The CardBoard

Author Topic: Shaw vs. Petersen  (Read 777 times)

Offline FarmBoy

  • Daily editor
  • ******
  • Posts: 3163
  • Reputation: 23
  • Go Stanford!
Re: Shaw vs. Petersen
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2017, 09:05:03 am »
I'm guessing you're trying to say that others have done it.

Indeed, I was responding to your claim that seemed to be that if Boise had institutional advantages, then others would have won there as well. Mostly I was trying to lay out just exactly what others accomplished.

Others did win there.
Petersen did a little better.
Petersen is obviously a good coach. 
Trying to choose between Petersen and other very good coaches (like Shaw) is a Rorschach test.

And I'm pointing out "did a little better" isn't accurate. Those 1-2 extra wins per season is what separates a good coach from a great one.

I'll be interested to see if their current coach can maintain the program. I think that in the CFP world, they're going to find it harder and harder.

Offline washingtonismoney

  • Supreme Court Justice
  • ********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Reputation: 100
  • Go Stanford!
Re: Shaw vs. Petersen
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2017, 09:34:02 am »
In other words, if the argument is "look how well Shaw has done without great QBs," then, well, shouldn't he be getting better QBs?  And wasn't the thought when Nunes/Nottingham/Burns/Chryst all committed that they could be great?  4-star guys, the lot of them. 

I think it's correct that if Petersen had a sustainable advantage of recruiting and developing great QBs, that would make discussions of his record without them irrelevant. But it's not at all clear to me that's the case. Petersen's had three years without great QBs...and Shaw's had, what, two and a half or so? (Presuming that Costello is a long-term answer at the position, which may be hasty.)

To your other point, that Shaw's great recruiting at the QB position should produce great results, I think that's again a fair idea but I'd quibble whether it's actually fairly applied here. Recruiting more touted prospects is helpful in shifting your odds, but it's still a gamble. The most recent survey I've seen indicates 21% of four-star pro-style QBs are drafting, meaning it's "only" a coin flip to produce one pro QB from two highly touted recruits. Consequently, I'd be very troubled if 2018 features poor QB play. (Barring major injury or other weird exogenous factor.)

Offline cardcrimson

  • Dolly
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • Reputation: 6
  • Go Stanford!
Re: Shaw vs. Petersen
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2017, 10:19:27 am »
Put them in an octagon to settle the pecking order. My money's on Shaw.

Offline DC 86

  • Dolly
  • ****
  • Posts: 830
  • Reputation: 41
  • Go Stanford!
Re: Shaw vs. Petersen
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2017, 10:23:52 am »

Bit of a chicken and egg problem with the QBs, no?  Is he good because top-flight QBs come to his program, or do QBs become top-flight because he makes them good (or, alternatively, do they merely look good because it's a more dynamic, pass-happy offense that plays to the QB's strengths and isn't overly complicated)?

This is a great point. Kellen Moore was a short, 3-star quarterback from a tiny town in eastern Washington, and in he is currently on the Cowboys practice squad having played in three games over the course of his NFL career, which started in 2012 as a UFA. Yet at BSU he was a dynamic player and a H-trophy candidate. A lot of credit  should go to Petersen for maximizing his talents and constructing an offensive system that played to his strengths.

In my West Coast Bias I consider Shaw and Petersen to both be among the top ten FBS head coaches; it's difficult to definitively argue the merits of one over the other. There is definitely no coach I would want for Stanford over David Shaw, but it's interesting that Petersen might be the only other top-ten coach who would be a good fit for the school.

Offline RedShift

  • Pro Fro
  • Posts: 47
  • Reputation: -2
  • Go Stanford!
Re: Shaw vs. Petersen
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2017, 10:31:18 am »
In other words, if the argument is "look how well Shaw has done without great QBs," then, well, shouldn't he be getting better QBs?  And wasn't the thought when Nunes/Nottingham/Burns/Chryst all committed that they could be great?  4-star guys, the lot of them. 
.......
To your other point, that Shaw's great recruiting at the QB position should produce great results, I think that's again a fair idea but I'd quibble whether it's actually fairly applied here. Recruiting more touted prospects is helpful in shifting your odds, but it's still a gamble. The most recent survey I've seen indicates 21% of four-star pro-style QBs are drafting, meaning it's "only" a coin flip to produce one pro QB from two highly touted recruits. Consequently, I'd be very troubled if 2018 features poor QB play. (Barring major injury or other weird exogenous factor.)

Perhaps the criteria should be player development, i.e., do players show significantly improved skill, maturity, and command of game-plan in their jr/sr season compared to their performance in true fr/redshirt fr season. I don't know what a good number would be for a successful coach, but a 75% success rate (i.e., 75% of the players meet or exceed expected development) would be very good in my book.

Offline CTcard

  • Daily editor
  • ******
  • Posts: 3475
  • Reputation: 113
  • Go Stanford!
Re: Shaw vs. Petersen
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2017, 02:29:19 pm »
Petersen inherited some terrific talent that blossomed last year, notably that elite defensive backfield.  I'd like to see how he does with the talent he and his staff attract and develop.

This is an interesting point that I had considered raising.
At the moment, I think UW has 11 starters that would be considered either wholly or partially Sark recruits (that's using the typical rule of splitting responsibility for a coaches' first class upon taking a job during an off season). And of course last year there were many more.

At least according to the recruiting services, Petersen has only been an okay recruiter. From 247sports:
Season     Class Rank        Coach
2010           19th               Sark
2011           24th               Sark
2012           24th               Sark
2013           18th               Sark
2014           38th               Sark/Petersen
2015           26th               Petersen
2016           29th               Petersen
2017           22nd              Petersen


I had actually thought the service rankings had fallen off more than that, but perhaps it depends which service one looks at. By this measure, Petersen's recruiting has been at least slightly worse than Sark's. Of course this is a limited measure and it certainly appears Petersen can get more out of the guys he does bring in, but the talent level in Seattle will be something to keep an eye on.

« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 02:42:41 pm by CTcard »

Offline washingtonismoney

  • Supreme Court Justice
  • ********
  • Posts: 11201
  • Reputation: 100
  • Go Stanford!
Re: Shaw vs. Petersen
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2017, 02:42:38 pm »
Interestingly -- maybe only my faulty recall -- but UW and Stanford have clashed more of late on the recruiting trail. Ben Burr-Kirven, current brawler in the middle for the UW defense, was a fringe Stanford recruit. Salvon Ahmed and Elijah Molden were highly-ranked recruits who chose UW over Stanford. On the other side, Stanford got Foster Sarrell and Conor Wedington from Washington, so it's not been an unfair fight at all. But this seems to be much more recruiting conflict than under the Sark regime.