the system that the school runs is where I think Harbaugh’s early staff was better than Shaw’s current staff (but I do not how admissions has influenced recruiting). I also think this is where someone like Chris Peterson at UW is one of the best in the country. Peterson showed this ability when he was at Boise, and he’s doing it at UW. They have some 6’ LB who is so good, he’s replaced Azeem Victor and Victor, an all conference player last year before his injury, is now being moved to DE. When UW hired Peterson, I knew we were screwed. I knew Peterson would be able to find amazing talent and leverage them.
I’ve had plenty of Internet exchanges on recruit rankings. I mostly think they are misinformation. While I am sure someone can show some statistical correlation between recruit rankings and NFL success, winning at the CFP level is not about averaging, it’s about outliers. As an example, I look at players who no one thought could succeed, but they do and they are difference makers: Doug Baldwin, Wes Welker, Troy Walters. None of these players
By Blackjoy on 11.08.17 9:27am
Good summary
Derek Mason was excellent. His nickname was "The Duck Whisperer".
By Jeff Tarnungus on 11.08.17 1:01pm
For the cards he has been dealt with, I think Lance Anderson is doing a fine job
The true eye test is easy to dismiss this defense as porous but coach Anderson has done a heck of an effort to game plan around injuries and lack of talent at DE.
In a 3-4 scheme you want your front 3 to knock the other lineman back so that the linebackers can shoot through. However apart from Harry (who himself is lighter but quicker on his release), every snap we have a converted TE and an extra thin WDE getting blown off the ball. They let OLs get to second or even third level and injuries at ILB and an raw Alfieri still transitioning means prayer and hope for a tackle from Justin Reid.
Scheme this year is simple. Bend but don’t break with an optimistic twist. If Harry can penetrate and pin them on 3rd and Longs then if the QB isn’t good enough then he gets picked off by the roaming safety. If this same defense had gotten another year of Solomon Thomas, then that extra pressure on 3rd downs would have easily won Stanford a couple of games.
Btw not even talking about the magic halftime adjustments that coach Anderson has made. Last game if you strip out our putrid offense, it was a real chess game between leach and Anderson. Leach kept probing every part of the field and the player in the first quarter. In the second once he found the matchup they went after the inexperienced safeties (Meeks had an average game in this one). Then third quarter adjustments and the decision to hit falk and throw off his rythm worked like a charm with a pick 6. Then in the fourth on the penultimate drive, Luke threw a great ball standing in his end zone on a long 3rd. After that they showed off their balance with the run game to salt it away. That was a terrific back and forth unlike our offense repeatedly running into a wall.
By layman on 11.08.17 11:11pm
Agreed
My only criticism is that Stanford could always do a better job recruiting the right players. Not saying it’s easy, just saying that the staff needs to set the bar high.
By Blackjoy on 11.09.17 9:42am
Except For 2014 When We Finished Unranked...
Our average final AP Poll position from 2010 to 2016 has been…………….#7. Which, if you relate to recruiting rankings (recognizing that there is a mismatch between an incoming class ranking and a final poll position), suggests that we have been doing pretty well with our talent.
I think the hidden message is that we perhaps used to get more out of our talent – turning 3 star players into stars. And the performance of one or two players at the skill positions can offset a lot of factors – both positively and negatively. It certainly feels as we watch the team today that we are not able to do what we used to do in a lot of areas.
By hoyaparanoia on 11.08.17 12:02pm