CC - In depth anaylsis of Stanford's D under Harbaugh
There has been loads of analysis done on Rich Rodriguez's progress so far as Michigan's head coach. Many are not satisfied with the improvements that Rich has made in this football team so far, and after watching the defense this year this viewpoint is very understandable. With many calling for a coaching change, and with the majority of those who want this set on bringing in Jim Harbaugh, it's time we take a look at exactly what Jim Harbaugh has done for Stanford's defense during his tenure as their Head Coach. We will look at four things; recruiting, personnel, coaches and performance. This will give us an idea of whether he will be able to turn the ship around if he is indeed brought in.
Most people know Harbaugh's records at Stanford. Coming off a 1-11 year in 2006, Harbaugh took over and posted the following records:
Year | Wins | Losses |
---|---|---|
2007 | 4 | 8 |
2008 | 5 | 7 |
2009 | 8 | 5 |
2010 | 11 | 1 |
1.) Recruiting
As many of you know, recruiting is the lifeblood of a football program so we'll start here. Lets take a look at Harbaughs ability to recruit on the defensive side of the ball. Note: Rivals star ratings used to evaluate talent.
Year | 2-Stars | 3-stars | 4-stars | 5- stars | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
2008 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
2009 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 8 |
2010 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 8 |
2011 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 10 |
Harbaugh clearly stepped up recruiting at Stanford. He was able to start bringing in more talent , but it also seems that he is near the ceiling in bringing in top-end recruits. Harbaugh should definitely be credited with the improvement in recruiting for his ability as a recruiter. Part of it is also due to the improvement in Stanford's record.
This trend is impressive, but not overly so. Stanford has plenty of things to pull in recruits (academics, location, playing time) and the last two recruiting years have had less competition from other in-state schools. Also it must be noted that California is one of the top recruiting hot-spots when it comes to bringing in talent (and particularly talent that also peforms well in school). Harbaugh should be able to bring in better talent at Michigan, however there is nothing to show that he will out-peform Rodriguez.
2.) Depth Chart
In order to evaluate Stanford's performance on the defensive side of the ball, it's necessary that we take a look at their roster composition and the experience in the two-deep.
Year | Fr | So | Jr | Sr | Upperclassmen % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 63.6% |
2008 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 90.1% |
2009 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 63.6% |
2010 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 81.8% |
Year | Fr | So | Jr | Sr | Upperclassmen % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 50% |
2008 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 3 | 59.1% |
2009 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 54.5% |
2010 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 59.1% |
Stanford has never started a Freshman or RS Freshman on defense under Jim Harbaugh. They have never had a two-deep with more underclassmen than upperclassmen. This is primarily due to a lack of the attrition that was faced by Rodriguez at Michigan. Harbaugh can be credited for keeping his players around more effectively than Rodriguez. Rodriguez has lost some of his recruits and that is definitely on him. However when it came to keeping Carr recruits, Rodriguez could only do so much. Harbaugh on the other hand wasn't dealing with kids that were dedicated to a coach that had departed, the kids were dedicated to their school as most were trying to get a Stanford degree. I'll give Harbaugh a slight advantage over Rodriguez in identifying the right players that will stay in school and keeping them around but I don't think we can entirely rule out that Harbaugh wouldn't have problems keeping players (particularly RR players) around at Michigan.
3.) Coaching Staff
Here is the list of defensive coordinators at Stanford during Harbaugh's tenure.
- 2007 Scott Shafer
- 2008 Ron Lynn
- 2009 Andy Buh
- 2010 Vic Fangio
While Harbaugh did not change defensive coordinators every year because his defense was underpeforming, it should be noted that he went through four defensive coordinators in four years and was still able to find success on that side of the ball in year 4 after bringing in a seasoned DC. His ability to keep a consistent staff on that side of the ball can be questioned just as much as Rodriguez's ability to do the same. This also shows that even with transition you can come out doing well (2010 Illinois is another example).
4.) Defensive Performance
Year | Scoring D | Rush D | Pass D | Total D | PE D |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007 | 65 | 77 | 107 | 98 | 109 |
2008 | 75 | 77 | 85 | 80 | 83 |
2009 | 65 | 63 | 104 | 85 | 95 |
2010 | 11 | 25 | 34 | 24 | 21 |
Interestingly, Harbaugh struggled with his defense for 3 years and had a breakthrough this year in his fourth year. There's not that much separating Rodriguez and Harbaugh in terms of defensive performance in their first 3 years. The only differences were that Harbaugh had an experienced group and was able to keep players from leaving the program. Stanford faced a talent disadvantage when compared to U of M but the defense was never decimated as much as it is at Michigan. Rodriguez had some experience on D in his first year but after that many players left, others didn't pan out and the rest are now starting. I think Stanford's experience and lack of attrition and Michigan's talent advantage cancel each other out (I actually think that Stanford has been in a better position).
Year 3 specifically is something to look at. Their talent was slightly worse than what Michigan has in year 3, but their experience level was leaps and bounds above Michigan's. That said, Stanford peformed only just a bit better defensively than this year's Michigan team has.
Moving on to Harbaugh's 4th year we see drastic improvement across the board in the defensive rankings. This is definitely a resume booster for Harbaugh, but if we look behind the rankings, what do we get? Let's take a look at the scoring offense of each of Stanford's opponents this year and Stanford's performance against them.
Team | Scoring Off Rank | PPG | Points against Stanford |
---|---|---|---|
UCLA | 103 | 20.73 | 0 |
WAKE | 91 | 22.75 | 24 |
ND | 77 | 25.75 | 14 |
Oregon | 1 | 50.45 | 52 |
USC | 40 | 31.25 | 35 |
WSU | 109 | 18.82 | 28 |
Wash | 100 | 20.91 | 0 |
Arizona | 47 | 29.82 | 17 |
ASU | 32 | 32.45 | 13 |
Cal | 72 | 25.83 | 14 |
OSU | 80 | 24.82 | 0 |
Looking at this table, Stanford's good looking defensive numbers come from shutting out some terrible offenses and slowing down a couple decent ones. Outside of Arizona and ASU, Stanford did not have any defensive performances to write home about. They gave up 52 points to the only top 25 offense they faced, and gave up more points than the season average PPG of three weak to average opponents (Wake, USC, and Washington St.). Stanford put up some nice looking defensive numbers this year, but the fact is that the competition left a lot to be desired.
Conclusion
After looking through these numbers it's hard to pinpoint exactly what Harbaugh is going to bring to Michigan over Rodriguez in terms of improving the defensive side of the ball. He had 3 below average to terrible years during which faced challenges that weren't greater than what Rodriguez has faced at Michigan (less talent but much more experience). Those who point at year 4 as a reason that he is going to fix Michigan's defense should think twice. First, one year is way too small a sample size. And two look at the competition. The Pac-10 had one amazing offense, and the rest ranged from mediocre to terrible.
Many things are similar between Michigan's defense under Rodriguez and Stanfords defense under Harbaugh. The first three years look strikingly similar to Michigan's numbers the last three years (in what I would argue a weaker conference). Once Harbaugh was able to get enough talent, experience, and land a decent defensive coordinator (all of which he finally had in year 4) he was able to field a half-decent defense.
In the end I think this shows that Harbaugh is not the savior that many are making him out to be. He has made nice strides as the Head Coach at Stanford, however he has not done that much to set him apart from Rodriguez even on the defensive side of the ball. I'm not arguing that Rodriguez is the best man for the job, but to boot himin favor of Harbaugh based on Harbaugh's resume to this point would seem unfair to me. I'm hoping that Dave Brandon is looking at these types of numbers when he's doing his analysis of which coach is better for the future of Michigan.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
Even with the "CC" preface to the thread, I still cannot avoid reading it. I think I need to seek actual professional help. Either that or get back to work and stop spending so much time on this damned website.
All that said, I do appreciate the analysis and your keeping personal opinions to yourself (to the most part).
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^
Based on your MGoPoint total I doubt you work at all.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^
Not all is what it seems . . . check back tomorrow.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
The points are well deserved sir. You are now the John D. Rockefeller of MgoBlog.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
Stop creating threads about me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^
it looks like Jim may drop an F-bomb or two on the practice field. Rosenberg is not going to like that!
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^
This is OT
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
How do you figure? He compares the defense of our current coach to that of the coach who is supposedly most likely to take over if there is a coaching change.
Pretty much anything relating to Harbaugh at this point is CC, anyway.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:42 PM ^
Until anything concrete is revealed regarding him actually coaching at M. He coaches the cardinal, which is OT to me. I think it's a quality and informational post for another board, just OT for here.
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^
Well, the whole coaching changeup would be a rumor then. It still relates to Michigan football, though, so it's not OT.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^
diary.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^
Oops I meant to do Diary...is there any way I can make it one now that it's published?
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
Seems to be the mod today. See the Board's current moderator action sticky, here.
See his tag line in one of his posts for an email address. You can appeal to him.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^
Harbaugh clearly stepped up recruiting at Stanford. He was able to start bringning in more talent , but it also seems that he is near the ceiling in bringing in top-end recruits.He's at Stanford, with some of the more stringent academic standards in college football, limited facilities not much of a brand name behind it. To be getting any four stars through the door at Stanford is amazing. Compare him to say the work done at Vandy or Northwestern and he looks good. Not to mention a guy at the Heisman ceremony last year, a first round NFL QB this year (likely). Also I'm curious to where anyone claims this guy is a defensive guru. Most of the talk I've seen focuses on his overall progress in building the program at Stanford, not any specific focus on the defense.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
I'm removing it
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
Let's not compare a guy recruiting in southern California with those recruiting at similar academic instiftutions in Illinois and Tennessee. Yes, they have stringent standards, but the sheer number of talented recruits there I think at least somewhat makes up for it. Just my opinion.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
I know really, access to all those Southern Cali players have long been the reason that Stanford has been a traditional PAC10 power and recruited well and ended up ranked at the end of the season. Harbaugh is just keeping up with that tradition and using established pipelines to the SoCal prep schools.
/s
I in no way claim Harbaugh is some amazing recruiter, but at the same time I see no proof he is a bad recruiter.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:37 PM ^
I'm not saying that every southern California school should be good automatically, or that Stanford has been good historically (hooray straw man arguments!). All I was saying is that the Stanford has a much easier time recruiting than do coaches at Northwestern or Vanderbilt, coaching success held constant.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^
Northwestern is 6 hours from Columbus and Ohio is one of the Top 5 states for producing football talent.
Vandy is 6-8 hours from multiple locations in Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama which are both decent talent producing states.
Palo Alto to San Diego is an 8 hour drive. Tate being from Scripps Ranch, a prep school in San Diego.
Drive times aren't that different, just the number of state lines you cross.
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:11 PM ^
Palo Alto is probably an easier place to get recruits to visit than Evanston and Nashville, but I'm in agreement that California's in-state talent is not the only explanation. I do think that something troubling gets overlooked.
Harbaugh accepted commitments from 40+ kids last year. 17(!) of which didn't end up at Stanford. He had 18 total decommitments. This, of course, is explained by kids not being Stanford quality in something other than football. I have a hard time buying this logic because no one else does it to anywhere near that level (Tenn had 8 after Kiffin left).
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^
Definitely be worth a further look. For those lost kids though, i wonder if say Harbaugh offered them which prompted other coaches to take a second look and offer / snake oil them away. If most of those 17 ended up at places like Oregon or other bigger BCS programs I wouldn't worry. If those kids ended up in JuCos or something then I think there should be a concern.
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
Avery, Courtney -> Michigan
Badger, Chris -> Notre Dame
Barker, Blake -> Harvard
Carr, Duante -> Arkansas
Colter, Kain -> Northwestern
Hampton, Will -> Northwestern
Jones, Tai-ler -> Notre Dame
McNamara, Joe -> Wisconsin
Palelei, Evan -> Navy
Plantaric, Eddie -> Stanford
Swanson, Zack -> Virginia
Williams, Harris -> Boston College
Wilson, Torrian -> Louisville
Young, Louis -> Stanford
There's some fine academic institutions on that list that didn't deny these kids admission. They certainly didn't always upgrade football-wise. I'll admit it's still hard to tell much without knowing each individual story.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^
Unless Southern California is 40 minutes away from San Francisco and 6 hours away from Los Angeles, Stanford isn't in Southern California.
December 3rd, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^
could his program getting richer in talent have anything to do with USC's pancake into the turf stemming from NCAA violations?
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^
Stanford is not in "southern" California. Not saying he doesn't have more inroads in California as a whole than, say, coaches at Vanderbilt. But California is a pretty big state, and Palo Alto is a ways away, in geography, culture, and climate, from SoCal.
December 2nd, 2010 at 10:56 PM ^
Jim is not just getting all of his recruits from California only 7 of his 21 commits are from California compared to the other in state schools this is low (12 of 16 for USC, 5 of 9 for UCLA, 4 of 10 for Cal, 17 of 19 for SDSU).
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:16 PM ^
My understanding is that the OP took into account the recruiting limitations of Stanford, and that the so-called "ceiling" was not an indictment of what Harbaugh could bring in at any given school. As the OP pointed out:
Harbaugh should be able to bring in better talent at Michigan
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^
I'm too lazy to look it up right now but I bet the guy at the Heisman ceremony last year was not someone that he brought in.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^
Gerhart was Sophomore when Harbaugh arrived in 2007.
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:58 PM ^
Toby Gerhart isn't exactly the kind of kid that had blazing speed and athletic ability. I bet Toby wasn't a 5 star recruit. One could argue that great coaching had something to do with him having the success he has at Stanford.
December 3rd, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
He was a three star fullback who was valedictorian of his high school. At first, he must have been more interested in Stanford's academics than their football.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-T…
Yeah not really someone who was destined for Heisman candidacy
December 5th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^
Not all great football players are 5 stars. The point is that Gerhart is a talented football player. In many circumstances Stanford has the ability to pull in talented players because of their academic background not in spite of it. Gerhart obviously has talent as he is able to make an NFL roster.
Gerhart is just one example of the many talented football players that Harbaugh was left with at Stanford. Just because the record prior to Harbaugh arriving wasn't as good doesn't mean the situation that Harbaugh walked into was not better. Stanford had good, young talent on their roster when he took over. RR did not have much talent left on the roster at Michigan when he took over, yet the two coaches have similar records through the first 3 years at their respective jobs.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
Great post, regardless. Information and facts are our friends.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^
"Coaching Change"
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^
I had assumed it was "Carbon Copy" (of every other topic on this board).
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
But, Harbaugh is a "Michigan Man". How can this be?
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^
This past summer Harbaugh had his brother and his coaches come and install a new defense at Stanford, if I recall.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^
Where did you hear that?
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^
It wasn't really his brother -- he hired Vic Fangio from his brother's staff with the Ravens (linebackers coach) as the new defensive coordinator, and Fangio has been excellent.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^
I know absolutely nothing about the guy-- but you used "excellent" and "linebackers" in the same sentence. That works for me.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
How funny (haha) would it be if Rodriguez hired Harbaugh's DC? Man, the irony.
December 2nd, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^
and this lad's name was Scott Shafer
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:37 PM ^
It wasn't a dig toward Harbaugh, colleges and the NFL have been trading info for years.
Oklahoma and Florida, in the past would go see RRod at WV to trade info on the spread.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:37 PM ^
He hired Vic Fangio to be his D-Coordinator. He had worked the last 4-5 years for the Ravens, and, obviously, most recently that made his JH's brother his boss.
And he did install a new D
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:23 PM ^
I can look at Harbaugh and say, "Yep, he'll do," and that doesn't necessarily make me a "FIRE RICH NOW!" kinda guy. I'm pretty much keeping my opinions regardning the whole situation close to the vest, so to speak... but saying Harbaugh is an option doesn't mean that I want Rich strung up from the Ring of Honor. It doesn't mean that I've replaced the picture of my wife in my office with a clever shot of Jim in his maize and blue days either. I think we all expect and trust Brandon to eval every option, not just for next year, but for the overall health and glory of the program.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:24 PM ^
I was watching a Stanford game and the announcers were talking about their great defense and said they spoke with Harbaugh before the game and he told them that he had his brother and other NFL coaches come down over the summer and install a new defense.
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
Two questions: How much does a defense improve from year 3 to year 4? And how much did Stanford improve from last year compared to Michigan's improvement last year? Let's look at the numberzzzz and the chartzzzz!
From footballoutsiders, here are the changes in Defensive and Offensive FEI scores from 2009 to 2010 for Michigan, Stanford, the Big 10, and the Pac 10.
Clearly, this evidence demonstrates that the improvement on defense between the 3rd and 4th year of a coaching regime is significantly higher than the average improvement for the Big 10, the Pac 10, and overall.
Now let's combine the overall improvement on offense and defense and compare:
Look at that - Michigan improved more overall than Stanford did last year. Combine that with the defensive improvement we can expect from the 3rd year to the 4th year, not even as much as the piddly improvement Stanford made against the stupidly weak Pac 10, and Michigan with Rich Rodriguez will certainly win the National Championship next year!!!!
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^
It appears that a football team is likely to improve as you acquire more depth and have around 85% upper classmen on the roster?!
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^
See 2010 Wisco and 2010 MSU vs. both of their 2008 and 2009 iterations.
December 2nd, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^
UM had experience on defense the first two years and they still stunk. Your post makes no sense whatsoever in light of that fact.
Comments