Shaw at Sea Level - Printable Version

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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - slide - 09-08-2021

(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.

and we trailed the whole game. 37.9 seconds/play was a rush for Shaw. imagine how plodding it will be if not trailing.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Papa John - 09-08-2021

Talk about recency bias. Was the game before K-State, versus UCLA, plodding and unremarkable with respect to the offense? Really?

Stanford laid a brobdingnagian pile of poo last Saturday, but that doesn't mean the rest of the season will play out that way. At least let the team play a home game before you put a fork in them. Going back to last year, we are in the midst of a 7-game roadie--when's the last time that happened in college football?

As far as what's going to hold Stanford back from returning to the glory days, I'm more worried about the defense than the offense. But there are reinforcements on the horizon, which makes me optimistic for the future.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - teejers1 - 09-08-2021

(09-08-2021, 11:15 AM)Papa John Wrote: Talk about recency bias. Was the game before K-State, versus UCLA, plodding and unremarkable with respect to the offense? Really?

Stanford laid a of immense proportions pile of poo last Saturday, but that doesn't mean the rest of the season will play out that way.

I agree with your last sentence, especially the last phrase.

But Shaw implementing a plodding offense is anything but "recency bias." It's his whole gig. And it's enervating . . . and I submit killing the program. But I'm not saying anymore because CI will hound me for criminal assault on a long-dead horse.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - CowboyIndian - 09-08-2021

(09-08-2021, 11:25 AM)teejers1 Wrote: But I'm not saying anymore because CI will hound me for criminal assault on a long-dead horse.

Haha! Well, at least it's not sexual assault.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - fullmetal - 09-08-2021

As it turns out, most of my personal gripes about Shaw have been mostly hashed out here. The big one is his ability to hire a competent football staff. I wonder if Carberry left in part because he was tired of Pritchard calling the shots as the OC (also the line was walking wounded for several years).

Oh wait, why was the team as a whole afflicted with so many injuries? Was it because some intern trainer was elevated to head trainer in one offseason, coinciding with the departure of most of the rest of the training staff? This one's on Shaw too...(also I heard that a few years ago, the team training table + snack bar wasn't being staffed adequately...you figure Shaw would be on top of that too).

Let's assume Shaw terminated Turley "for cause" other than performance. Shaw has never terminated an assistant for performance, and might we guess that some of his staff take that for granted? A's hire A's, B's hire C's. If you're not willing to hire A's, then...

We can gripe about the failure to establish an offensive identity in camp. We can grip about the failure to identify the more talented QB in camp and dedicate all first-team practice reps to his development. We can even gripe about the scattershot, "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach to offensive playcalling adjustment.

But really, when it comes to fundamental execution of avoiding delays of game and not wasting timeouts, could we at least get that right? If we can't get that right, can we get anything right? (When it comes to communicating with QBs and game management.)

I'd like to never see another WR/RB screen pass behind the LOS until we run some vertical routes and at least threaten to take the top off. Scheme your way to WR separation if you don't have the speed. Any competent OC can draw up a play like that.

Looking at some of the highlights on Youtube...Sinclair shows up too late in a lot of plays. He's also lucky Imatorbhebhe couldn't make the grab in that one play where Imatorbhebhe had found a seam and beaten Sinclair downfield. Noah Williams whiffed a tackle on one of K-State's long TD runs. K-State held pretty effectively to create their holes. We'll see how Mangum-Ferrar does next week.

On third and two, Stanford lines up in I-formation with West under center. The give is to the RB and the play goes strongside except both the tackle and tight end whiff their blocks and get spun around. All three LBs (who have stacked the box) bite on the run and crash the playside for a TFL...meanwhile the one-high safety has nothing to do as both our WRs stuck around to block their guys. I mean...did West not have the option to go play action once he saw the LBs creeping up behind the DL? Also, maybe we're still running Duo, but I haven't seen enough to clearly tell, but even Duo will not work if you can't engage a man 1v1, much less win the block.

David Shaw doesn't call vertical WR routes much, and K-State apparently knows this and does not respect the passing attack. (Hence why most, if not all, of those lateral screen passes fail.) We might not have amazing speed, but we have to threaten. WRs love the chance to win jump balls, which isn't a terrible chance to take if you have decent accuracy/ball placement.

This game looked like Stanford was still in spring ball mode. Team didn't look prepared to win this game. Even special teams missed a chance to down a punt inside the 5 and instead gave up the touchback. (Also gave up a couple big returns too.)

It's only game one, but the team is who they are. They played like who they are. And the coaches coached like who they are.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - BostonCard - 09-08-2021

Shaw didn't terminate Turley. Turley worked for the department of athletics and was terminated by the University, not Shaw. Per a Stanford Daily article, the football team was not consulted about his administrative leave.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/04/17/stanford-fires-award-winning-sports-performance-director/

Quote:“It was 100 percent the University’s decision” and not that of the football team, several anonymous football players told The Daily after head football coach David Shaw informed the team of Turley’s leave in February.

As for the why...

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/Article/Stanford-Relieves-Turley-Of-Duties-131236316/

Quote:Multiple sources told The Bootleg that those actions were the result of a player stepping forward with complaints about Turley.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - fullmetal - 09-09-2021

That is indeed an important nuance, thanks. Sigh. Well, then Shaw has never terminated any of his assistants for any reason.

Sometimes victory carries a price, and maybe we're just paying that price for the Greatest Upset Ever.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - gailtate - 09-09-2021

(09-07-2021, 03:19 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:
(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).
You are aware that Michigan went 2-4 last year and has lost its most recent bowl games four consecutive times in a row?

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?

I was talking about Harbaugh's recruits and staff at the time, not generally speaking. Something I still long for. The drop-off in talent between then and now has been more than evident for both programs (UM and Stanford). BTW, insofar as winning/recruiting consistently? Perhaps taking a cue or two from Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma or (horrors) Oregon or Notre Dame or Ohio State -- as déclassé and unpalatable as this may seem for many Stanfordites -- might prove useful?

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - BostonCard - 09-09-2021

(09-09-2021, 01:55 PM)gailtate Wrote: I was talking about Harbaugh's recruits and staff at the time, not generally speaking. Something I still long for. The drop-off in talent between then and now has been more than evident for both programs (UM and Stanford). BTW, insofar as winning/recruiting consistently? Perhaps taking a cue or two from Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma or (horrors) Oregon or Notre Dame or Ohio State -- as déclassé and unpalatable as this may seem for many Stanfordites -- might prove useful?

You do realize that Notre Dame was 4-8 in 2016 and Oregon was 4-3 last year, 7-6 in 2016, 4-8 in 2015, and thus they have as many losing seasons in the last decade as Stanford does.

I think it is great to strive to be as good as Alabama, but bear in mind that everyone is striving to be as good consistently as Alabama, and it is by definition a zero-sum game.

BC

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - teejers1 - 09-09-2021

(09-09-2021, 02:30 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-09-2021, 01:55 PM)gailtate Wrote: I was talking about Harbaugh's recruits and staff at the time, not generally speaking. Something I still long for. The drop-off in talent between then and now has been more than evident for both programs (UM and Stanford). BTW, insofar as winning/recruiting consistently? Perhaps taking a cue or two from Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma or (horrors) Oregon or Notre Dame or Ohio State -- as déclassé and unpalatable as this may seem for many Stanfordites -- might prove useful?

You do realize that Notre Dame was 4-8 in 2016 and Oregon was 4-3 last year, 7-6 in 2016, 4-8 in 2015, and thus they have as many losing seasons in the last decade as Stanford does.

I think it is great to strive to be as good as Alabama, but bear in mind that everyone is striving to be as good consistently as Alabama, and it is by definition a zero-sum game.

BC

You do realize that Notre Dame and Stanford are two programs directionally diverging, don't you?
Or do you still cling to the quaint notion that Shaw is as good a coach at recruiting and installing an O and a D and special teams as is Kelly?

I know, I know, but Kelly is a dick who once yelled at his players with a purple face and completely gagged on a post-game attempt at humor re: executing his players. All that is true. And unfortunately (and painfully), Stanford is ND's beotch right now when it comes to football.

I preferred it when we were their superior . . . or at least their equal.

As for Oregon, they are recruiting like mad. I'm just hoping their HC is a "total is less than sum of the parts" guy. But even that may not be enough.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - BostonCard - 09-09-2021

(09-09-2021, 03:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote: You do realize that Notre Dame and Stanford are two programs directionally diverging, don't you?

The OP was making a point about consistency, not trajectory.

BC

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - teejers1 - 09-09-2021

(09-09-2021, 03:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-09-2021, 03:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote: You do realize that Notre Dame and Stanford are two programs directionally diverging, don't you?

The OP was making a point about consistency, not trajectory.

BC

So is your position that Stanford is consistently better than ND in football? Certainly not in the last 5 years. So you must be using Shaw's 11 years, including the early ones with the Ferrari. Guess I'd point to "sea level" contention. But whatever, it's hard to argue that Stanford is even in the same area code as ND when it comes to football now, which is mainly what is concerning.

Oregon is a tougher call, but not through any consistent greatness (or even goodness) on Stanford's part.

But hey, maybe Stanford starts on the road back to being really good this Saturday . . .

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Phogge - 09-09-2021

BC, you get high marks for putting "Alabama" and "bear" in the same sentence.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - gailtate - 09-09-2021

(09-09-2021, 03:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-09-2021, 03:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote: You do realize that Notre Dame and Stanford are two programs directionally diverging, don't you?

The OP was making a point about consistency, not trajectory.

BC

You keep splitting hairs this way you'll look like Shaw, Kojak and Charles Barkley in no time.

Let' face this. Stanford could do a whole lot worse than to try to emulate the overall consistency AND trends of the programs I cited. Those are the "blue-blood" programs that are, far more often that not, in the hunt for big post-seasons, year in and year out. Your cherry-picking of specific seasons underscores my overall point: Shaw is arrow-down; those other outfits are smack in the thick of yet another trophy chase, per usual. Anybody's guess what the picture will look like at holiday time but I wouldn't bet the farm (so speak) on Shaw raising much of a trophy on the sideline. The Axe, maybe. And for a lot CardBoard devotees, that's really all that ever matters.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - BostonCard - 09-09-2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_win-loss_records_in_the_2010s
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/football/notre-dame-college-football-top-programs-last-decade

Over the course of the 2010's, Stanford was 10th in the NCAA in winning percentage, better than Notre Dame (because they had wins vacated, and I trust that you don't want Shaw to cheat to get to their level of success). Are there programs that are better? Yes, absolutely, and would I rather the winning consistency of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Oklahoma? Sure (provided we don't sell our soul to get there). But there are 121 other BCS teams, including 10 other Pac-12 teams, that would have readily traded in their (comparatively) mediocre records for Stanford's over the last decade. In the 2010's, Stanford had more top-10 finishes and more 10+ win seasons than Notre Dame, and owns a 6-4 record against the Domers. It had as many 10 win seasons as Oregon. And there is a veritable who's who of "blue-blood programs" (Penn State, Florida, USC, Washington, Texas, Florida State and yes, Michigan) that had a lower winning percentage, fewer 10+ win seasons, and fewer top-10 finishes than Stanford. And all of this was accomplished at Stanford, with all our recruiting limitations and academic requirements.

Listen, going forward, I agree with you guys that we are heading for a rough patch. I doubt the next 10 years will be as good as last 10, and the next five will probably not be as good as the last five (we did, after all, go to three bowl games and won the Pac-12 North once). I am not, however, convinced that the program is in terminal decline, and while I doubt we will be the 10th best program of the 2020's, I don't think that we are headed for a decade of 4-8 teams, or that the 2015 to 2019 trajectory will continue in a straight line until we again have a 1-15 team.

You want to say that the future is not as bright as the past? Fine. But let's not make a single 4-8 season negate a pretty darned good decade for Stanford football.

BC

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Phogge - 09-09-2021

Gailtate, bald is beautiful. Really easy to take care of.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - teejers1 - 09-09-2021

(09-09-2021, 05:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_win-loss_records_in_the_2010s
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/football/notre-dame-college-football-top-programs-last-decade

Over the course of the 2010's, Stanford was 10th in the NCAA in winning percentage, better than Notre Dame (because they had wins vacated, and I trust that you don't want Shaw to cheat to get to their level of success). Are there programs that are better? Yes, absolutely, and would I rather the winning consistency of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Oklahoma? Sure (provided we don't sell our soul to get there). But there are 121 other BCS teams, including 10 other Pac-12 teams, that would have readily traded in their (comparatively) mediocre records for Stanford's over the last decade. In the 2010's, Stanford had more top-10 finishes and more 10+ win seasons than Notre Dame, and owns a 6-4 record against the Domers. It had as many 10 win seasons as Oregon. And there is a veritable who's who of "blue-blood programs" (Penn State, Florida, USC, Washington, Texas, Florida State and yes, Michigan) that had a lower winning percentage, fewer 10+ win seasons, and fewer top-10 finishes than Stanford. And all of this was accomplished at Stanford, with all our recruiting limitations and academic requirements.

Listen, going forward, I agree with you guys that we are heading for a rough patch. I doubt the next 10 years will be as good as last 10, and the next five will probably not be as good as the last five (we did, after all, go to three bowl games and won the Pac-12 North once). I am not, however, convinced that the program is in terminal decline, and while I doubt we will be the 10th best program of the 2020's, I don't think that we are headed for a decade of 4-8 teams, or that the 2015 to 2019 trajectory will continue in a straight line until we again have a 1-15 team.

You want to say that the future is not as bright as the past? Fine. But let's not make a single 4-8 season negate a pretty darned good decade for Stanford football.

BC

Yep. As suspected, you're clinging to the Ferrari.

But at this point, I'm just hoping to have fun watching Stanford football. I know I'm getting cranky in my old age, but when is the last time you left a Stanford game and said to yourself: Boy, that was fun! I'm sure there must have been a time or two since the Iowa Rose Bowl, but I gotta tell you, that's the only one in last 6 years that comes immediately to mind.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - norcard - 09-09-2021

(09-09-2021, 10:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(09-09-2021, 05:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_win-loss_records_in_the_2010s
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/football/notre-dame-college-football-top-programs-last-decade

Over the course of the 2010's, Stanford was 10th in the NCAA in winning percentage, better than Notre Dame (because they had wins vacated, and I trust that you don't want Shaw to cheat to get to their level of success). Are there programs that are better? Yes, absolutely, and would I rather the winning consistency of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Oklahoma? Sure (provided we don't sell our soul to get there). But there are 121 other BCS teams, including 10 other Pac-12 teams, that would have readily traded in their (comparatively) mediocre records for Stanford's over the last decade. In the 2010's, Stanford had more top-10 finishes and more 10+ win seasons than Notre Dame, and owns a 6-4 record against the Domers. It had as many 10 win seasons as Oregon. And there is a veritable who's who of "blue-blood programs" (Penn State, Florida, USC, Washington, Texas, Florida State and yes, Michigan) that had a lower winning percentage, fewer 10+ win seasons, and fewer top-10 finishes than Stanford. And all of this was accomplished at Stanford, with all our recruiting limitations and academic requirements.

Listen, going forward, I agree with you guys that we are heading for a rough patch. I doubt the next 10 years will be as good as last 10, and the next five will probably not be as good as the last five (we did, after all, go to three bowl games and won the Pac-12 North once). I am not, however, convinced that the program is in terminal decline, and while I doubt we will be the 10th best program of the 2020's, I don't think that we are headed for a decade of 4-8 teams, or that the 2015 to 2019 trajectory will continue in a straight line until we again have a 1-15 team.

You want to say that the future is not as bright as the past? Fine. But let's not make a single 4-8 season negate a pretty darned good decade for Stanford football.

BC

Yep. As suspected, you're clinging to the Ferrari.

But at this point, I'm just hoping to have fun watching Stanford football. I know I'm getting cranky in my old age, but when is the last time you left a Stanford game and said to yourself: Boy, that was fun! I'm sure there must have been a time or two since the Iowa Rose Bowl, but I gotta tell you, that's the only one in last 6 years that comes immediately to mind.

Udub last year 12/5/20.

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - Madera86 - 09-09-2021

(09-07-2021, 11:22 AM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:
(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.

(Beneath side-by-side photos of the wives of Rick Neuheisel and Lane Kiffen)
"Lane Kiffen, bro'. He closes the deal. "

RE: Shaw at Sea Level - CardinalSagehen - 09-10-2021

(09-09-2021, 11:19 PM)norcard Wrote:
(09-09-2021, 10:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Yep. As suspected, you're clinging to the Ferrari.

But at this point, I'm just hoping to have fun watching Stanford football. I know I'm getting cranky in my old age, but when is the last time you left a Stanford game and said to yourself: Boy, that was fun! I'm sure there must have been a time or two since the Iowa Rose Bowl, but I gotta tell you, that's the only one in last 6 years that comes immediately to mind.

Udub last year 12/5/20.

And @UCLA. Were you not entertained by this one, our second-to-last game, a 48-47 2OT win?

https://www.espn.com/college-football/matchup?gameId=401269376

I was not just entertained, but exhilarated. Davis Mills had 428 passing yards and 9.1 yards per pass. The team was 9 for 15 on 3rd down. Clutch, come-from-behind performances. A defensive stop at the end on the goal line.

If your only idea of fun at a football game is total domination, it might be hard to please you. I believe Stanford will continue to do well in most years with what it has. But depending on what we see on Saturday, this season may not be for the faint of heart…