Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - 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 fingerprints---List the positives (/thread-14718.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 fingerprints---List the positives (/thread-14718.html)
Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - PAsportsfan - 10-29-2017
With the amazing all time win record about to be eclipsed by coach Shaw and all the bashing taking place since last Thursday, now would be
a good time to praise Shaw. How has he amassed all these wins, P12 Championships and Rose Bowls?Â
During Harbaugh regime Stanford football was turned upside down and inside out for the better.
How has Shaw done it? Is it offense or defense scheme, recruiting, list his positive fingerprints on his accomplishments?
I'll start
1. Represents the University extremely well.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - BobK - 10-29-2017
Averaging 10 wins a season and season not over
16-5 last two seasons with brobdingnagian QB problems. Yes that's a plus and minus
Bowl game every year. First time ever
3 Rose Bowls.Â
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - cardcrimson - 10-29-2017
Clearly, it's his arch pattern. Truly unique, even among arches that are found in only 5% of the population. Much more special than the more mundane whorls and loops.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - TreesAndBirds - 10-29-2017
Recruits the type of player that reflects well on our university on and off the field. As far as "on the field", I'm referring to sportsmanship.....the won/loss speaks for itself.
That said, I suspect it's more than merely recruiting them, I assume it's also mentoring them once they're here.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - 81alum - 10-29-2017
I think Shaw has dramatically improved our recruiting because of his own personal example; an African-American alum of Stanford football who clearly values academics, discipline, and character. Parents and students trust him to do what is right and to provide the environment of professionalism and growth and excellence that they want during their 4-5 years. We have had other alums coach our team, we have had great football minds, we have had men of character, but never have we had one coach who brought so much from all these dimensions together.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - Hulk01 - 10-29-2017
1. Really impressive players and young men that Shaw and his staff have attracted. We should hire Justin Reid as a full-time ambassador and Chief of Recruiting, as a favorite example, although that would work best following his successful NFL career.
2. He's an excellent teacher, the first requirement for being an excellent coach. (Whether he is excellent in the role of offensive coordinator is a different question and a role with some different requirements.)
3. He's attracted, especially recently, excellent assistants.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - hayaka - 10-29-2017
It is hard to say from the outside, but it certainly seems to be the case that the players like and respect him, and want to play hard for him.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - CompSci87 - 10-29-2017
A smaller point: Respected by the media as a commentator around NFL draft time, which gets good exposure and has to help recruiting.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - CardinalSagehen - 10-29-2017
Ahem...
He's maniacally even-keeled, almost to the point of stubbornness. He sticks to his guns. His players know that he's not rash, impulsive or panicky when an individual (such as the QB) or the team is playing badly.Â
Unlike many PAC-12 coaches that we've beaten (e.g., Leach in 2015), he manages the clock and possession well when we have a lead in the 2nd half, and almost never gives away games due to hubris or impulsivity.Â
I intend no sarcasm here, although many would say that I've just cited some of his biggest weaknesses. I appreciate all of these things about Shaw.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - TreesAndBirds - 10-29-2017
I appreciate that Shaw isnt using Stanford as a stepping stone to something else (although of course eventually he may try something else, and $5M/year buys a lot of patience).
Consider also that Shaw was a Harbaugh guy. On the surface they arent an obvious match. But he learned the right things to learn and didnt pick up some of the more problematic idiosyncracies.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - stupac2 - 10-29-2017
(10-29-2017, 02:18 PM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:Consider also that Shaw was a Harbaugh guy.
This is interesting to me because didn't Shaw only go to USD with Harbaugh on a lark? IIRC he wasn't planning on staying at the collegiate level until Harbaugh got the Stanford job and Shaw went with him. Being on Harbaugh's staff for 5 years obviously makes him part of that tree to some extent, but he actually has been a coach longer than Harbaugh and based on the way he talks I think he'd consider himself a Gruden disciple.
Also, I hadn't heard this before, but looking at their wikipedia pages it appears that Harbaugh replaced Shaw as the QB coach of the Raiders. Shaw held that position in 2001, Harbaugh in 2002 (it was his first coaching job).
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - BostonCard - 10-29-2017
Hes a winner.
BC
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - phxfan - 10-29-2017
(10-29-2017, 02:55 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=17830.msg209149#msg209149 date=1509311893]Consider also that Shaw was a Harbaugh guy.
This is interesting to me because didn't Shaw only go to USD with Harbaugh on a lark? IIRC he wasn't planning on staying at the collegiate level until Harbaugh got the Stanford job and Shaw went with him. Being on Harbaugh's staff for 5 years obviously makes him part of that tree to some extent, but he actually has been a coach longer than Harbaugh and based on the way he talks I think he'd consider himself a Gruden disciple.
Also, I hadn't heard this before, but looking at their wikipedia pages it appears that Harbaugh replaced Shaw as the QB coach of the Raiders. Shaw held that position in 2001, Harbaugh in 2002 (it was his first coaching job).
[/quote]
In all fairness Harbaugh was a coach in an unofficial capacity for his father for multiple years before his first paying gig.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - phxfan - 10-29-2017
It's amusing to me that after a Shaw steaming turd game, which are sure to come at least twice a year like death and taxes, his backers go into overdrive to stamp out any dissent against his sainthood. They cite the overwhelming nature of his "bashers" when all along they are ones burning up the message board attempting to convince us all that we didn't witness what our eyes most certainly did.
Those who cite win totals and bowl game appearances as the sole measure of coaching quality intentionally obscure the facts. Teams play more games than ever now and there are far more bowl games than at any time before. Ralston, Walsh, Green and Harbaugh were all lured to the NFL and therefore had no opportunity to challenge Warner's all-time record. Maybe he's stayed at Stanford due to loyalty which ought to be applauded or maybe there's a mutual understanding between Shaw and the NFL that he simply doesn't have the Xs and Os to succeed at the that level.
At no point have I ever called for Shaw's ouster. What I have advocated for was the replacement of some of his offensive assistants and his relinquishment of play calling authority. His stubbornness in this regard have been the subject of much speculation over the years. Some of the more astute observers have cited his reticence to hand over the reigns to offensive minds superior to his own.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - BostonCard - 10-29-2017
While you are correct that Shaw has played more games than most of his predecessors and thus has a greater opportunity to rack up wins, his career winning percentage is .790 which is higher than Willingham (.549), Denny Green (.471), Bill Walsh (.585), John Ralston (.601), Chuck Taylor (.577), and even Pop Warner (.781). So it is not that he has played more games than all of them, its that he has a higher winning percentage than each.
Yes, there has been a proliferation of Bowl games recently, but that doesnt change the fact that Shaw has gone to three Rose Bowls in six years, and he has done so in the PAC-12 era, when going to the Rose Bowl is harder because of the greater competition. Moreover, his record in non-Rose bowl years was high enough that he would have been bowl eligible any time since Ive been following Stanford football (since the early 90s), though not as far back as the Years when it was Rose Bowl or nothing.
I have consistently acknoweldged that we played like crap on Thursday. I dont think that is under dispute by anyone. What I have tried to push back against is the argument that one or two bad games a year tells us much about David Shaw, when compared to the totality of his head coaching career.
BC
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - dabigv13 - 10-29-2017
If we win a NC some day, there will still be Stanford fans bitching about some Shaw flaw. Sure of that.
And btw, this is hilarious-
"mutual understanding between Shaw and the NFL that he simply doesn't have the Xs and Os to succeed at the that level."
Seriously?!?
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - gocard14 - 10-29-2017
(10-29-2017, 04:01 PM)dabigv link Wrote:If we win a NC some day, there will still be Stanford fans bitching about some Shaw flaw. Sure of that.
And btw, this is hilarious-
"mutual understanding between Shaw and the NFL that he simply doesn't have the Xs and Os to succeed at the that level."
Seriously?!?
Yeah that line made zero sense. It is a well known fact that Shaw has turned down a lot of interest (offers?) from various NFL head coaching gigs.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - norcard - 10-29-2017
1. Recruiting - cant get better Oline recruiting than Shaw has done along with multiple top QB recruits vs Harbaugh with Nottingham and Crower (outside of luck)
2. Great defensive assistants and retention - Shaw spearheaded the Coaches housing developments along el Camino I believe. Few of our assistants leave save for head coaching positions. Akina was an amazing hire. Ability to retain Lance Anderson.
3. Hes in the top 1% of coaches in my mind and a great fit for stanford. Just not sure if hes in that .1% or less that will win a national championship. Peterson for instance in 3 years has completely resurrected udub and taken then to heights Shaw has yet to do.
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - stupac2 - 10-29-2017
(10-29-2017, 04:22 PM)norcard link Wrote:3. Hes in the top 1% of coaches in my mind and a great fit for stanford. Just not sure if hes in that .1% or less that will win a national championship. Peterson for instance in 3 years has completely resurrected udub and taken then to heights Shaw has yet to do.
The difference between Petersen in 2016 and Shaw in 2015 is that Petersen's AD gave him cupcakes OOC. Had we played UC Davis instead of Northwestern that year we would have as much success as he has. (And probably more, since that team probably wouldn't have laid an egg in the playoffs, I don't think.)
Re: Shaw fingerprints---List the positives - gocard14 - 10-29-2017
Mental exercise: Let's make a list of active college coaches with more impressive head coaching resumes then David Shaw:
1. Nick Saban
2. Urban Meyer
3. Dabo Sweeney
4. You could make an argument for Chris Peterson due to his impressive run of overachieving at Boise St. and turning UW into an ascendant program.
I'm struggling to think of anyone else that comes close to making the list. Franklin at Penn St? He looks good now but his overall resume is less impressive. Jimbo Fisher? Maybe, but not looking so good this year. Gary Anderson? Impressive what he's done at TCU, but very inconsistent year to year. Jim Harbaugh? A great turn around artist, but has never shown that he can sustain a high level of success.
Then for all of the above coaches (perhaps Peterson excepted), you could make a strong argument about why they are a poor fit for Stanford, whether they would not represent the University well, would not maximize its' unique potential on the recruiting trail, or would bolt for greener pastures more or less instantly.
I'm not saying Shaw is perfect or should be above criticism. I personally felt that not bringing in Costello against OSU was one of the dumbest in-game management decisions I've seen in a while. But we are extremely lucky to have him.