Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years

Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - 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: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years (/thread-22154.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - Goose - 08-17-2021

(08-17-2021, 02:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (55%) [4 winning seasons in 7 years, 1 conference title]

One almost has to add that the one conference title happened not so mach because Stanford was good, but rather because everybody else was simultaneously bad. The stars aligned. I think Willingham was a good coach at Stanford, and I was sorry to see him leave. However, there was some good karma required.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - Spiny_Norman - 08-17-2021

(08-17-2021, 02:39 PM)Goose Wrote:
(08-17-2021, 02:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (55%) [4 winning seasons in 7 years, 1 conference title]

One almost has to add that the one conference title happened not so mach because Stanford was good, but rather because everybody else was simultaneously bad. The stars aligned. I think Willingham was a good coach at Stanford, and I was sorry to see him leave. However, there was some good karma required.

I think that people need regular reminding of how low the bar was for football success at Stanford before Harbaugh and Shaw. Ty Willingham's record placed him 3rd ALL TIME at Stanford in terms of # of wins when he left for South Bend. He was only behind Pop Warner and John Ralston. (Stanford lists James Lanagan with more wins than Willingham, but I think some of those were rugby, not football). Of course, he has since been passed by Shaw.

In terms of on field results, Willingham way overachieved at Stanford. But I still would place him behind the coach who did the most to change the culture at Stanford in the 35 years or so between Ralston and Harbaugh - Denny Green. He was the first to prove that Stanford could play smash mouth offense and "impose our will" defense. He was also a great recruiter. He was such a good fit at Stanford. If he had stayed for 7 years (same term as Willingham), I believe that his record would have been at least as good.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - Goose - 08-17-2021

(08-17-2021, 03:35 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:
(08-17-2021, 02:39 PM)Goose Wrote:
(08-17-2021, 02:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (55%) [4 winning seasons in 7 years, 1 conference title]

One almost has to add that the one conference title happened not so mach because Stanford was good, but rather because everybody else was simultaneously bad. The stars aligned. I think Willingham was a good coach at Stanford, and I was sorry to see him leave. However, there was some good karma required.

I think that people need regular reminding of how low the bar was for football success at Stanford before Harbaugh and Shaw. Ty Willingham's record placed him 3rd ALL TIME at Stanford in terms of # of wins when he left for South Bend. He was only behind Pop Warner and John Ralston. (Stanford lists James Lanagan with more wins than Willingham, but I think some of those were rugby, not football). Of course, he has since been passed by Shaw.

In terms of on field results, Willingham way overachieved at Stanford. But I still would place him behind the coach who did the most to change the culture at Stanford in the 35 years or so between Ralston and Harbaugh - Denny Green. He was the first to prove that Stanford could play smash mouth offense and "impose our will" defense. He was also a great recruiter. He was such a good fit at Stanford. If he had stayed for 7 years (same term as Willingham), I believe that his record would have been at least as good.

Totally Agree. Coach Green was a real trailblazer in more ways than one. He wasn't the button-down type, which was Stanford's reputation. We would beat you with a scheme you couldn't stop. If that didn't happen, Stanford got boat-raced. Coach Green changed that, hopefully forever.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - BostonCard - 08-17-2021

(08-17-2021, 02:39 PM)Goose Wrote:
(08-17-2021, 02:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (55%) [4 winning seasons in 7 years, 1 conference title]

One almost has to add that the one conference title happened not so mach because Stanford was good, but rather because everybody else was simultaneously bad. The stars aligned. I think Willingham was a good coach at Stanford, and I was sorry to see him leave. However, there was some good karma required.

But also, Stanford was a bit unlucky in 2001; we beat the conference champion Oregon Ducks, but lost to the two Washington schools, putting us in a three-way tie for second place (and at the back end of the tiebreaker), which sent us to the godforsaken Seattle Bowl.

Green had a 16-18 record at Stanford (but, like Harbaugh, took a team that graduated most of its players after going 3-6-2, and improving every year he was here). But he was also not without controversy.

BC

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - Phogge - 08-17-2021

If Caleb Bowman catches Fasani's pass raptured would have followed.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - BostonCard - 08-17-2021

(08-17-2021, 06:07 PM)Phogge Wrote: If Caleb Bowman catches Fasani's pass raptured would have followed.

On the one hand, absolutely. On the other hand, he had 13 career catches for a reason, on a team not exactly bursting with speedsters. Drawing up the play to get the ball to the speedy wide receiver running behind the opponent's defense is great, but pointless if the guy in question is known for his hands of stone. As a game-changing gamble, it would have been divine to watch if successful, but the fact that your season is dependent on the hands of Caleb Bowman kind of says something.

It's sort of the opposite of the "fade" to JJ Arcega-Whiteside, which was utterly uncreative, boring even, but got you a touchdown or PI 9 times in 10. Creativity in playcalling is over-rated.

BC

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - BobK - 08-17-2021

I still see the Bowman drop in my mind every couple of months. However he was the Super Prep offensive player of the West in HS

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - CTcard - 08-17-2021

(08-17-2021, 03:35 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:
(08-17-2021, 02:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (55%) [4 winning seasons in 7 years, 1 conference title]

In terms of on field results, Willingham way overachieved at Stanford. But I still would place him behind the coach who did the most to change the culture at Stanford in the 35 years or so between Ralston and Harbaugh - Denny Green. He was the first to prove that Stanford could play smash mouth offense and "impose our will" defense. He was also a great recruiter. He was such a good fit at Stanford. If he had stayed for 7 years (same term as Willingham), I believe that his record would have been at least as good.

I have to wonder about the "also a great recruiter" part, though I don't quite remember enough to be sure.

Green was only at Stanford three seasons. Over those three seasons and the next (first year of Walsh I) the team got better each year: 3-8, 5-6, 8-4, 10-3 (co-conference champs).
However, that 10-3 team was VERY senior-laden, though I don't remember 4th versus 5th year breakdown. Walsh certainly didn't think much of the remaining talent. Whether he was right is a question. Part of the struggles in 1993 and 1994 was that the players on the field were so young (recruited by Walsh). It was clear that 1995 was going to be a lot better year as that talent matured; Willingham lucked into a good setup.

----------------
The three most recent Stanford to the NFL coaches are an interesting tale. In a sense, one might think none did enough at Stanford by W-L to merit the NFL calling, but all were about style - how they did it.

Green - As noted, one winning season in three years and a losing record overall. However, he made Stanford a tough running and defense team which it very notably had not been before.
Walsh - Two winning seasons, though out of two. However, on W-L his main accomplishment over his predecessors was winning some out of conference games.* His conference records (5-2, 4-3) were not better than Christiansen's (2-5 in 1972, but then 5-2, 5-1-1, 5-2, 5-2). Of course Walsh was widely noted for the innovation he brought, with the fancy west coast offense and what at the time seemed like throwing the ball all over the place.
Harbaugh - Two winning seasons out of four and 58% wins - but he did it with EUTM, toughness, and after taking over the most moribund of programs.

* I am too young to remember Christiansen very well, though I know his Stanford reputation was simply being very mediocre. I was surprised to see his conference records were so good and his out of conference schedules so tough.
In 1976 Stanford started the season playing #10 Penn State then #1 Michigan both on the road.
In 1975 Stanford started the season playing #10 Penn State (road) then #2 Michigan.
In 1974 Stanford played #8 Penn State, #4 Michigan, and Illinois
In 1973 Stanford played #7 Penn State, at #5 Michigan, and at Illinois

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - teejers1 - 08-17-2021

(08-17-2021, 02:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Wlat's approach cratered at Stanford, even though he was pretty successful at Pitt. You might have thought that Teevens, who had been successful at Dartmouth, but not in D1 (Tulane) might have been able to leveraged Stanford's "institutional draw" just as much as Shaw has, but alas he wasn't. Even Walsh cratered in his second go around.

Willingham, who you define as "successful" at Stanford (and I would be inclined to agree) had a career 44-36-1 record at Stanford. That's a 55% winning percentage. He had 4 winning seasons in 7, and never won more than 9 games; he won the conference once. In contrast, in 10 seasons, Shaw has exactly the same number of losses as Willingham did, and more than twice as many wins (90-36), a 71% winning percentage. He's had 9 winning seasons in 10 and won double digit games 5 times (to be fair, the number of regular season games has gone from 11 to 12, and Shaw made it to a conference championship 4 times, winning 3). He won the conference three times (despite it being a larger conference). I don't see how you can define Willingham as "successful" and be non-plussed by Shaw's record.

My first year at Stanford was 1993. Here's the record of coaches since I've been a fan:
David Shaw 90-36 (71%) [9 winning seasons in 10 years, 3 conference titles]
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58%) [2 winning seasons in 4 years, 0 conference titles]
Wlat Harris 6-17 (26%) [0 winning seasons in 2 years, 0 conference titles]
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30%) [0 winning seasons in 3 years, 0 conference titles]
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (55%) [4 winning seasons in 7 years, 1 conference title]
Bill Walsh* 7-14-1 (33%) [0 winning seasons in 2 years, 0 conference titles]

With that as my reference, of the six guys who have coached since I enrolled at Stanford, 3 were failures, with a losing record and 0 winning seasons between them, three were moderately successful, winning more than 50% of their games and having winning seasons just over half the time, and one coach has been wildly successful.

Note, since I started Stanford in the second year of Walsh II, I only ever witnessed Walsh' last two years, both of them losing seasons. If you look at all of Walsh 2 you get 17-17-1 record, 50% winning percentage, 1 winning season, and 0 conference titles; if you look at both Walsh stints, you get 34-24-1 59%, with three winning seasons in 5 years, and no conference titles.

Another way to look at it would be to look at Shaw's last five years, when he was all on his own without any of Harbaugh's recruits.
36-22, 62% winning percentage, 4 winning seasons in 5 years, 0 conference titles. In other words, Shaw's five worst years, the ones that everyone cites as evidence of the irrevocable decline of Stanford football, have produced a better winning percentage than any other coach since I've been a fan (including three that you cite as "successful") and it's produced as many winning seasons as Willingham, and more than Harbaugh or Walsh.

Yes, but "delays of game", am I right?

BC

BC, I suspect you're sharp enough to appreciate that part of evaluating a coach's success is evaluating what he inherited versus what he built. SHAW HAS NO COMPARISON in terms of inheriting a Ferrari. Period. End of sentence. You could have won 11 games (and probably the Fiesta Bowl - because you would not have taken the ball out of Luck's hands and put it on the foot of a kid shakily coming back from injury) coaching that 2011 team.

Shaw gets some credit for maintaining very good records after Harbaugh left (particularly in 2015). But we're just now seeing Shaw at sea level, imo. It's decent, but will be a bit of a downer given the heights he joined the program at.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - BostonCard - 08-17-2021

I’ll just quote myself again…

Quote: Another way to look at it would be to look at Shaw's last five years, when he was all on his own without any of Harbaugh's recruits.
36-22, 62% winning percentage, 4 winning seasons in 5 years, 0 conference titles. In other words, Shaw's five worst years, the ones that everyone cites as evidence of the irrevocable decline of Stanford football, have produced a better winning percentage than any other coach since I've been a fan (including three that you cite as "successful") and it's produced as many winning seasons as Willingham, and more than Harbaugh or Walsh.

I even bolted the relevant section. He may not have a Ferrari any more, but he’s still beating every other coach we’ve had dating back 30 years.

BC

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - gailtate - 08-18-2021

(08-17-2021, 11:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I’ll just quote myself again…

Quote: Another way to look at it would be to look at Shaw's last five years, when he was all on his own without any of Harbaugh's recruits.
36-22, 62% winning percentage, 4 winning seasons in 5 years, 0 conference titles. In other words, Shaw's five worst years, the ones that everyone cites as evidence of the irrevocable decline of Stanford football, have produced a better winning percentage than any other coach since I've been a fan (including three that you cite as "successful") and it's produced as many winning seasons as Willingham, and more than Harbaugh or Walsh.

I even bolted the relevant section. He may not have a Ferrari any more, but he’s still beating every other coach we’ve had dating back 30 years.

BC

"...he’s still beating every other coach we’ve had dating back 30 years." Damnation with faint praise; and the decline continues. Recent recruiting numbers are somewhat encouraging, however. Let's see what he does. Still, I say the chance of a return to glory is gossamer thin.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - Mick - 08-18-2021

(08-17-2021, 01:13 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(08-17-2021, 10:34 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I agree with those above me, and would add that so much about coaching is about fit, which changes both in place and time. Harbaugh was a perfect fit for Stanford in 2007; by the time he left, less so. Shaw has been a perfect fit for Stanford over the last decade, but I'm not sure he would be a great fit elsewhere (look at what happened when Willingham went to Notre Dame and later Washington), and I'm not sure how effectvie he would have been coming in after Teevens or Harris.

Also, TBD how Shaw will do from here. I'm more optimistic than most long term, though in the short term I see a bumpy ride.

BC

Guys, can we just be frank here: Shaw would NOT be a good coach anywhere else. Could you imagine his recruiting practices "working" anywhere else? He relies so much on the institutional draw of Stanford and recruiting "Stanford men" - at least that's my impression - that it would be a thud elsewhere.

Also, a good Xs and Os coach at School A, or a good motivating coach at School B, or a good player development coach at School C should all be able to succeed when coming to Stanford, largely because those attributes should play well to the school's natural draw. I mean, Harbaugh succeeded here, as did Willingham, Green, and Walsh. Not all of them succeeded elsewhere in college (though Harbs has been pretty good wherever).

Having said that, I agree that Shaw is a good fit at Stanford (could be much better with a couple changes) - better than many other coaches we've seen in the ranks (including Coach O, Wlat, and others).

Vandy. Duke. Northwestern. Ivies...

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - Phogge - 08-18-2021

And some here are ready to anoint McKee.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - Mick - 08-18-2021

(08-17-2021, 01:13 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(08-17-2021, 10:34 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I agree with those above me, and would add that so much about coaching is about fit, which changes both in place and time. Harbaugh was a perfect fit for Stanford in 2007; by the time he left, less so. Shaw has been a perfect fit for Stanford over the last decade, but I'm not sure he would be a great fit elsewhere (look at what happened when Willingham went to Notre Dame and later Washington), and I'm not sure how effectvie he would have been coming in after Teevens or Harris.

Also, TBD how Shaw will do from here. I'm more optimistic than most long term, though in the short term I see a bumpy ride.

BC

Guys, can we just be frank here: Shaw would NOT be a good coach anywhere else. Could you imagine his recruiting practices "working" anywhere else? He relies so much on the institutional draw of Stanford and recruiting "Stanford men" - at least that's my impression - that it would be a thud elsewhere.

Also, a good Xs and Os coach at School A, or a good motivating coach at School B, or a good player development coach at School C should all be able to succeed when coming to Stanford, largely because those attributes should play well to the school's natural draw. I mean, Harbaugh succeeded here, as did Willingham, Green, and Walsh. Not all of them succeeded elsewhere in college (though Harbs has been pretty good wherever).

Having said that, I agree that Shaw is a good fit at Stanford (could be much better with a couple changes) - better than many other coaches we've seen in the ranks (including Coach O, Wlat, and others).

Vandy. Duke. Northwestern. Ivies... Not sure where else. But I agree that he's optimized at Stanford, and none of those other schools will come close to paying him what he's making at Stanford.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - TriangleTree - 08-18-2021

(08-17-2021, 02:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(08-17-2021, 01:13 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Guys, can we just be frank here: Shaw would NOT be a good coach anywhere else. Could you imagine his recruiting practices "working" anywhere else? He relies so much on the institutional draw of Stanford and recruiting "Stanford men" - at least that's my impression - that it would be a thud elsewhere.

Also, a good Xs and Os coach at School A, or a good motivating coach at School B, or a good player development coach at School C should all be able to succeed when coming to Stanford, largely because those attributes should play well to the school's natural draw. I mean, Harbaugh succeeded here, as did Willingham, Green, and Walsh. Not all of them succeeded elsewhere in college (though Harbs has been pretty good wherever).

Having said that, I agree that Shaw is a good fit at Stanford (could be much better with a couple changes) - better than many other coaches we've seen in the ranks (including Coach O, Wlat, and others).

Wlat's approach cratered at Stanford, even though he was pretty successful at Pitt. You might have thought that Teevens, who had been successful at Dartmouth, but not in D1 (Tulane) might have been able to leveraged Stanford's "institutional draw" just as much as Shaw has, but alas he wasn't. Even Walsh cratered in his second go around.

Willingham, who you define as "successful" at Stanford (and I would be inclined to agree) had a career 44-36-1 record at Stanford. That's a 55% winning percentage. He had 4 winning seasons in 7, and never won more than 9 games; he won the conference once. In contrast, in 10 seasons, Shaw has exactly the same number of losses as Willingham did, and more than twice as many wins (90-36), a 71% winning percentage. He's had 9 winning seasons in 10 and won double digit games 5 times (to be fair, the number of regular season games has gone from 11 to 12, and Shaw made it to a conference championship 4 times, winning 3). He won the conference three times (despite it being a larger conference). I don't see how you can define Willingham as "successful" and be non-plussed by Shaw's record.

My first year at Stanford was 1993. Here's the record of coaches since I've been a fan:
David Shaw 90-36 (71%) [9 winning seasons in 10 years, 3 conference titles]
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58%) [2 winning seasons in 4 years, 0 conference titles]
Wlat Harris 6-17 (26%) [0 winning seasons in 2 years, 0 conference titles]
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30%) [0 winning seasons in 3 years, 0 conference titles]
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (55%) [4 winning seasons in 7 years, 1 conference title]
Bill Walsh* 7-14-1 (33%) [0 winning seasons in 2 years, 0 conference titles]

With that as my reference, of the six guys who have coached since I enrolled at Stanford, 3 were failures, with a losing record and 0 winning seasons between them, three were moderately successful, winning more than 50% of their games and having winning seasons just over half the time, and one coach has been wildly successful.

Note, since I started Stanford in the second year of Walsh II, I only ever witnessed Walsh' last two years, both of them losing seasons. If you look at all of Walsh 2 you get 17-17-1 record, 50% winning percentage, 1 winning season, and 0 conference titles; if you look at both Walsh stints, you get 34-24-1 59%, with three winning seasons in 5 years, and no conference titles.

Another way to look at it would be to look at Shaw's last five years, when he was all on his own without any of Harbaugh's recruits.
36-22, 62% winning percentage, 4 winning seasons in 5 years, 0 conference titles. In other words, Shaw's five worst years, the ones that everyone cites as evidence of the irrevocable decline of Stanford football, have produced a better winning percentage than any other coach since I've been a fan (including three that you cite as "successful") and it's produced as many winning seasons as Willingham, and more than Harbaugh or Walsh.

Yes, but "delays of game", am I right?

BC

I came to Stanford in 92, have been a die hard since and fully share this perspective.
It may be that coach Shaw's appreciation is highly correlated to what we have seen from coaches and associated experiences.
In my time, successful coaches (Willingham and Harbaugh) have bailed for bigger and greener stages (to never match their success at Stanford in future college jobs).
Two others (Buddy and Walt) were disasters on a scale that literally put the long term future of the program at risk. Walsh II was Walsh II, mixed results but not a long term possibility as it unfolded and likely fairly labeled a failed experiment.

Shaw is the ONLY coach that has been both successful and values and appreciates the Stanford opportunity beyond a stepping stone, that's worth quite a bit despite legitimate criticism. He is obscenely compensated (I confess I have issues with this that are not limited to Stanford) but

i. I doubt it's bad business decision given what's at play and the history above
ii. Likely market rate in the business for keeping a coach who has delivered results relative to baseline

I really hope he (the team) can deliver and gain a new long lease this year.
Had Mills stayed I think this would not only be possible but even likely. We'll see what happens without him.
Big year ahead.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - teejers1 - 08-18-2021

(08-17-2021, 11:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I’ll just quote myself again…

Quote: Another way to look at it would be to look at Shaw's last five years, when he was all on his own without any of Harbaugh's recruits.
36-22, 62% winning percentage, 4 winning seasons in 5 years, 0 conference titles. In other words, Shaw's five worst years, the ones that everyone cites as evidence of the irrevocable decline of Stanford football, have produced a better winning percentage than any other coach since I've been a fan (including three that you cite as "successful") and it's produced as many winning seasons as Willingham, and more than Harbaugh or Walsh.

I even bolted the relevant section. He may not have a Ferrari any more, but he’s still beating every other coach we’ve had dating back 30 years.

BC

Let's just say I hope the last 5 years is "sea level" for Shaw, as is your assumption.

P.S. Agree with Mick that Shaw might have a shot at some success at those other schools. (And I'll not comment further on the comp point).

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - terry - 08-18-2021

(08-17-2021, 11:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I’ll just quote myself again…

Quote: Another way to look at it would be to look at Shaw's last five years, when he was all on his own without any of Harbaugh's recruits.
36-22, 62% winning percentage, 4 winning seasons in 5 years, 0 conference titles. In other words, Shaw's five worst years, the ones that everyone cites as evidence of the irrevocable decline of Stanford football, have produced a better winning percentage than any other coach since I've been a fan (including three that you cite as "successful") and it's produced as many winning seasons as Willingham, and more than Harbaugh or Walsh.

I even bolted the relevant section. He may not have a Ferrari any more, but he’s still beating every other coach we’ve had dating back 30 years.

BC

Good point, BC.

(08-16-2021, 03:21 PM)Papa John Wrote: But to call the 2015 Rose Bowl team anything but Shaw's team is just plain silly, in my opinion.

I completely agree.

It's not credible to deprive Shaw of credit for the 2015 team, given that Harbaugh had been gone for five years and nobody on that team even signed an LOI with Harbaugh, let alone practiced or played for Harbaugh.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - TrumpCard - 08-18-2021

The 2011 class signed with Shaw. They had plenty of time to choose another school, and a couple of guys, like Anthony Sarao, did just that. Hogan and the others who stayed were Shaw recruits whom Harbaugh helped identify.

The 2015 team was a masterpiece by Shaw. Take away an early game time start in Chicago, and that team makes the playoff.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - teejers1 - 08-18-2021

(08-18-2021, 02:15 PM)TrumpCard Wrote: The 2011 class signed with Shaw. They had plenty of time to choose another school, and a couple of guys, like Anthony Sarao, did just that. Hogan and the others who stayed were Shaw recruits whom Harbaugh helped identify.

The 2015 team was a masterpiece by Shaw. Take away an early game time start in Chicago, and that team makes the playoff.

Oh, please . . .

And Triangle, stop with the market rate comp stuff. That is ludicrous.

RE: Top 100 football head coaches in the last 50 years - TriangleTree - 08-18-2021

teejers1 Wrote:
TrumpCard Wrote:The 2011 class signed with Shaw. They had plenty of time to choose another school, and a couple of guys, like Anthony Sarao, did just that. Hogan and the others who stayed were Shaw recruits whom Harbaugh helped identify.

The 2015 team was a masterpiece by Shaw. Take away an early game time start in Chicago, and that team makes the playoff.

Oh, please . . .

And Triangle, stop with the market rate comp stuff. That is ludicrous.

Previous 5 coaches win percentage 40% vs Shaw 72%

We can argue whether it's attributable to Shaw, whether he can maintain it, or whether Stanford should spend this much, but are there others with similar objective results that haven't massively cashed in? Who?

Harbaugh sure did, so did Willingham and Green.

What's special about Shaw that we should consider him differently? Serious question