The CardBoard
Listening to Shaw interview... - 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: Listening to Shaw interview... (/thread-12917.html)

Pages: 1 2

Listening to Shaw interview... - OutsiderFan - 10-22-2016

I like what he said. Still would like to see more creativity and offensive dynamism, but he really said a lot of good things.

One point on Mac and Love use.  He said they didn't game plan using both of them much this week because there wasn't certainty that Mac would play.  Makes some sense.

He said there will be changes and effectively called out Burns too.  Overall, he came off with exactly the kind of tone and message you want to hear.  So there's something to hang the hats on.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - martyup - 10-22-2016

Link?

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - 81alum - 10-22-2016

https://www.facebook.com/stanfordfootball/

You have to log in to Facebook.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - 81alum - 10-22-2016

Shaw looked to me as if he was suppressing a lot of emotion during this conference.  A controlled anger.

Praised McIntyre, praises Lance Anderson and the defense.  Says he is not going to talk specifically about the offense but that  "we have to score more than three points, it's as simple as that.  There are a lot of things we have to do better, and some things we need to look into this week....we are not going to talk about those here."  "There are a lot discussions we have to have as on offensive staff."  "Our personnel doesn't reflect our production....and that's on me, to get the most out of the personnel we have."  "When we don't get enough first downs then our players don't get enough opportunities" (mentioned Rector, Love, Irwin.)  "We need more production from the quarterback position, but we are not going to have that conversation here about who is going to start." 

Tom Fitzgerald asked about the alternating quarterbacks and said the team looked confused.  Shaw responded that the team wasn't confused, it just played badly.  Said that players need to play better or "we will put other players on the field." 

"I believe....I still believe....that we are capable of so much more."  Said they needed to stoke a fire....that players had brilliant moments, but that consistency and efficiency is needed.  He seemed to suggest that penalties and mistakes were the biggest problem. 

Holder has "the same injury as before" but Shaw wasn't sure how he was.  "We'll see how he is."

Question about injuries and the Offensive line.  Shaw said it wasn't an excuse, but they have had to reshuffle the line three times this year.  "Good question."  "If David Bright gets healthy there is going to be some competition to see who is going to start."

Asked about the empty seats and the booing, Shaw said "we have high expectations, our fans deserve better."

Without making a direct accusation, he suggested that CMac was held as he attempted to get open for a screen pass. 

Shaw said that last week's offensive practices were "outstanding" and it was "my frustration" that this does not materialize in the actual game.  "That's usually a sign of a young or inexperienced team."  We have to find a way to translate that to game day.  "That's on us" (the coaches).  "We have to find a way.  We put that on ourselves."

"I don't know if there is a better player playing on defense in America than Solomon Thomas."

Asked how was personally dealing with his most difficult stretch as a coach (a good question, given that Shaw looked to me like his blood pressure was soaring,) he said calmly "I can take it.  I can take it.  This is football.  Its a sport that I love, coaching kids that I love, at a place that I love, and a coaching staff...can't find a better group of guys....our record right now is not the worst thing that can happen to me.  I can handle this.  We can handle this.  We won't lose perspective.  We have opportunities ahead of us."

On the non PI call on Irwin, Shaw said "what I saw was a lot of contact with the ball in the air." 

finis



It's always darkest before the dawn - JohnR34231 - 10-23-2016

Hopefully this will morph into a season like 2014, where after a particularly dismal offensive performance (Utah then) the light goes on and we start winning.

As others have pointed out, there are no powerhouses on our remaining schedule. If we could somehow get it together offensively, the potential remains for a decent season.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - OutsiderFan - 10-23-2016

Arizona, Oregon, and Oregon State are the three worst teams in the Pac-12, Cal has an atrocious defense, and Rice should never be able to compete with Stanford.  So a 5 game win streak to end the season is conceivable.

But, to beat Arizona, Oregon, and Cal, you have to score points on their porous defenses.  They are probably worse than ND's, but Stanford only managed one TD on offense against the worst defense they have played all season.  That won't beat Arizona, Cal, or Oregon.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - winflop - 10-23-2016

1. Burns is Nunes all over again.  He's the best QB Tuesday through Friday but he's not getting the job done on Saturdays.  I don't care if Chryst or Costello isn't any better.  They have more years to develop.  I could see Burns transferring after the season.

2. Bloomgren needs to either go back to being a full-time OL coach or he needs to go.  I doubt he'd take the demotion, and frankly I'd prefer the latter at this point.

3. I hope Shaw has people on his short list to take over next year as DC.  Lance Anderson will be a head coach by January if not sooner.  The job he is doing with that defense this year is truly amazing.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - ChicagoCard - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 09:16 AM)winflop link Wrote:2. Bloomgren needs to either go back to being a full-time OL coach or he needs to go.  I doubt he'd take the demotion, and frankly I'd prefer the latter at this point.

I think ever since the late Harbaugh years there have always been multiple offensive coaches involved in the offense. At one point Bloomgren, also Roman?, were "run game coordinators". If some other offensive coach is brought in, they have to make room for that person, not necessarily by losing or pushing out Bloomgren.

Edit: I couldn't keep from Googling Jeff Tedford... Apparently he's currently an offensive consultant at UW. (I think their offensive coordinator is somebody Smith, former Oregon St QB.)

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - DC 86 - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 09:16 AM)winflop link Wrote:2. Bloomgren needs to either go back to being a full-time OL coach or he needs to go.  I doubt he'd take the demotion, and frankly I'd prefer the latter at this point.

This is the same Bloomgren who was the OC when Stanford scored 30+ in 13 consecutive games?

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - French Rage - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 06:34 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:But, to beat Arizona, Oregon, and ןɐɔ, you have to score points on their porous defenses.

This x 100.  I don't care how bad their Ds are, we still have to find some ways to score.  It would be one thing if we only were getting like 2 TDs a game and our D was porous enough that we needed 3; then playing a weak D may just be what we need.  But when it's a miracle that we get one TD a game, against what aren't exactly world-beating teams, that makes me wonder how bad the D needs to be for it to help us.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - 81alum - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 01:29 PM)French Rage link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=15966.msg176892#msg176892 date=1477229697]
But, to beat Arizona, Oregon, and ןɐɔ, you have to score points on their porous defenses.

This x 100.  I don't care how bad their Ds are, we still have to find some ways to score.  It would be one thing if we only were getting like 2 TDs a game and our D was porous enough that we needed 3; then playing a weak D may just be what we need.  But when it's a miracle that we get one TD a game, against what aren't exactly world-beating teams, that makes me wonder how bad the D needs to be for it to help us.
[/quote]
Reminds me of the Giants, you think you have to pitch a shutout just to have a decent chance of winning.  And then you might wind up in extra innings.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - gocard14 - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 12:42 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=15966.msg176897#msg176897 date=1477239395]

2. Bloomgren needs to either go back to being a full-time OL coach or he needs to go.  I doubt he'd take the demotion, and frankly I'd prefer the latter at this point.

This is the same Bloomgren who was the OC when Stanford scored 30+ in 13 consecutive games?
[/quote]

I don't know what to make of it, personally. Clearly Bloomgren has been the captain of an elite offense, but is currently presiding over an offense that ranks 106th in yards per play. We are actually above Oregon St. at 107, but decidedly worse then Bowling Green at 105. Clearly we are limited by our QB and line play this year. Maybe our expectations based on last year with an excellent O-line and experienced QB were unrealistic. But I have to think that the talent we have on offense, while maybe not top 10, is at least top 40, and we are horribly underperforming. Good coaches find a way to compensate for their teams weaknesses and play to their strengths. If our system is that boom or bust, we either need a new system or need better coaching.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - yvonne - 10-23-2016

The quarterback and line are the two most important positions on the offense. Until this year, we haven't had to deal with the loss of a quarterback coupled with the loss of most of the line. I thought the line would struggle, but be more of a last man up, coalescing at the end of the season, as it did in 2014. That year, however, we had an experienced, albeit preoccupied quarterback. Before that, we had the situation with Nunes and Nottingham, but the line was better. It may be that the line is less talented than in the past, or it may be that Bloomgren needs to spend more time with the OL, or both.

I think the quarterback situation is similar to the Nunes-Nottingham situation, but we don't have a Kevin Hogan waiting in the wings. That decision not to take a quarterback two years ago could be this season's undoing. I don't think throwing Costello, who has at most 6 months with the playbook, is the answer. See if Chryst can do better with more reps with the 1st team and hope for the best.



Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - washingtonismoney - 10-23-2016

The crazy thing is, the line from the first two games would be perfectly adequate and would at least make us feel good. I have no idea why that line disappeared.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - 81alum - 10-23-2016

(10-23-2016, 04:12 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The crazy thing is, the line from the first two games would be perfectly adequate and would at least make us feel good. I have no idea why that line disappeared.
I have not followed the injury situation, but in the presser Shaw said that "It was a brand new offensive line at the beginning of the year, basically, we had to change it after two games....we had to change it after three games because of injury, we had to change it again after five games....that's not an excuse, because we believe in all our guys, we coach them all.  With David Bright coming back hopefully next week we'll see...."

In other words, the line has been unsettled since game two due to injuries.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - stupac2 - 10-24-2016

(10-23-2016, 04:12 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The crazy thing is, the line from the first two games would be perfectly adequate and would at least make us feel good. I have no idea why that line disappeared.

This is what I meant when I said that Shaw's cagey injury policy makes our lives harder, it seemed obvious to me that something changed after USC, and injuries (both to McCaffrey on that punt return and the OL) were the most obvious culprits. But we don't really know, although it sounds like Shaw hinted that it's correct. I really do think that we're way, way more beat up this year than people know. If there were an NFL-style injury report I bet half the starters would be on it.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - Langdude - 10-24-2016

(10-23-2016, 04:12 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The crazy thing is, the line from the first two games would be perfectly adequate and would at least make us feel good. I have no idea why that line disappeared.

I think it is at least possible that, given two games of video that exposed this line's tendencies and weaknesses, teams played us differently after the first two games.

I agree that injuries contribute. No question. But I also think that elite teams have to overcome injuries all the time. I think our OL (+ QB) just are not that good.

-m.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - 81alum - 10-29-2016

Did anyone post the link for the Tuesday presser?  There is some interesting stuff there.  They seem to be doing all of them via Facebook these days.

https://www.facebook.com/stanfordfootball/videos/1237059969648738/

The fact that Bright is still "questionable" and that Johnny Caspers is "pretty banged up" and some names I have never heard before on the O-line are coming up, the O-line sounds as if it will be yet another unsettled  new combination of five.  It will make jumbo packages "very difficult." "We haven't had a completely healthy offensive line since game 1."

His discomfort over the QB switch was palpable.  He spoke supportively of all of Burns's accomplishments and said very little about Chryst.  Burns, however, will be backing up Chryst and there don't seem to be plans to bring him in in the same way that Chryst came in for a series or two.  Marx is "trending upwards" and there is hope he will be back before the end of the season, but it did not sound like a sure thing.

Trent Irwin and Zach Hoffpauir also appear.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - OutsiderFan - 10-29-2016

Man do I not understand.

Shaw laments not being able to get more guys involved because they need to get more first downs to get more guys involved.  Then he says Christian is always going to get more touches because we run the ball on first down, that's no secret.  Then he is asked about the lack of TE production and says they don't have any goals to get the TEs a certain amount of catches going into games.  But he also says Schultz is one of the best blocking and receiving TEs in the country, and we've all seen Taboada is a better receiving TE.

None of this makes any sense to me.  First of all, isn't it possible that more first downs aren't being made because "it's no secret" we run on first down?  And maybe getting the TEs involved early in drives might open up more possibilities to keep the defense off balance?  What would be wrong with saying "we want to get Mac 20 touches, Love 10 touches, the TEs a catch each in the first quarter, Rector 3 touches, Irwin 3 touches, and make sure to use Owusu and Stewart by the end of the 3rd quarter" when game planning?  Yes, the defense and game dynamics can make you do different things that initially planned, and just because someone is option #1 on a pass play doesn't mean they will be open and get the ball, but for the life of me I don't understand why you would enter a game without goals to get multiple guys involved, and make a concerted effort to spread the ball around.

Re: Listening to Shaw interview... - CowboyIndian - 10-29-2016

(10-29-2016, 06:16 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:....for the life of me I don't understand why you would enter a game without goals to get multiple guys involved, and make a concerted effort to spread the ball around.

Maybe he's not telling the truth at a press conference. Shocking,  I know.