The CardBoard
Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives (/thread-14718.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - CowboyIndian - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 04:22 PM)norcard link Wrote:Peterson for instance in 3 years has completely resurrected udub and taken then to heights Shaw has yet to do.

With Sark recruits last year and we'll see how things go for the duration. Not arguing that he's not a helluva coach but let's pull up on the reins a bit before making him the second coming of ummmm....Pop Warner.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - phxfan - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 05:04 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=norcard link=topic=17830.msg209177#msg209177 date=1509319340]3. He’s in the top 1% of coaches in my mind and a great fit for stanford.  Just not sure if he’s in that .1% or less that will win a national championship.  Peterson for instance in 3 years has completely resurrected udub and taken then to heights Shaw has yet to do.

The difference between Petersen in 2016 and Shaw in 2015 is that Petersen's AD gave him cupcakes OOC. Had we played UC Davis instead of Northwestern that year we would have as much success as he has. (And probably more, since that team probably wouldn't have laid an egg in the playoffs, I don't think.)
[/quote]

You think the answer in 2015 was to play UC Davis instead of beating Northwestern?  Seriously?  I think we have stumbled upon the main difference between the Shawpologists and questioners.  The later think there's no (good) reason why Stanford can't make the playoffs while the former are stuck in the mid-90s just happy to be invited to the Liberty Bowl.  Imagine if this was your corporate mentality at work?

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - DC 86 - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 05:04 PM)gocard14 link Wrote:Mental exercise: Let's make a list of active college coaches with more impressive head coaching resumes then David Shaw:

1. Nick Saban
2. Urban Meyer
3. Dabo Sweeney
4. You could make an argument for Chris Peterson due to his impressive run of overachieving at Boise St. and turning UW into an ascendant program.

I'm struggling to think of anyone else that comes close to making the list.

Perhaps someone who is already in the College Football Hall of Fame, against whom we played last year?

Considering the resources available to him, Bill Snyder's accomplishments at KSU are among the most impressive in the sport's history.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - CornFed - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 05:31 PM)phxfan link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17830.msg209184#msg209184 date=1509321851]
[quote author=norcard link=topic=17830.msg209177#msg209177 date=1509319340]3. He’s in the top 1% of coaches in my mind and a great fit for stanford.  Just not sure if he’s in that .1% or less that will win a national championship.  Peterson for instance in 3 years has completely resurrected udub and taken then to heights Shaw has yet to do.

The difference between Petersen in 2016 and Shaw in 2015 is that Petersen's AD gave him cupcakes OOC. Had we played UC Davis instead of Northwestern that year we would have as much success as he has. (And probably more, since that team probably wouldn't have laid an egg in the playoffs, I don't think.)
[/quote]

You think the answer in 2015 was to play UC Davis instead of beating Northwestern?  Seriously?  I think we have stumbled upon the main difference between the Shawpologists and questioners.  The later think there's no (good) reason why Stanford can't make the playoffs while the former are stuck in the mid-90s just happy to be invited to the Liberty Bowl.  Imagine if this was your corporate mentality at work?
[/quote]

Really?  That is what you took from stupac's post?  That he was suggesting that we play UCDavis instead of beating Northwestern?  Really?

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - gocard14 - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 05:32 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=gocard14 link=topic=17830.msg209185#msg209185 date=1509321878]
Mental exercise: Let's make a list of active college coaches with more impressive head coaching resumes then David Shaw:

1. Nick Saban
2. Urban Meyer
3. Dabo Sweeney
4. You could make an argument for Chris Peterson due to his impressive run of overachieving at Boise St. and turning UW into an ascendant program.

I'm struggling to think of anyone else that comes close to making the list.

Perhaps someone who is already in the College Football Hall of Fame, against whom we played last year?

Considering the resources available to him, Bill Snyder's accomplishments at KSU are among the most impressive in the sport's history.
[/quote]

Snyder has made a lot out of very little for a long time, which is impressive, but doesn’t have the top end achievements that Shaw does. I wouldn’t trade them.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - martyup - 10-29-2017

I don't think there is some big conspiracy to defend coach Shaw on this board.  Some of us choose to defend him because we look at the big picture instead of one or two bad games.  We all should be upset when our team plays poorly.  But, it is irritating when people react to bad games by making sweeping anti-Shaw statements that ignore all of his success at Stanford.

Some of us remember too well Stanford coaches that couldn't win.  David Shaw can be stubborn and perplexing in his in-game decision making.  But, he is paid $5+ million a year because he's a winner.  He knows more about football, and specifically Stanford football, than all of the members of this board combined.  Sure, it's frustrating to watch games like the last one.  It's easy to sit on the couch or in a stadium seat and claim that he should have done this or that.  But, I choose to trust that coach Shaw will make the right decisions for Stanford football in the long run. 

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - FarmBoy - 10-29-2017

Do "Shaw questioners" really think it's reasonable to expect a Stanford coach to win a NC within a 7 year tenure as HC? If a Stanford coach doesn't with the NC, then they should be fired?

Personally, I think a NC is within the realm of possibilities, but a long shot. I would never fire a coach who I think is capable of giving Stanford a winning season 80% of the time and winning the Pac12 every 5-10 years because I thought there was no chance they would win the NC. Oh yeah, and doing it with class, high standards and recruiting impressive young men who represent the university well.


Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - washingtonismoney - 10-29-2017

I'm not sure why everyone's so sure there's some elite bar for national championship winning success that Shaw doesn't reach. Gene Chizik has won a national championship. Les Miles has won a national championship. Mark Helfrich and Brian Kelly have reached the national championship game. Shaw is indisputably better than at least two of these coaches.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - FarmBoy - 10-29-2017

(10-29-2017, 07:03 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I'm not sure why everyone's so sure there's some elite bar for national championship winning success that Shaw doesn't reach. Gene Chizik has won a national championship. Les Miles has won a national championship. Mark Helfrich and Brian Kelly have reached the national championship game. Shaw is indisputably better than at least two of these coaches.

I'm not questioning whether Shaw can reach that bar. I'm questioning whether it's reasonable to criticize him for not having won one already at Stanford.

I do think there's a difference in Shaw being a NC caliber coach and Shaw being able to take Stanford to the promised land. Perhaps it's just the pessimistic Stanford fan in me, but I gotta think it's harder to take a group of kids from a narrow recruitment poll to the NC than it is to take kids that are recruited by Auburn, Oregon and ND.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - Mick - 10-30-2017

Positives:

1.  He's a winner.  Record better than virtually all prior Stanford head coaches and virtually all existing NCAA football coaches with a few exceptions.

2.  He's a recruiter in an exceedingly difficult pool.  I was once at a large national event for top high school talent, standing next to a Stanford coach (who has won championships).  He had a list of the Top 50 recruits in his sport, all of whom were at the event, and he highlighted four of the fifty.  I asked if those were his top selections, and he said drily "Those are the four that can get into Stanford."  Four out of 50.  8%.  By and large, Shaw gets very strong players from a ridiculously small pool.  For these top two reasons alone, he's amazing.

3.  He "gets" Stanford in a way that virtually no other coach does.

4.  He's loyal.

5.  He fits in with all communities; coaches, players, fans, boosters, media, Stanford senior admin.  That's quite a trick.

There's more, but I listed the five that I think most coaches don't have, and given our historical experience, it's very rare that we get a great coach, and when we do, they usually leave.  Speaking of which, I really hope Shaw's kids are admitted to Stanford.  In 5.5 years (or sooner), we are likely to see just how badly the 49ers want Shaw as a coach.  Their last three have been heinous...Shanahan just managed the 49ers to their first-ever 0-8 start.  First in the history of the franchise.  Not even Tomsula was that terrible.  The last great coach that the 49ers had was Harbaugh, who is tied to...Shaw.  It's a five-years-down-the-road problem...but it's a problem, no question.  Jed's got lots of money to throw at his problem.  I think he'll give Shanahan and Lynch at least four of the six years to solve it, but if after four they aren't performing, they will make a very, very strong run at Shaw.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - csfoster - 10-30-2017

(10-29-2017, 06:37 PM)martyup link Wrote:I don't think there is some big conspiracy to defend coach Shaw on this board.  Some of us choose to defend him because we look at the big picture instead of one or two bad games.  We all should be upset when our team plays poorly.  But, it is irritating when people react to bad games by making sweeping anti-Shaw statements that ignore all of his success at Stanford.

Some of us remember too well Stanford coaches that couldn't win.  David Shaw can be stubborn and perplexing in his in-game decision making.  But, he is paid $5+ million a year because he's a winner.  He knows more about football, and specifically Stanford football, than all of the members of this board combined.  Sure, it's frustrating to watch games like the last one.  It's easy to sit on the couch or in a stadium seat and claim that he should have done this or that.  But, I choose to trust that coach Shaw will make the right decisions for Stanford football in the long run.

This is a rationale explanation and reasonable expectation.  Go Stanford!

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - stupac2 - 10-30-2017

(10-30-2017, 08:56 AM)Mick link Wrote:Their last three have been heinous...Shanahan just managed the 49ers to their first-ever 0-8 start.  First in the history of the franchise.  Not even Tomsula was that terrible.

So this is off-topic, but that's pretty unfair. The Niners aren't good, no one would expect them to be given the state of the roster, but they've gotten pretty unlucky to start 0-8. Their point differential is significantly better than the 2-6 Colts, for instance. And a few weeks ago Football Outsiders tabbed them as one of the "best" 0-6 teams in history: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2017/week-6-dvoa-ratings

So, yeah, they're bad. But it's not clear to me that Shanahan is actually doing a worse job than Tomsula, given the roster he has and the non-record results on the field.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - Mick - 10-30-2017

(10-30-2017, 10:02 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=17830.msg209293#msg209293 date=1509379000]Their last three have been heinous...Shanahan just managed the 49ers to their first-ever 0-8 start.  First in the history of the franchise.  Not even Tomsula was that terrible.

So this is off-topic, but that's pretty unfair. The Niners aren't good, no one would expect them to be given the state of the roster, but they've gotten pretty unlucky to start 0-8. Their point differential is significantly better than the 2-6 Colts, for instance. And a few weeks ago Football Outsiders tabbed them as one of the "best" 0-6 teams in history: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2017/week-6-dvoa-ratings

So, yeah, they're bad. But it's not clear to me that Shanahan is actually doing a worse job than Tomsula, given the roster he has and the non-record results on the field.
[/quote]

Okay.  At this point, the 49ers have given up 219 and scored 133.  At the same point in Tomsula's season, they had scored 109 and given up 2017, so Shanahan's point differential is -86 against Tomsula's -98, a difference of 1 1/3 points per game.  They're both festering sores, as far as I'm concerned.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - washingtonismoney - 10-30-2017

Yeah, the difference is that Tomsula was taking over for Harbaugh, who (we thought) left the roster in pretty good shape. Whereas the Niners' roster is known to be awful and will require a renovation. Shanahan may be doing an especially bad job given the cards he's been dealt, but I have a hard time getting exercised over 0-8 vs. (say) 2-6 or whatever.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - teejers1 - 10-30-2017

I agree with Mick's list of positives for Shaw.  And that multi-faceted list outweighs his one negative, regardless of how glaring that negative can appear on game-day. 

I disagree with Mick on NFL takes.  The 'Niners will be fine once they get a QB next season.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - Treebound - 10-30-2017

(10-29-2017, 08:50 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17830.msg209217#msg209217 date=1509329027]
I'm not sure why everyone's so sure there's some elite bar for national championship winning success that Shaw doesn't reach. Gene Chizik has won a national championship. Les Miles has won a national championship. Mark Helfrich and Brian Kelly have reached the national championship game. Shaw is indisputably better than at least two of these coaches.

I'm not questioning whether Shaw can reach that bar. I'm questioning whether it's reasonable to criticize him for not having won one already at Stanford.

I do think there's a difference in Shaw being a NC caliber coach and Shaw being able to take Stanford to the promised land. Perhaps it's just the pessimistic Stanford fan in me, but I gotta think it's harder to take a group of kids from a narrow recruitment poll to the NC than it is to take kids that are recruited by Auburn, Oregon and ND.
[/quote]

I think there is a level of expectation at Stanford (amongst the coaches) that we can compete in ALL sports for a national championship.  Every Stanford coach I have ever met or heard speak in the last ten years is well aware of Stanford's ability to recruit a different caliber of Student athlete and the unstated pressure to win a national championship in their respective sports.  These coaches walk the halls with Tara, Coach Gould, John Tanner, Mark Marquess, etc... and they all aspire to achieve at these levels.  Shaw is no different.   

Do I think it is more challenging to win a championship in football (and hoops) - Yes, but I think we are now in the conversation and I'm grateful and hopeful that Shaw will get us there.  Shaw is a student of the game and a Stanford Man.  His decisions in this last game frustrated me heavily and I'm critical of his and the team's performance, but he's our coach and I think he's doing his best while and learning lessons as he goes.  Do I make mistakes in my job, yes, but it's what I do to learn from them that is critical for me.  I think he looks at it in the same way and I'm fine with that.  So let's learn from OSU and beat WSU and keep improving.  We still control our own destiny with regards the Pac 12 championship and hopefully Bryce can make a run at that east coast bias award as well.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - CowboyIndian - 10-30-2017

(10-30-2017, 10:14 AM)Mick link Wrote:At the same point in Tomsula's season, they had scored 109 and given up 2017...

That's some BAD defense!

Well BC, some advice - Redrum - 10-30-2017

(10-29-2017, 03:19 PM)phxfan link Wrote:It's amusing to me that after a Shaw steaming ---- game, which are sure to come at least twice a year like death and taxes, his backers go into overdrive to stamp out any dissent against his sainthood.  They cite the overwhelming nature of his "bashers" when all along they are ones burning up the message board attempting to convince us all that we didn't witness what our eyes most certainly did.

Those who cite win totals and bowl game appearances as the sole measure of coaching quality intentionally obscure the facts.  Teams play more games than ever now and there are far more bowl games than at any time before.  Ralston, Walsh, Green and Harbaugh were all lured to the NFL and therefore had no opportunity to challenge Warner's all-time record.  Maybe he's stayed at Stanford due to loyalty which ought to be applauded or maybe there's a mutual understanding between Shaw and the NFL that he simply doesn't have the Xs and Os to succeed at the that level.

At no point have I ever called for Shaw's ouster.  What I have advocated for was the replacement of some of his offensive assistants and his relinquishment of play calling authority.  His stubbornness in this regard have been the subject of much speculation over the years.  Some of the more astute observers have cited his reticence to hand over the reigns to offensive minds superior to his own.

"Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown"  or, updated: "Forget it BC, it's phxfan".

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - gocard14 - 10-30-2017

(10-30-2017, 10:26 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Yeah, the difference is that Tomsula was taking over for Harbaugh, who (we thought) left the roster in pretty good shape. Whereas the Niners' roster is known to be awful and will require a renovation. Shanahan may be doing an especially bad job given the cards he's been dealt, but I have a hard time getting exercised over 0-8 vs. (say) 2-6 or whatever.

Massive difference in the roster talent level as well as organizational philosophy. Tomsula took over a reasonably talented roster (though significantly worse then the extremely talented roster Harbaugh started with). Shanahan took over a dumpster fire with no QB, a terrible O-line, one decent WR, a few talented youngsters, and no depth. If you were to list the "above average for their position" players on the Niners roster it would be: Eric Reid (often hurt), Carlos Hyde (often hurt), Reuben Foster, Deforest Buckner (maybe). Pierre Garcon may be above average WR overall, but he is among the worst #1 WR in the league.

With Tomsula, the Niners were in a "reload" approach, trying to remain competetive. With Shanahan, they have clearly understood the necessity of blowing the whole thing up and building for the future, hence decisions like cutting a still very good Navorro Bowman to get the talented youngster Reuben Foster more reps, and the (correct IMO) decision to forgo drafting a QB at the top of the draft in lieu of getting as many picks as possible to replenish the talent pool.

In short, this season has yielded the expected results, and I still have faith in the Shanahan/Lynch combo. Just look what happened to the falcons offense when Shanahan left. Hell, if anything its fortunate that our record is worse then it should be to get a higher pick in a QB top-heavy draft.  Then next year, the Niners sign Kirk Cousins, trade the #1 or #2 pick they end up with for a king's ransom of talent so someone else can ultimately be disappointed by Josh Rosen, and then watch as a new team emerges full of young talent with a good QB.

Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - washingtonismoney - 10-30-2017

Being a DC resident, I can tell you, if they spend a ton of money on Cousins they're not very bright.