Ok, since y'all are talking about Tara, I have to weigh in with my two (ok, more like 25!) cents:
Personally, I think I would separate into four different buckets: (1) scouting/strategy; (2) in-game adjustments; (3) player development; and (4) recruiting. To me, Tara is #1 at scouting/strategy, a hair below Geno and MM in in-game adjustments, and probably lower end of top ten in player development. I don't even know how to rank her in terms of recruiting, because Stanford is so totally
sui generis given its 4.5% acceptance rate. Let's tackle each in turn:
1. Scouting/Strategy: I personally don't think there's a single better coach in the country, Geno included, at scouting and drawing up defensive strategy. I think at that, Tara really has earned her nickname of chessmaster.
2. In-Game Adjustments: However, I think Geno and MM are ever so slightly better at in-game adjustments, in part because they tend to have slightly more versatile teams, especially on the offensive end. This season's game versus Notre Dame was textbook in this: Tara drew up a better first-half gameplan, MM countered with adjustments at the half, and MM had the better talent on the court to nullify any scouting advantage. That talent being Jackie Young, who basically took over midway through the 3rd. But effective in-game adjustments also depend on the personnel you have on the floor - you can only adjust as much as your players. Speaking of which...
3. Player Development: This, to me, is where I think Tara is least strong on a comparative basis. I think there are about half a dozen coaches out there that get more out of the raw talent than Tara - Vic, Geno, MM, Mulkey, Graves, and Rueck. I feel like Stanford tends to develop one player per season who, by the end of their senior year, is a go-to scoring rockstar (Alanna Smith this year, Brittany McPhee last year, Erica McCall in 16-17, etc.). It's been a long, long time since we graduated a class with 2 or more players who would reliably take over games. We haven't had a player average 20+ points per game since Chiney, and that's not because, ala Notre Dame or UConn, there's so much talent that the scoring wealth gets spread around. However, that can't be totally separated from...
4. Recruiting. Like I said, I don't know how to assess Tara on this front. We seem to get just about all of the recruits that we have knowledge were admitted (recent exceptions are KLS, Mikayla Pivec, and Skylar Diggins). In large part, the AP requirements mean that many players are effectively precluded from eligibility even if their smarts/GPA might otherwise make them eligible. So I'd say Tara does an excellent job of recruiting in a limited pool, but then again, among that pool, who's going to turn down Stanford? As the football team likes to say in recruiting, it's a 40-year decision, not a 4-year decision.
That said, I do think lately our recruiting has been about as weak as it's been during Tara's time at Stanford, for whatever reason. Although I know people tend to think of Stanford as having a boatload of blue chip players, since 2014 Stanford has had
only three seniors graduate who were McDonald's All-Americans as high school recruits: Amber Orrange and KLS older sis Bonnie Samuelson in 2015, and Erica McCall in 2017. IMHO, Tara has done very well with a pretty limited talent pool since Chiney graduated in 2014.
Indeed, I'd say given our recruiting class rankings over the past four years, finishing Elite Eight is about what you'd expect:
2015 (seniors): NR (sub-top 20)
2016 (juniors): 9th
2017 (sophomores): 5th
2018 (freshmen): 10th
By ESPN HoopGurlz rankings, we had one consensus top ten player among any of the four recruiting classes on the floor this season: Kiana Williams. Dodson was right around 10th in several recruiting services. That's it. Our starting lineup was SR, JR, SO, SO, FR, which suggests the talent on our team was among our underclassmen.
Overall: In terms of overall strengths and weaknesses, if there's one knock on Tara's teams over the last decade, it's that there aren't a lot of offensive plan B's. I don't think that's in-game-coaching Tara's fault, but rather that whether it's recruiting or player development, we don't end up with teams where we have 5 fully credible offensive threats from anywhere on the court. Almost all of the teams to win it all have balanced offensive production capabilities. That's UConn almost every year, Notre Dame, Oregon, and Miss St. the past several years, and Baylor this year.
And yes, 2011 will haunt Cardinals fans until the end of time. As much as I enjoy rooting against Notre Dame and Duke, there is no team I am happier to see squashed than Texas A&M. I would like to swim in a lap pool of their fans' tears.