The CardBoard
14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - 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: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching (/thread-6516.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - socalstanfan1 - 01-05-2014

(01-05-2014, 03:14 PM)StanFan88 link Wrote:I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have.  But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same.  That's 10-4 coaching.

So, what you seem to be saying is the part of the coaching at which, by your own words, Shaw and his staff excel, recruiting and development of players, doesn't factor into the overall evaluation of their job as coaching. So let's take away the "fantastic job" of recruiting and development. Let's say the coaches are just average in both areas. This is all hypothetical, of course, but I'm guessing we never get to the PAC-12 Championship game, since an average team with average player development never beats Oregon, and probably doesn't beat Washington or UCLA. So exactly how good would we be if you disproportionately weigh the in-game play calling while essentially, despite your nod in your response to the excellent job of recruiting and development? Are we 6-6 and on the bubble for marginal bowls?



I'm not against criticizing play calls made by Shaw and his staff. But I think the overall evaluation of the coaches should include a not more than just a response to one aspect of what a coach does.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - 81alum - 01-05-2014

No coach is perfect in all dimensions of coaching, just as no player is perfect in all dimensions of play.  The best coaches know what they excel at and choose excellent assistants to fill in where they are weaker.  Shaw in my mind, could be nearly perfect as a Stanford head coach if he chose an excellent offensive coordinator and left the playcalling to him.  I get the sense that Bloomgren is somewhat inconsistent at putting together good offensive gameplans--sometimes his plans work very well, and other times they don't--and it is not just for lack of execution.  In my opinion, the offensive coordinator needs to improve.  And he may. 

On the other hand, I do not know how much Shaw works on those gameplans and who is ultimately the greater influence on them.  Or on playcalling for that matter.

For what it's worth, Bloomgren has been an offensive coordinator for a couple of small colleges and an assistant offensive coordinator for the Jets before coming here and working his way up to become our offensive coordinator.


Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - 81alum - 01-05-2014

No coach is perfect in all dimensions of coaching, just as no player is perfect in all dimensions of play.  The best coaches know what they excel at and choose excellent assistants to fill in where they are weaker.  Shaw in my mind, could be nearly perfect as a Stanford head coach if he chose an excellent offensive coordinator and left the playcalling to him.  I get the sense that Bloomgren is somewhat inconsistent at putting together good offensive gameplans--sometimes his plans work very well, and other times they don't--and it is not just for lack of execution.  In my opinion, the offensive coordinator needs to improve.  And he may. 

On the other hand, I do not know how much Shaw works on those gameplans and who is ultimately the greater influence on them.  Or on playcalling for that matter.

For what it's worth, Bloomgren has been an offensive coordinator for a couple of small colleges and an assistant offensive coordinator for the Jets before coming here and working his way up to become our offensive coordinator.


Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - BostonCard - 01-05-2014

(01-05-2014, 03:14 PM)StanFan88 link Wrote:[quote author=socalstanfan1 link=topic=9313.msg80726#msg80726 date=1388850521]
I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting.  The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.

I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have.  But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same.  That's 10-4 coaching.
[/quote]

It is also possible that the coaching/playcalling was responsible for at least some of those 11 wins too.  Let us not underestimate the degree of the transformation that went on from last year to this year.
First off, any evaluation of the coaching/playcalling has to acknowledge that we graduated our career rushing leader, responsible for 1530 yards last year, and yet we gained more almost 500 yards more rushing this year (2904) than last year (2440).  While Gaffney's return from baseball was an unexpected bonus, let's keep in mind that in three years prior to 2013, Gaffney had 788 career yards.  He had 1717 yards this year (a meer 160 yards less than Toby Gerhart's Stanford record).  If Harbaugh and the TWU get credit for their coaching back then, surely Shaw and this year's OL can get some credit for helping Gaffney put this year together.  That Gaffney did it in his first year as a starter was brobdingnagian.  I thought he'd have a decent chance at breaking 1000 yards.  I never expected him to break 1500.
Second, any evaluation of the coaching/playcalling has to acknowledge that our top 5 receivers from last year graduated, including both our top tight ends (both now in the NFL), and our top two wide receivers (Terrell and Patterson).  Now, to be fair, last year was a down year for Montgomery, and he battled injury throughout the year and missed three games entirely.  But even granting him the status as a "proven" receiver, that gave us ONE proven receiver returning.  Whitfield had 2 receptions, Cajuste and Pratt each had 1.  Rector was redshirting.  Montgomery went from 35 catches for 466 career yards in two years to second team all Pac-12 with 61 catches for 958 yards.  The other guys, who had 4 catches between them last year were responsible for 70 catches, good for 1391 yards.  Any evaluation of our coaching/playcalling has to start with the acknowledgement that we had virtually no receiving experience beyond Montgomery.
Third, any evaluation of the coaching/playcalling has to note that our starting QB had essentially 5 and a half games of experience.
Put together, you have a new starting RB, a completely overhauled receiving corps, and a newish QB, and I have to say that as a whole, the coaches acquitted themselves quite well on offense.
Finally, any evaluation of the coaches' adaptability to the players we have has to note that we went from an offense where wide receivers were responsible for 36% of the catches and 37% of the receiving yardage to an offense where wide receivers accounted for 60% of the catches and 89% of the receiving yardage.  Production from tight ends dropped from 39% to 4% of catches and 46% to 2% of receiving yardage.  We have a totally different looking passing offense this year.  The coaches are more adaptive to the personnel they have than they have been given credit for.

BC

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - BostonCard - 01-05-2014

(01-05-2014, 03:14 PM)StanFan88 link Wrote:[quote author=socalstanfan1 link=topic=9313.msg80726#msg80726 date=1388850521]
I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting.  The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.

I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have.  But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same.  That's 10-4 coaching.
[/quote]

It is also possible that the coaching/playcalling was responsible for at least some of those 11 wins too.  Let us not underestimate the degree of the transformation that went on from last year to this year.
First off, any evaluation of the coaching/playcalling has to acknowledge that we graduated our career rushing leader, responsible for 1530 yards last year, and yet we gained more almost 500 yards more rushing this year (2904) than last year (2440).  While Gaffney's return from baseball was an unexpected bonus, let's keep in mind that in three years prior to 2013, Gaffney had 788 career yards.  He had 1717 yards this year (a meer 160 yards less than Toby Gerhart's Stanford record).  If Harbaugh and the TWU get credit for their coaching back then, surely Shaw and this year's OL can get some credit for helping Gaffney put this year together.  That Gaffney did it in his first year as a starter was brobdingnagian.  I thought he'd have a decent chance at breaking 1000 yards.  I never expected him to break 1500.
Second, any evaluation of the coaching/playcalling has to acknowledge that our top 5 receivers from last year graduated, including both our top tight ends (both now in the NFL), and our top two wide receivers (Terrell and Patterson).  Now, to be fair, last year was a down year for Montgomery, and he battled injury throughout the year and missed three games entirely.  But even granting him the status as a "proven" receiver, that gave us ONE proven receiver returning.  Whitfield had 2 receptions, Cajuste and Pratt each had 1.  Rector was redshirting.  Montgomery went from 35 catches for 466 career yards in two years to second team all Pac-12 with 61 catches for 958 yards.  The other guys, who had 4 catches between them last year were responsible for 70 catches, good for 1391 yards.  Any evaluation of our coaching/playcalling has to start with the acknowledgement that we had virtually no receiving experience beyond Montgomery.
Third, any evaluation of the coaching/playcalling has to note that our starting QB had essentially 5 and a half games of experience.
Put together, you have a new starting RB, a completely overhauled receiving corps, and a newish QB, and I have to say that as a whole, the coaches acquitted themselves quite well on offense.
Finally, any evaluation of the coaches' adaptability to the players we have has to note that we went from an offense where wide receivers were responsible for 36% of the catches and 37% of the receiving yardage to an offense where wide receivers accounted for 60% of the catches and 89% of the receiving yardage.  Production from tight ends dropped from 39% to 4% of catches and 46% to 2% of receiving yardage.  We have a totally different looking passing offense this year.  The coaches are more adaptive to the personnel they have than they have been given credit for.

BC

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Papa John - 01-06-2014

I wonder what would we would have thought of Shaw's playcalling this year if Levine Toilolo had returned to the Farm for one more year (and stayed healthy).

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Papa John - 01-06-2014

I wonder what would we would have thought of Shaw's playcalling this year if Levine Toilolo had returned to the Farm for one more year (and stayed healthy).

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - martyup - 01-07-2014

(01-06-2014, 12:13 AM)Papa John link Wrote:I wonder what would we would have thought of Shaw's playcalling this year if Levine Toilolo had returned to the Farm for one more year (and stayed healthy).

I thought it was a big mistake for him to go to the NFL last year. IMO he wasn't quite ready for the NFL.  He sure would have made a big difference for our offense this year.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - martyup - 01-07-2014

(01-06-2014, 12:13 AM)Papa John link Wrote:I wonder what would we would have thought of Shaw's playcalling this year if Levine Toilolo had returned to the Farm for one more year (and stayed healthy).

I thought it was a big mistake for him to go to the NFL last year. IMO he wasn't quite ready for the NFL.  He sure would have made a big difference for our offense this year.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Velodoc - 01-08-2014

While criticism of Stanford play calling may be justified, keep in mind that David Shaw is a young, relatively inexperienced head coach.  Like any professional, expertise arrives after countless hours of practical experience.  In most professions, such early-career decisions are not subject to the criticism of a national audience.  But poor decisions inevitably occur in law, medicine, business, etc.

What can't be "practiced" is integrity, intelligence and affability, traits that make Shaw an effective recruiter and overall program architect.  And these traits give him the ability to hone his expertise.  Coach Shaw's in-game decision making/adjustments will optimize with time and, hopefully, he will still be at Stanford when this inevitably occurs.

I think we are seeing the growth of a great college coach.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Velodoc - 01-08-2014

While criticism of Stanford play calling may be justified, keep in mind that David Shaw is a young, relatively inexperienced head coach.  Like any professional, expertise arrives after countless hours of practical experience.  In most professions, such early-career decisions are not subject to the criticism of a national audience.  But poor decisions inevitably occur in law, medicine, business, etc.

What can't be "practiced" is integrity, intelligence and affability, traits that make Shaw an effective recruiter and overall program architect.  And these traits give him the ability to hone his expertise.  Coach Shaw's in-game decision making/adjustments will optimize with time and, hopefully, he will still be at Stanford when this inevitably occurs.

I think we are seeing the growth of a great college coach.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Stymie - 01-08-2014

Good points and a good storehouse of hope, Velodoc.

That beiong said, Chaucer nailed it, when he said of  the Clerke of Oxenford, of all the pilgrims and hangers on at Canterbury ,"Gladly would he learn, and gladly teach."

The current coaching staff at Stanford seems to be greatly focused on teaching but not so greatly focused on learning, and the latter thing is the most important part of their job, IMO.

Stymie

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Stymie - 01-08-2014

Good points and a good storehouse of hope, Velodoc.

That beiong said, Chaucer nailed it, when he said of  the Clerke of Oxenford, of all the pilgrims and hangers on at Canterbury ,"Gladly would he learn, and gladly teach."

The current coaching staff at Stanford seems to be greatly focused on teaching but not so greatly focused on learning, and the latter thing is the most important part of their job, IMO.

Stymie

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Mick - 01-08-2014

(01-07-2014, 09:20 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=Papa John link=topic=9313.msg80894#msg80894 date=1388992438]
I wonder what would we would have thought of Shaw's playcalling this year if Levine Toilolo had returned to the Farm for one more year (and stayed healthy).

I thought it was a big mistake for him to go to the NFL last year. IMO he wasn't quite ready for the NFL.  He sure would have made a big difference for our offense this year.
[/quote]

Totally agree.  I thought he was nowhere near ready.  I thought he was improving, but definitely needed to continue improving in every phase of the game; hands, speed, routes, blocking, footwork, game knowledge, technique, strength, etc.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Mick - 01-08-2014

(01-07-2014, 09:20 PM)martyup link Wrote:[quote author=Papa John link=topic=9313.msg80894#msg80894 date=1388992438]
I wonder what would we would have thought of Shaw's playcalling this year if Levine Toilolo had returned to the Farm for one more year (and stayed healthy).

I thought it was a big mistake for him to go to the NFL last year. IMO he wasn't quite ready for the NFL.  He sure would have made a big difference for our offense this year.
[/quote]

Totally agree.  I thought he was nowhere near ready.  I thought he was improving, but definitely needed to continue improving in every phase of the game; hands, speed, routes, blocking, footwork, game knowledge, technique, strength, etc.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - rollwrig - 01-08-2014

(01-08-2014, 08:40 AM)Velodoc link Wrote:While criticism of Stanford play calling may be justified, keep in mind that David Shaw is a young, relatively inexperienced head coach.  Like any professional, expertise arrives after countless hours of practical experience.  In most professions, such early-career decisions are not subject to the criticism of a national audience.  But poor decisions inevitably occur in law, medicine, business, etc.

What can't be "practiced" is integrity, intelligence and affability, traits that make Shaw an effective recruiter and overall program architect.  And these traits give him the ability to hone his expertise.  Coach Shaw's in-game decision making/adjustments will optimize with time and, hopefully, he will still be at Stanford when this inevitably occurs.

I think we are seeing the growth of a great college coach.

I had to post what a quality comment I thought this was. The other good thing about this post, is that since this is my 5th post, I can now give you some "respect" points for it.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - rollwrig - 01-08-2014

(01-08-2014, 08:40 AM)Velodoc link Wrote:While criticism of Stanford play calling may be justified, keep in mind that David Shaw is a young, relatively inexperienced head coach.  Like any professional, expertise arrives after countless hours of practical experience.  In most professions, such early-career decisions are not subject to the criticism of a national audience.  But poor decisions inevitably occur in law, medicine, business, etc.

What can't be "practiced" is integrity, intelligence and affability, traits that make Shaw an effective recruiter and overall program architect.  And these traits give him the ability to hone his expertise.  Coach Shaw's in-game decision making/adjustments will optimize with time and, hopefully, he will still be at Stanford when this inevitably occurs.

I think we are seeing the growth of a great college coach.

I had to post what a quality comment I thought this was. The other good thing about this post, is that since this is my 5th post, I can now give you some "respect" points for it.