Shaw at Sea Level - 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 at Sea Level (/thread-22218.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 at Sea Level (/thread-22218.html)
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - ADPinWDC - 09-06-2021
Has any Asst Coach done as much as Vic Fangio did (now head coach at Denver Broncos) with shifting to the 3-4 under Harbaugh in 2010?
Which was then continued effectively with Derek Mason -- who then got the head coaching job at Vandy based on that defensive performance.
https://grantland.com/the-triangle/stanford-shows-oregon-its-own-brand-of-old-school-football/
Fangio coming in is evidence, I think, of what a new assistant coach CAN do.
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - martyup - 09-07-2021
Shaw should try the Lane Kiffen approach to coaching. Ole Miss looked really good last night.
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - McKenwood - 09-07-2021
I came over to the CardBoard for some optimism about my football team after last Saturday's debacle. All I found was a rehash of what is on Rivals and 24/7. Come on Shaw defenders Represent! Why does 2010-2015 look like such an anomaly now and we are back to sustained mediocrity?
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - BostonCard - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 11:01 AM)McKenwood Wrote: I came over to the CardBoard for some optimism about my football team after last Saturday's debacle. All I found was a rehash of what is on Rivals and 24/7. Come on Shaw defenders Represent! Why does 2010-2015 look like such an anomaly now and we are back to sustained mediocrity?
I'm pessimistic in the short term, but I am not a terminal declinist; I think that while Shaw is often slow to come around to changes in college football (which is why people here have a tendency to view him as "stubborn"), he usually does eventually come around. Thus, I think that the idea that Shaw is "stubborn" is wrong; it's more that he is (small "c") conservative.
BC
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - CardinalSagehen - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 09:51 AM)martyup Wrote: Shaw should try the Lane Kiffen approach to coaching. Ole Miss looked really good last night.
To your point, here's an in-game tweet from Saturday by former All Pac-10 Tackle for Stanford, Ben Muth.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FO_wordofmuth/status/1434274810738225152?s=20[/tweet]
The beer was talking, though.
I expect a more respectable performance this week @ USC - Shaw is going to figure some things out with this team.
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - teejers1 - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 11:19 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-07-2021, 11:01 AM)McKenwood Wrote: I came over to the CardBoard for some optimism about my football team after last Saturday's debacle. All I found was a rehash of what is on Rivals and 24/7. Come on Shaw defenders Represent! Why does 2010-2015 look like such an anomaly now and we are back to sustained mediocrity?
I'm pessimistic in the short term, but I am not a terminal declinist; I think that while Shaw is often slow to come around to changes in college football (which is why people here have a tendency to view him as "stubborn"), he usually does eventually come around.
Was it on this board or TOS where this topic led to quote attributed to Winston Churchill about America: "America will always do the right thing. . . once it has exhausted all alternatives." (Or words to that effect)? If that's applicable to Shaw, then I'm not sure his (lower case c) conservatism is all that comforting.
IDK, it sure seems - when watching almost all other college games on TV - that Stanford is unique in that its offense is mired in the quicksand of its own making. Its effect is program-enervating. And it's been going on for a long, long time.
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Phogge - 09-07-2021
Bingo Teejers. No speed, no separation. Plodding. Boring. No place for Jones and Peat to go. Pressure with a three man rush. Kickoff out of bounds. I miss Harballs.
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - gailtate - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 11:51 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bingo Teejers. No speed, no separation. Plodding. Boring. No place for Jones and Peat to go. Pressure with a three man rush. Kickoff out of bounds. I miss Harballs.
I miss Harball's recruits (and staff).
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Mick - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 01:42 PM)gailtate Wrote:(09-07-2021, 11:51 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bingo Teejers. No speed, no separation. Plodding. Boring. No place for Jones and Peat to go. Pressure with a three man rush. Kickoff out of bounds. I miss Harballs.
I miss Harball's recruits (and staff).
Makes you wonder what Greg Roman and Vic Fangio could do with this bunch...
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - baycommuter - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 11:01 AM)McKenwood Wrote: I came over to the CardBoard for some optimism about my football team after last Saturday's debacle. All I found was a rehash of what is on Rivals and 24/7. Come on Shaw defenders Represent! Why does 2010-2015 look like such an anomaly now and we are back to sustained mediocrity?Even if we could get the performance back to the level of 2010-15, a return to three Rose Bowls in four years would unlikely because the earlier period coincided with USC's scholarship restrictions.
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - BostonCard - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 11:46 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Was it on this board or TOS where this topic led to quote attributed to Winston Churchill about America: "America will always do the right thing. . . once it has exhausted all alternatives." (Or words to that effect)? If that's applicable to Shaw, then I'm not sure his (lower case c) conservatism is all that comforting.
That was me, on this board. There are positives and negatives about a "conservative" approach to coaching. A team consistently changing offenses to the latest fad might never establish a rhythm or learn the offensive system. A QB consistently worried about getting yanked after a bad game might have trouble getting into the grove. A recruiting approach that throws everything against the wall to see what sticks might not be very effective. There are downsides of being conservative as well, and I think we are seeing them.
BC
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Snorlax94 - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 01:42 PM)gailtate Wrote:You are aware that Michigan went 2-4 last year and has lost its most recent bowl games four consecutive times in a row?(09-07-2021, 11:51 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bingo Teejers. No speed, no separation. Plodding. Boring. No place for Jones and Peat to go. Pressure with a three man rush. Kickoff out of bounds. I miss Harballs.
I miss Harball's recruits (and staff).
Facts.
It’s difficult to win consistently. It’s difficult to recruit consistently. It’s difficult to win bowl games.
This mythical Harbaugh character has won only one bowl game at Michigan - his first - and it wasn’t a NYE6 bowl game, then he lost four consecutive bowl games, then he had a record so poor they didn’t qualify for a bowl game, and yet somehow the person “mired in a quicksand of its own making,” the one “not going out with a bang but with a whimper,” is somehow Coach Shaw? And you are so convinced “1-4 Bowl Game Harbaugh” would have done better?
If it is so easy to consistently hire a Fangio, a Shaw, a Hamilton and a (Randy) Hart, why didn't 1-4 Bowl Game Harbaugh do that in the last 5 years so he could actually win a bowl game?
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Goose - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 02:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That was me, on this board. There are positives and negatives about a "conservative" approach to coaching. A team consistently changing offenses to the latest fad might never establish a rhythm or learn the offensive system. A QB consistently worried about getting yanked after a bad game might have trouble getting into the grove. A recruiting approach that throws everything against the wall to see what sticks might not be very effective. There are downsides of being conservative as well, and I think we are seeing them.I agree that Shaw is "conservative" but I am certain that many on this board ignore the fact that many of their suggestions are impossible to reliably implement even if Shaw were so inclined. Sure, he could go out and hire some great assistants. So could every other coach in the country. The problem is that identifying who is good and who is blowing smoke isn't easy. Just look at Musgrave at Kal. A good hire or a bad hire? Better than Tavita or worse? Now go read Bear Growls and answer the question. Life is simple when you just set the mass of the elephant to zero and get on with it.
BC
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Phogge - 09-07-2021
Yeah I would rather that he would have stayed. I like colorful guys. Durocher was aa ass but he was fun. Auerbach was fun. I imagine Sulla was fun as long as you kept your head. You can win without EUTM but man it was fun for awhile.
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - teejers1 - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 03:19 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:(09-07-2021, 01:42 PM)gailtate Wrote:You are aware that Michigan went 2-4 last year and has lost its most recent bowl games four consecutive times in a row?(09-07-2021, 11:51 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bingo Teejers. No speed, no separation. Plodding. Boring. No place for Jones and Peat to go. Pressure with a three man rush. Kickoff out of bounds. I miss Harballs.
I miss Harball's recruits (and staff).
Facts.
It’s difficult to win consistently. It’s difficult to recruit consistently. It’s difficult to win bowl games.
This mythical Harbaugh character has won only one bowl game at Michigan - his first - and it wasn’t a NYE6 bowl game, then he lost four consecutive bowl games, then he had a record so poor they didn’t qualify for a bowl game, and yet somehow the person “mired in a quicksand of its own making,” the one “not going out with a bang but with a whimper,” is somehow Coach Shaw? And you are so convinced “1-4 Bowl Game Harbaugh” would have done better?
If it is so easy to consistently hire a Fangio, a Shaw, a Hamilton and a (Randy) Hart, why didn't 1-4 Bowl Game Harbaugh do that in the last 5 years so he could actually win a bowl game?
Snorlax, I'm no Harbaugh lover- what he did at Stanford was great, but he had already alienated everyone in the department, and I suspect he is just one of those guys that no one really likes, but they put up with because he is obsessed with football (and wins). His days at Stanford were always numbered, and I don't miss him. Having said that, trying to skewer Harbaugh for his Michigan bowl record, especially as compared to Stanford's, is not persuasive. Have you compared Michigan's opponents to Stanford's, especially lately? It's not even close. I'm guessing a NY Day bowl opponent against a southern team played in Florida is WAY more challenging than UNC in El Paso. TCU at the Alamo Bowl was a tough opponent for Stanford . . . and we lost that one.
As for 2020, that was an asterisk season all around. I put very little credence in how that season reflects on any coaching staff, though I give propers to the Stanford team and staff for keeping the team focused on an extended roadie (but I'll bet they were be glad to be outside the restrictions of our SCC Health Director). And if you're being honest, the games were not great shakes for Stanford, and the record could easily have been 1-5 (not 4-2).
But more fundamentally, when you watch other college football games - any games, really - aren't you struck by how plodding and unremarkable Stanford's offense is in comparison? You don't even need to know the first thing about football to conclude that Stanford is like molasses in everything they do offensively. Someone on the other site just posted a Tweet from a Ryan McCrystal who noted that Stanford ran a play once every 37.9 seconds - the most laborious rate in all of college football. He also noted that Shaw is stuck in a yesteryear offense and that the world has passed him by. I don't know who this guy is, but perhaps others are finally taking notice of what's been going on at Stanford for far too long.
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - BostonCard - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 04:29 PM)teejers1 Wrote: But more fundamentally, when you watch other college football games - any games, really - aren't you struck by how plodding and unremarkable Stanford's offense is in comparison? You don't even need to know the first thing about football to conclude that Stanford is like molasses in everything they do offensively. Someone on the other site just posted a Tweet from a Ryan McCrystal who noted that Stanford ran a play once every 37.9 seconds - the most laborious rate in all of college football. He also noted that Shaw is stuck in a yesteryear offense and that the world has passed him by. I don't know who this guy is, but perhaps others are finally taking notice of what's been going on at Stanford for far too long.
These are two separate complaints.
1) Stanford's offensive philosophy
2) Pace of play
Taking a lot of time in between plays doesn't mean you can't have a dynamic offense. Look at the offenses we had in 2010 (Luck) or 2015 (McCaffrey), which were dynamic, varied, and effective. But they still by and large huddled, and the length of time between plays was probably not much different than yesterday.
Alternatively, you can try to run a "tempo" offense and just not do it especially effectively.
The problem is that, right now, the offense is not effective. I'm not sure that running a tempo offense would be better, just different. And given how much trouble or defense has, I'm not sure that going three and out in one minute versus two and a half minutes would help us all that much.
BC
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Goose - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 07:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The problem is that, right now, the offense is not effective. I'm not sure that running a tempo offense would be better, just different. And given how much trouble or defense has, I'm not sure that going three and out in one minute versus two and a half minutes would help us all that much.I suspect that the point you make abut the defense just might have occurred to Shaw et al. No guarantee of course.
BC
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - BigJohn043 - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 03:19 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:(09-07-2021, 01:42 PM)gailtate Wrote:You are aware that Michigan went 2-4 last year and has lost its most recent bowl games four consecutive times in a row?(09-07-2021, 11:51 AM)Phogge Wrote: Bingo Teejers. No speed, no separation. Plodding. Boring. No place for Jones and Peat to go. Pressure with a three man rush. Kickoff out of bounds. I miss Harballs.
I miss Harball's recruits (and staff).
Facts.
It’s difficult to win consistently. It’s difficult to recruit consistently. It’s difficult to win bowl games.
This mythical Harbaugh character has won only one bowl game at Michigan - his first - and it wasn’t a NYE6 bowl game, then he lost four consecutive bowl games, then he had a record so poor they didn’t qualify for a bowl game, and yet somehow the person “mired in a quicksand of its own making,” the one “not going out with a bang but with a whimper,” is somehow Coach Shaw? And you are so convinced “1-4 Bowl Game Harbaugh” would have done better?
If it is so easy to consistently hire a Fangio, a Shaw, a Hamilton and a (Randy) Hart, why didn't 1-4 Bowl Game Harbaugh do that in the last 5 years so he could actually win a bowl game?
FWIW, I think the difference between the Stanford and Michigan Harbaugh is that he isn't bringing quality assistants. I think the word that he is crazy is out and no one wants to work with him.
But the short answer is I would much rather take a chance on a new coach knowing that it might fail because at least I would have hope. With Shaw I have literally no hope. We are going to suck until the day he leaves or is fired. We will keep hearing the same BS about execution, we will keep getting delay of game and no one will be able to run the offense unless they are a senior.
It is just depressing.
Heck, at least we had some hope that Teavans and Harris would work out.....
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Goose - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 08:31 PM)BigJohn043 Wrote: Heck, at least we had some hope that Teavans and Harris would work out.....We did? Not after listening to them talk we didn't. And that was before they played any games.
RE: Shaw at Sea Level - BostonCard - 09-08-2021
(09-07-2021, 08:31 PM)BigJohn043 Wrote: But the short answer is I would much rather take a chance on a new coach knowing that it might fail because at least I would have hope. With Shaw I have literally no hope. We are going to suck until the day he leaves or is fired. We will keep hearing the same BS about execution, we will keep getting delay of game and no one will be able to run the offense unless they are a senior.
It is just depressing.
Heck, at least we had some hope that Teavans and Harris would work out.....
Your lack of faith is disturbing.
Seriously, why the doom and gloom? Shaw has had one losing season in ten. Even if I concede that seasons as good as 2011-2013 and 2015 may be rare going forward, what evidence do we have that Shaw can’t again get us to 7 or 8 win seasons on a regular basis, something that he did three times in the four years after 2015 (when all of Harbaugh’s recruits had exhausted eligibility). I think we are looking at a couple of lean years, but I don’t think that book is closed after that. This year’s recruiting class is the deepest we’ve had in years, and suggests that Shaw has (belatedly) adapted. Literally no hope? Wow.
BC