Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - 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: Expectations and Evolution. (/thread-21187.html)
+- 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: Expectations and Evolution. (/thread-21187.html)
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - Hulk01 - 12-17-2020
We have been something of a tale of two programs:
Shaw's first five seasons:
13-11 against ranked teams, 25-13 against winning teams.
The following four:
3-11 against ranked teams, 13-17 against winning teams.
And this incoming recruiting class is a concern.
lex24 - lex24 - 12-17-2020
(12-17-2020, 09:22 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: We have been something of a tale of two programs:
Shaw's first five seasons:
13-11 against ranked teams, 25-13 against winning teams.
The following four:
3-11 against ranked teams, 13-17 against winning teams.
And this incoming recruiting class is a concern.
Yes. We will get the chance to see if Shaw can right the ship. Not sure if we’ll ever see 2010 through 2015 again. I don’t follow recruiting but I’ve seen the dire comments and have no reason to disbelieve them. One question, have the new rules relating to recruiting hurt Stanford? And is that a matter of not wanting to adjust or not being able to adjust due to academic and institutional restrictions.
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - Mick - 12-17-2020
Yes, Stanford is an elite/elitist institution, but that's not a bad thing, that's a great thing. And I think most of the schools that play power football are also elitist in their own way. Have a conversation with an Oklahoma Sooner fan, especially about Texas and Nebraska, and the elitism will spill right out. Same with Auburn, Michigan, LSU, etc. Stanford is just elite on a different scale. And when Stanford plays great football, people are attracted. I never went to Stanford, but I've watched football since Plunkett, basketball since Kelley, volleyball since Fortune, women's basketball since Azzi, and watched track & field since the mid-1980s. I've seen most of the so-called minor sports at least once.
And BTW, in all the decades since, I've never felt snobbery from younger or middle-aged fans, and just once or twice from elderly fans who, frankly, were admitted to Stanford when the acceptance rate was 83% (1941, 1139 applicants, 948 acceptances).
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - JohnR34231 - 12-17-2020
(12-17-2020, 09:46 AM)Mick Wrote: Yes, Stanford is an elite/elitist institution, but that's not a bad thing, that's a great thing. And I think most of the schools that play power football are also elitist in their own way. Have a conversation with an Oklahoma Sooner fan, especially about Texas and Nebraska, and the elitism will spill right out. Same with Auburn, Michigan, LSU, etc. Stanford is just elite on a different scale. And when Stanford plays great football, people are attracted. I never went to Stanford, but I've watched football since Plunkett, basketball since Kelley, volleyball since Fortune, women's basketball since Azzi, and watched track & field since the mid-1980s. I've seen most of the so-called minor sports at least once.
And BTW, in all the decades since, I've never felt snobbery from younger or middle-aged fans, and just once or twice from elderly fans who, frankly, were admitted to Stanford when the acceptance rate was 83% (1941, 1139 applicants, 948 acceptances).
Yeah, I used to have a friend at work who joked that I went to Stanford when it wasn't a big deal to go there.
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - cardcrimson - 12-17-2020
I guess you've never heard of benchmarking. It's a practice where you evaluate competing products or organizations, especially successful ones, and see what they are doing effectively. You take those practices or designs and evaluate how you can implement similar into your organization to make you better.
Yes this is a Stanford board, and it's a shame, to Mick's point, that we're too elitist to even consider what lowly programs such as Alabama or Clemson might be doing differently, and very successfully.
And FWIW, last time I checked, the business, law and medical schools at Harvard and Stanford aren't filled with only undergrads from the Ivy League or Stanford.
(12-16-2020, 10:12 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:cardcrimson Wrote: Saban's first NC team in 2009 averaged 187 in the air, and 215 on the ground; scored 32 per game and gave up 12. This year, the Tide is averaging 347 in the air and 190 on the ground; scoring 50 per game and giving up 17.
You are aware, aren’t you, that this is a bulletin board for fans of the Stanford Cardinal. I couldn’t care less about Nick Saban. I imagine he is an effective fundraiser, befitting his locale and employer.
I wouldn’t trade any Stanford team for any other team in the country. I am proud of how each team of student athletes represent the university. And Coach Shaw is a great coach and a great fit. And so far this season, he has shown he still has some juice in the tank.
Who do I think has done a better job as coach this season — overall, including challenges, character and perspective? Keeping in mind coaches play a role in their communities during a global pandemic? Keeping their players and communities safe, creating as positive an experience as possible for their student athletes during extraordinary challenges? Who has been the better coach, mentor, role model, community member, and university representative this season — Shaw or Saban? It is not even close.
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - Goose - 12-17-2020
(12-17-2020, 09:09 AM)slide Wrote:Different world. Different football program.(12-16-2020, 11:01 PM)teejers1 Wrote: And we wonder why Stanford gets zero traction with Joe Sports Fan in the surrounding area, who (correctly) views Stanford students and alums, by and large, as elitist, sanctimonious snobs. By 2022, there will be tens of fans like you in the stands supporting the Stanford football program, the only one with its priorities straight.
very different approach today than say when your parents settled in Palo Alto or mine lived in Ladera decades ago. Stanford was more the community's team rather than just the alumni's team. fwiw, I liked the old approach.
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - Phogge - 12-17-2020
There is snobbery everywhere, even on fan boards. I just hope you all had fun attending Stanford because I had a ball at Lake Merced.
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - qwerty49 - 12-17-2020
(12-17-2020, 09:22 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: We have been something of a tale of two programs:
Shaw's first five seasons:
13-11 against ranked teams, 25-13 against winning teams.
The following four:
3-11 against ranked teams, 13-17 against winning teams.
And this incoming recruiting class is a concern.
Thank you Hulk. These are important points.
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - Hulk01 - 12-17-2020
While the trend probably concerns all of us, we might differ as to the causes.
Overwhelmingly, the most outspoken posters here blame Shaw/Pritchard and the offense for our decline.
But there's this:
Stanford points allowed per game
2010-14: 18.4
2015-18: 22.2
2019-20: 29.2
With a 2010-18 defense we'd be 4-1.
With a 2010-18 and a healthy Davis, we could be 5-0.
No?
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - BostonCard - 12-17-2020
Exactly, Hulk. The problem is that defensive deficiencies don't allow the armchair quarterbacks to critique the play-calling. The offensive efficiency data supports that data.
We are 25th in offensive efficiency; 96th in defensive efficiency. We are 41st in offensive points per drive (2.6 ppd), we are 100th in defensive points per drive (2.81 ppd given up).
Unfortunately, deficiencies at all three levels of the defense don't look set to get significantly better any time soon, and recruiting there, especially, has lagged.
BC
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - slide - 12-17-2020
(12-17-2020, 03:04 PM)Hulk01 Wrote: While the trend probably concerns all of us, we might differ as to the causes.
Overwhelmingly, the most outspoken posters here blame Shaw/Pritchard and the offense for our decline.
But there's this:
Stanford points allowed per game
2010-14: 18.4
2015-18: 22.2
2019-20: 29.2
With a 2010-18 defense we'd be 4-1.
With a 2010-18 and a healthy Davis, we could be 5-0.
No?
I don't absolve the defensive staff either (although I am more sympathetic on game day every time I see 2 walk-ons seeing significant time on the field).
changes need to be made (including recruiting), but in the end the buck (or 4,500,000 of them annually) stops with Shaw.
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - Goose - 12-17-2020
(12-17-2020, 03:45 PM)slide Wrote: changes need to be made (including recruiting), but in the end the buck (or 4,500,000 of them annually) stops with Shaw.This is totally true, and I suspect Shaw would concur. Stanford has had some really outstanding defensive players and has also had many years in the past (before Shaw) where we were lots of offense and not enough defense. To some degree we unfortunately seem to be reverting to that state. FWIW it is much easier to create a defense that plays well but lacks depth than it is one that is both good and deep. That is why TOP almost always matters for Stanford. We can recruit a "good" but not deep defense. ATM we are not even "good". Hopefully we can be adequate against UCLA.
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - BostonCard - 12-17-2020
(12-17-2020, 03:45 PM)slide Wrote: I don't absolve the defensive staff either (although I am more sympathetic on game day every time I see 2 walk-ons seeing significant time on the field).
changes need to be made (including recruiting), but in the end the buck (or 4,500,000 of them annually) stops with Shaw.
No disagreement on where the buck stops (and would add that the fact that 2 walk-ons are seeing significant time on the field reflects decisions made years before). The issue I think is that people are looking for quick fixes, and those are unlikely to be forthcoming. Rebuilding the D is going to be a multi-year venture.
Keep fingers crossed that the plethora of offers to 2022 starts yielding results. If so, we can look forward to better defense in the 2024 season? Would help if we could develop our guys better and keep them healthy.
BC
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - BostonCard - 12-17-2020
(12-17-2020, 04:03 PM)Skiddy Wrote: Pardon my political incorrectness, but this comparison and conclusion are both truly retarded. From any non-elitist angle, the sheer number of vulnerable, previously troubled kids that the Saban brings in and grooms to be responsible citizens on and off the field year after year for that particular program renders your verdict on Shaw's superiority on being a community member, university representative, mentor, role model, and least of which, football coach, completely asinine.
You don't have to be the coach for players who are (were) classmates with Robinhood founders to have accomplished, by and large, a consistently outstanding job on those fronts.
Couple your holier-than-thou comment with this year's nauseatingly horrendous class, what an eyesore jesus christ.
Let us not pretend that Saban is engaging in a charity to identify at-risk youth and offer them mentorship and a path to responsibility. I think Saban is a good role model, though I follow him less, but any grooming of responsible citizens is incidental to his mission, which is to win football games for Alabama.
And that is not to say that Shaw is running a charitable organization to rescue at risk kids either. I do think Shaw is a respected community member, representative, and role model. But none of that is to take away from Nick Saban, who I think is clearly one of the all-time great college football coaches. As to all the other aspects, there is the fact that Saban "led" Alabama to sixth place in the inaugural Fulmer cup in 2016
https://www.thefulmercup.com/standings/2016-standings/
To his credit, he doesn't seem to have been in the top-10 after that. All that said, I think it is reasonable to push back against the premise that started this thread. Shaw is not Saban, and Stanford is not Alabama (but for all the talk that we are not Nebraska, unlike Nebraska, we will have a winning record this year). Shaw is also not being asked to do what Saban is asked to do in Nebraska. I suspect that had Saban had Shaw's record after 10 years (no national titles, no SEC titles since 2015, and *gasp* a year with a losing record) he would have been fired after last year, or at the very least on the proverbial hot seat. Even our most ardent Shaw critics usually preface their tirades with "I don't want him fired, but..." On the flip side, I wonder if Saban, with 16 Fulmer points in 2016, would have been retained as Stanford's coach, national title or no.
BC
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - Hulk01 - 12-17-2020
Skiddy, we tend take a very elitist stance on rebuttals that are heavy on ad hominems and light on evidence.
Your post contends for the 2020 Cardboard record.
PS: Doesn't asinine mean completely asinine?
And "regarded" has to go. You don't know that?
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - cardcrimson - 12-17-2020
I do believe the OP mentioned that the D is giving up a touchdown more a game than it did in Shaw's first year.
Just for fun, one could argue that the play-calling and the lack of sustained drives that were our forte back in the day, is driving said defensive deficiencies, couldn't one?
(12-17-2020, 03:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Exactly, Hulk. The problem is that defensive deficiencies don't allow the armchair quarterbacks to critique the play-calling. The offensive efficiency data supports that data.
We are 25th in offensive efficiency; 96th in defensive efficiency. We are 41st in offensive points per drive (2.6 ppd), we are 100th in defensive points per drive (2.81 ppd given up).
Unfortunately, deficiencies at all three levels of the defense don't look set to get significantly better any time soon, and recruiting there, especially, has lagged.
BC
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - cardcrimson - 12-17-2020
BC, you know not of what you speak, er type. Contrary to popular belief here, Alabama isn't a win at all costs institution. Just ask Mike Price:
https://vault.si.com/vault/2003/05/12/how-he-met-his-destiny-at-a-strip-club-mike-price-fired
(12-17-2020, 05:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Let us not pretend that Saban is engaging in a charity to identify at-risk youth and offer them mentorship and a path to responsibility. I think Saban is a good role model, though I follow him less, but any grooming of responsible citizens is incidental to his mission, which is to win football games for Alabama.
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - BostonCard - 12-17-2020
(12-17-2020, 06:17 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: I do believe the OP mentioned that the D is giving up a touchdown more a game than it did in Shaw's first year.
Just for fun, one could argue that the play-calling and the lack of sustained drives that were our forte back in the day, is driving said defensive deficiencies, couldn't one?
(12-17-2020, 03:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Exactly, Hulk. The problem is that defensive deficiencies don't allow the armchair quarterbacks to critique the play-calling. The offensive efficiency data supports that data.
We are 25th in offensive efficiency; 96th in defensive efficiency. We are 41st in offensive points per drive (2.6 ppd), we are 100th in defensive points per drive (2.81 ppd given up).
Unfortunately, deficiencies at all three levels of the defense don't look set to get significantly better any time soon, and recruiting there, especially, has lagged.
BC
Yes, but other than saying "we should blitz more" (unless you are a Jets fan contemplating your first victory of the year, in which case you probably are yelling "blitz less"), I generally notice much less creativity about defensive alignments among armchair coaches than offensive playcalling.
BC
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - Phogge - 12-17-2020
Has there been a safety since Ed Reynolds who could read QB’s? So blitz more and recruit more safeties. Probably too much to ask.
RE: Shaw: Expectations and Evolution. - CardinalSagehen - 12-17-2020
(12-17-2020, 06:38 PM)Phogge Wrote: Has there been a safety since Ed Reynolds who could read QB’s? So blitz more and recruit more safeties. Probably too much to ask.
Justin Reid was pretty okay. But point taken.