Shaw's track record hiring assistants - 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's track record hiring assistants (/thread-23535.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's track record hiring assistants (/thread-23535.html)
Shaw's track record hiring assistants - msqueri - 10-06-2022
On another board somebody asked if any of Shaw's hires have been great. That sent me down a path musing on how to characterize Shaw's best hires. Sharing my thoughts here in case folks have reactions:
Alamar got spectacular results for a while but has faded for a while now, though special teams still tends to be an advantage for us. My biggest problem here is that a dedicated special teams coach takes away coaching firepower from the defense, but it's a defensible decision and over Shaw's tenure it's worked pretty well.
Akina has had some ups and downs but on balance I'd say has been a good hire. For one, the level of defensive back we've recruited the last eight years is considerably higher than any other time in Stanford's history.
I would call Bloomgren Shaw's best all-time hire. He maintained/stabilized OL play at a critical time in the glory years and was arguably the greatest recruiter in Stanford's history. He stands out among Shaw disciples in getting a major college football head coaching gig.
Carberry was a good hire but so good he got poached for one of the top OL jobs in the sport pretty quickly, hurting the stability of our OL.
On paper Gould was a hire to be excited about but personally I think Gould has been a net negative on our coaching staff.
Kennedy has been a great hire IMHO.
Pritchard is uniquely difficult to assess in many respects as I don't think any of us know where David Shaw ends and Tavita Pritchard begins, in several respects. Plus Pritchard was a key player/coach under Harbaugh (albeit not a full assistant coach until Shaw), so it's debatable whether to call him a Shaw hire. The biggest problem with Pritchard is the opportunity cost of not having a proven, dynamic offensive coordinator, which reflects poorly on Shaw.
Sanford was a Shaw hire who went on to be a head coach. He's a weird one to characterize as he came to Stanford immediately after Harbaugh, so in a sense is a vintage Shaw hire, but Sanford came from the Harbaugh/Taggart family and, if I recall the rumblings, may have been arguably the one coach Shaw ever had who he asked to look elsewhere. I wouldn't say Sanford getting head coaching opportunities reflected well on Shaw in the way Bloomgren did.
Tarver had a nice year on Shaw's original staff but immediately parlayed it into an NFL job, and water subsequently finding its level suggest Fangio's epic bequest may have made Tarver look good.
Taylor was a Shaw hire who went on to bigger and better things and is now supposedly on lists for a major college football head coaching job. Hard to fault his tenure at Stanford, certainly more successful on the field and on the recruiting trail than Gould.
Turner has had an epic run of NFL tight ends so I don't know what the basis would be to say he wasn't a good hire. But I also understand he fell into Shaw's lap thanks to his dad (Ron Turner for those who don't know).
In all, I think a fair read is that Shaw has had many good hires. Let's not begrudge him that. That doesn't change the overall bottom line that the coaching staff has declined over time. To me it seems like this is because of the big things - offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, and strength and conditioning. There was also the brobdingnagian dropoff between Shaw's inheritance of Hart and Shaw's replacement with Reynolds, and the miserable string of inside linebacker coaches ever since Tarver in Shaw's first year (Kotulski, Hansen, Sanders, oh my).
My read is that Shaw has generally gotten hiring right, including where it matters most in terms of position coaching (offensive line and defensive backs), but has opted out of real hiring for the two biggest assistant coach positions, the coordinators, and that has been devastating. Shaw hasn't hired coordinators, he's promoted loyal and likable friends from within. It's been Shaw's arrogance, loyalty, and lack of ambition that have crippled us on the coaching front. He hires plenty of good people, but he won't do it at the most important places or admit failure when his friends fail.
For Shawpologists I think this will raise the hope that after this year we'll finally move on to new coordinators and maybe that will reverse the tailspin. I acknowledge that is a very real possibility that Shaw buys another year by finally demoting or cutting ties with Anderson and/or Pritchard. I really hope that's not what we see though. A 2023 without a QB (I predict), WRs, LBs, or DBs and with new coordinator(s) will be seen as a rebuilding year and, if that is what comes to pass, will mean Shaw is actually buying himself 2-3 years. We've seen enough of Shaw's failures to lead that this would be an awful result IMHO. David Shaw must go.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - gailtate - 10-06-2022
(10-06-2022, 07:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: On another board somebody asked if any of Shaw's hires have been great. That sent me down a path musing on how to characterize Shaw's best hires. Sharing my thoughts here in case folks have reactions:
Alamar got spectacular results for a while but has faded for a while now, though special teams still tends to be an advantage for us. My biggest problem here is that a dedicated special teams coach takes away coaching firepower from the defense, but it's a defensible decision and over Shaw's tenure it's worked pretty well.
Akina has had some ups and downs but on balance I'd say has been a good hire. For one, the level of defensive back we've recruited the last eight years is considerably higher than any other time in Stanford's history.
I would call Bloomgren Shaw's best all-time hire. He maintained/stabilized OL play at a critical time in the glory years and was arguably the greatest recruiter in Stanford's history. He stands out among Shaw disciples in getting a major college football head coaching gig.
Carberry was a good hire but so good he got poached for one of the top OL jobs in the sport pretty quickly, hurting the stability of our OL.
On paper Gould was a hire to be excited about but personally I think Gould has been a net negative on our coaching staff.
Kennedy has been a great hire IMHO.
Pritchard is uniquely difficult to assess in many respects as I don't think any of us know where David Shaw ends and Tavita Pritchard begins, in several respects. Plus Pritchard was a key player/coach under Harbaugh (albeit not a full assistant coach until Shaw), so it's debatable whether to call him a Shaw hire. The biggest problem with Pritchard is the opportunity cost of not having a proven, dynamic offensive coordinator, which reflects poorly on Shaw.
Sanford was a Shaw hire who went on to be a head coach. He's a weird one to characterize as he came to Stanford immediately after Harbaugh, so in a sense is a vintage Shaw hire, but Sanford came from the Harbaugh/Taggart family and, if I recall the rumblings, may have been arguably the one coach Shaw ever had who he asked to look elsewhere. I wouldn't say Sanford getting head coaching opportunities reflected well on Shaw in the way Bloomgren did.
Tarver had a nice year on Shaw's original staff but immediately parlayed it into an NFL job, and water subsequently finding its level suggest Fangio's epic bequest may have made Tarver look good.
Taylor was a Shaw hire who went on to bigger and better things and is now supposedly on lists for a major college football head coaching job. Hard to fault his tenure at Stanford, certainly more successful on the field and on the recruiting trail than Gould.
Turner has had an epic run of NFL tight ends so I don't know what the basis would be to say he wasn't a good hire. But I also understand he fell into Shaw's lap thanks to his dad (Ron Turner for those who don't know).
In all, I think a fair read is that Shaw has had many good hires. Let's not begrudge him that. That doesn't change the overall bottom line that the coaching staff has declined over time. To me it seems like this is because of the big things - offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, and strength and conditioning. There was also the of immense proportions dropoff between Shaw's inheritance of Hart and Shaw's replacement with Reynolds, and the miserable string of inside linebacker coaches ever since Tarver in Shaw's first year (Kotulski, Hansen, Sanders, oh my).
My read is that Shaw has generally gotten hiring right, including where it matters most in terms of position coaching (offensive line and defensive backs), but has opted out of real hiring for the two biggest assistant coach positions, the coordinators, and that has been devastating. Shaw hasn't hired coordinators, he's promoted loyal and likable friends from within. It's been Shaw's arrogance, loyalty, and lack of ambition that have crippled us on the coaching front. He hires plenty of good people, but he won't do it at the most important places or admit failure when his friends fail.
For Shawpologists I think this will raise the hope that after this year we'll finally move on to new coordinators and maybe that will reverse the tailspin. I acknowledge that is a very real possibility that Shaw buys another year by finally demoting or cutting ties with Anderson and/or Pritchard. I really hope that's not what we see though. A 2023 without a QB (I predict), WRs, LBs, or DBs and with new coordinator(s) will be seen as a rebuilding year and, if that is what comes to pass, will mean Shaw is actually buying himself 2-3 years. We've seen enough of Shaw's failures to lead that this would be an awful result IMHO. David Shaw must go.
Yes, "David Shaw must go." But thanks for the capsule history. Just more supporting evidence.
Shawpologists: your comments are encouraged. Got any (other than "B-b-b-but how can we be sure of the next guy?")??
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - GK3 - 10-06-2022
(10-06-2022, 07:58 AM)gailtate Wrote:(10-06-2022, 07:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: On another board somebody asked if any of Shaw's hires have been great. That sent me down a path musing on how to characterize Shaw's best hires. Sharing my thoughts here in case folks have reactions:
Alamar got spectacular results for a while but has faded for a while now, though special teams still tends to be an advantage for us. My biggest problem here is that a dedicated special teams coach takes away coaching firepower from the defense, but it's a defensible decision and over Shaw's tenure it's worked pretty well.
Akina has had some ups and downs but on balance I'd say has been a good hire. For one, the level of defensive back we've recruited the last eight years is considerably higher than any other time in Stanford's history.
I would call Bloomgren Shaw's best all-time hire. He maintained/stabilized OL play at a critical time in the glory years and was arguably the greatest recruiter in Stanford's history. He stands out among Shaw disciples in getting a major college football head coaching gig.
Carberry was a good hire but so good he got poached for one of the top OL jobs in the sport pretty quickly, hurting the stability of our OL.
On paper Gould was a hire to be excited about but personally I think Gould has been a net negative on our coaching staff.
Kennedy has been a great hire IMHO.
Pritchard is uniquely difficult to assess in many respects as I don't think any of us know where David Shaw ends and Tavita Pritchard begins, in several respects. Plus Pritchard was a key player/coach under Harbaugh (albeit not a full assistant coach until Shaw), so it's debatable whether to call him a Shaw hire. The biggest problem with Pritchard is the opportunity cost of not having a proven, dynamic offensive coordinator, which reflects poorly on Shaw.
Sanford was a Shaw hire who went on to be a head coach. He's a weird one to characterize as he came to Stanford immediately after Harbaugh, so in a sense is a vintage Shaw hire, but Sanford came from the Harbaugh/Taggart family and, if I recall the rumblings, may have been arguably the one coach Shaw ever had who he asked to look elsewhere. I wouldn't say Sanford getting head coaching opportunities reflected well on Shaw in the way Bloomgren did.
Tarver had a nice year on Shaw's original staff but immediately parlayed it into an NFL job, and water subsequently finding its level suggest Fangio's epic bequest may have made Tarver look good.
Taylor was a Shaw hire who went on to bigger and better things and is now supposedly on lists for a major college football head coaching job. Hard to fault his tenure at Stanford, certainly more successful on the field and on the recruiting trail than Gould.
Turner has had an epic run of NFL tight ends so I don't know what the basis would be to say he wasn't a good hire. But I also understand he fell into Shaw's lap thanks to his dad (Ron Turner for those who don't know).
In all, I think a fair read is that Shaw has had many good hires. Let's not begrudge him that. That doesn't change the overall bottom line that the coaching staff has declined over time. To me it seems like this is because of the big things - offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, and strength and conditioning. There was also the of immense proportions dropoff between Shaw's inheritance of Hart and Shaw's replacement with Reynolds, and the miserable string of inside linebacker coaches ever since Tarver in Shaw's first year (Kotulski, Hansen, Sanders, oh my).
My read is that Shaw has generally gotten hiring right, including where it matters most in terms of position coaching (offensive line and defensive backs), but has opted out of real hiring for the two biggest assistant coach positions, the coordinators, and that has been devastating. Shaw hasn't hired coordinators, he's promoted loyal and likable friends from within. It's been Shaw's arrogance, loyalty, and lack of ambition that have crippled us on the coaching front. He hires plenty of good people, but he won't do it at the most important places or admit failure when his friends fail.
For Shawpologists I think this will raise the hope that after this year we'll finally move on to new coordinators and maybe that will reverse the tailspin. I acknowledge that is a very real possibility that Shaw buys another year by finally demoting or cutting ties with Anderson and/or Pritchard. I really hope that's not what we see though. A 2023 without a QB (I predict), WRs, LBs, or DBs and with new coordinator(s) will be seen as a rebuilding year and, if that is what comes to pass, will mean Shaw is actually buying himself 2-3 years. We've seen enough of Shaw's failures to lead that this would be an awful result IMHO. David Shaw must go.
Yes, "David Shaw must go." But thanks for the capsule history. Just more supporting evidence.
Shawpologists: your comments are encouraged. Got any (other than "B-b-b-but how can we be sure of the next guy?")??
If you look at the talent getting drafted by the NFL we have had 10 offensive players drafted in the last 5 years, and 15 in the 5 years before that. Biggest drop off has been in the Offensive Line, the place we are hurting the worst now. So we have either recruited the wrong guys the last 5 years or we haven't been able to develop them. I don't know which coaches coincided with which periods. This year I think the Offensive Line has been at best offensive.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - Treefence - 10-06-2022
Adding to that Bloomgren point, the running game took a nose dive after he left. We routinely averaged about 5 per carry after Harbaugh's first year. When Bloomgren joined in 2011 that trend continued for the most part, with a couple years in the low 4's. The year after he left, 2018 we dropped to 3.7 yards per carry, then 3.7, 4.1, 3.2, and 4.2 (year to date). Yards per carry only tells part of the story, and I think passing offense should be the focus, but given how often Stanford wants to run and stop the run, we've regressed in running the ball big time.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - msqueri - 10-06-2022
(10-06-2022, 09:04 AM)GK3 Wrote:(10-06-2022, 07:58 AM)gailtate Wrote:(10-06-2022, 07:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: On another board somebody asked if any of Shaw's hires have been great. That sent me down a path musing on how to characterize Shaw's best hires. Sharing my thoughts here in case folks have reactions:
Alamar got spectacular results for a while but has faded for a while now, though special teams still tends to be an advantage for us. My biggest problem here is that a dedicated special teams coach takes away coaching firepower from the defense, but it's a defensible decision and over Shaw's tenure it's worked pretty well.
Akina has had some ups and downs but on balance I'd say has been a good hire. For one, the level of defensive back we've recruited the last eight years is considerably higher than any other time in Stanford's history.
I would call Bloomgren Shaw's best all-time hire. He maintained/stabilized OL play at a critical time in the glory years and was arguably the greatest recruiter in Stanford's history. He stands out among Shaw disciples in getting a major college football head coaching gig.
Carberry was a good hire but so good he got poached for one of the top OL jobs in the sport pretty quickly, hurting the stability of our OL.
On paper Gould was a hire to be excited about but personally I think Gould has been a net negative on our coaching staff.
Kennedy has been a great hire IMHO.
Pritchard is uniquely difficult to assess in many respects as I don't think any of us know where David Shaw ends and Tavita Pritchard begins, in several respects. Plus Pritchard was a key player/coach under Harbaugh (albeit not a full assistant coach until Shaw), so it's debatable whether to call him a Shaw hire. The biggest problem with Pritchard is the opportunity cost of not having a proven, dynamic offensive coordinator, which reflects poorly on Shaw.
Sanford was a Shaw hire who went on to be a head coach. He's a weird one to characterize as he came to Stanford immediately after Harbaugh, so in a sense is a vintage Shaw hire, but Sanford came from the Harbaugh/Taggart family and, if I recall the rumblings, may have been arguably the one coach Shaw ever had who he asked to look elsewhere. I wouldn't say Sanford getting head coaching opportunities reflected well on Shaw in the way Bloomgren did.
Tarver had a nice year on Shaw's original staff but immediately parlayed it into an NFL job, and water subsequently finding its level suggest Fangio's epic bequest may have made Tarver look good.
Taylor was a Shaw hire who went on to bigger and better things and is now supposedly on lists for a major college football head coaching job. Hard to fault his tenure at Stanford, certainly more successful on the field and on the recruiting trail than Gould.
Turner has had an epic run of NFL tight ends so I don't know what the basis would be to say he wasn't a good hire. But I also understand he fell into Shaw's lap thanks to his dad (Ron Turner for those who don't know).
In all, I think a fair read is that Shaw has had many good hires. Let's not begrudge him that. That doesn't change the overall bottom line that the coaching staff has declined over time. To me it seems like this is because of the big things - offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, and strength and conditioning. There was also the of immense proportions dropoff between Shaw's inheritance of Hart and Shaw's replacement with Reynolds, and the miserable string of inside linebacker coaches ever since Tarver in Shaw's first year (Kotulski, Hansen, Sanders, oh my).
My read is that Shaw has generally gotten hiring right, including where it matters most in terms of position coaching (offensive line and defensive backs), but has opted out of real hiring for the two biggest assistant coach positions, the coordinators, and that has been devastating. Shaw hasn't hired coordinators, he's promoted loyal and likable friends from within. It's been Shaw's arrogance, loyalty, and lack of ambition that have crippled us on the coaching front. He hires plenty of good people, but he won't do it at the most important places or admit failure when his friends fail.
For Shawpologists I think this will raise the hope that after this year we'll finally move on to new coordinators and maybe that will reverse the tailspin. I acknowledge that is a very real possibility that Shaw buys another year by finally demoting or cutting ties with Anderson and/or Pritchard. I really hope that's not what we see though. A 2023 without a QB (I predict), WRs, LBs, or DBs and with new coordinator(s) will be seen as a rebuilding year and, if that is what comes to pass, will mean Shaw is actually buying himself 2-3 years. We've seen enough of Shaw's failures to lead that this would be an awful result IMHO. David Shaw must go.
Yes, "David Shaw must go." But thanks for the capsule history. Just more supporting evidence.
Shawpologists: your comments are encouraged. Got any (other than "B-b-b-but how can we be sure of the next guy?")??
If you look at the talent getting drafted by the NFL we have had 10 offensive players drafted in the last 5 years, and 15 in the 5 years before that. Biggest drop off has been in the Offensive Line, the place we are hurting the worst now. So we have either recruited the wrong guys the last 5 years or we haven't been able to develop them. I don't know which coaches coincided with which periods. This year I think the Offensive Line has been at best offensive.
I think offensive line is one of the places we're hurting the least. In 2022, we've been very good at run blocking and pretty bad at pass blocking. That's a mediocre offensive line. Almost every other unit on our roster would be so lucky to be described as mediocre. In terms of NFL draft selections too, two offensive linemen drafted in the last three drafts is a good amount by most teams' standards.
You are right it's been a drop-off from our heights. Big-time. But that says a lot about how extraordinary our previous run was in addition to what it says about today. Having a mediocre line with two very good if not great college players and numerous other experienced guys is not "offensive." Offensive is what's happening everywhere else.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - Jamesy - 10-06-2022
I think Bloomgren, Akina, Alomar, and to a lesser extent Carberry were all good hires. However, all these hires were 4+ years ago and he has whiffed on all the ones since. In addition, has he ever fired an assistant?
Bloomgren also played a role in play calling whereas it seems like it is all Shaw now. I wonder if Bloomgren would be interested in coming back to Stanford if the position opened...
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - mutoo1 - 10-06-2022
[quote="Jamesy" pid='365189' dateline='1665074738']
I think Bloomgren, Akina, Alomar, and to a lesser extent Carberry were all good hires. However, all these hires were 4+ years ago and he has whiffed on all the ones since. In addition, has he ever fired an assistant?
Bloomgren also played a role in play calling whereas it seems like it is all Shaw now. I wonder if Bloomgren would be interested in coming back to Stanford if the position opened...
carberry was, in a word, awful.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - msqueri - 10-06-2022
(10-06-2022, 10:34 AM)mutoo1 Wrote: [quote="Jamesy" pid='365189' dateline='1665074738']
I think Bloomgren, Akina, Alomar, and to a lesser extent Carberry were all good hires. However, all these hires were 4+ years ago and he has whiffed on all the ones since. In addition, has he ever fired an assistant?
Bloomgren also played a role in play calling whereas it seems like it is all Shaw now. I wonder if Bloomgren would be interested in coming back to Stanford if the position opened...
carberry was, in a word, awful.
How do you figure? His first year he inherited an ok but not great OL room and they had ups and downs, with very good pass blocking but not good run blocking. Then in his second year Little, Hamilton, Hattis, and Bragg all got hurt, forcing us to play mostly true freshmen on the line and he miraculously mustered sub-par but not awful play from the line. In his third and final year the line was good to very good. During all of it he was dealing with an inheritance of Stanford not recruiting offensive linemen for a year and a half and having the only guy they did recruit immediately medically retire. Carberry coached with an arm tied behind his back and still mustered very competent results. This looks like an impressive track record to me.
One of the best teams and best offenses in football recognized how good Carberry was and scooped him up, and then they immediately won the Super Bowl.
Awful? NFW.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - BostonCard - 10-06-2022
One theory is that the good coaches have gotten hired away, and because Shaw has been reticent to fire bad coaches, they accumulated in the staff.
BC
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - Mick - 10-06-2022
(10-06-2022, 09:04 AM)GK3 Wrote: If you look at the talent getting drafted by the NFL we have had 10 offensive players drafted in the last 5 years, and 15 in the 5 years before that. Biggest drop off has been in the Offensive Line, the place we are hurting the worst now. So we have either recruited the wrong guys the last 5 years or we haven't been able to develop them. I don't know which coaches coincided with which periods. This year I think the Offensive Line has been at best offensive.
I seem to recall reading that OLs were the most intelligent of the position groups. Wouldn't it stand to reason that they'd be the easiest to recruit to Stanford?
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - msqueri - 10-06-2022
(10-06-2022, 07:33 PM)Mick Wrote:(10-06-2022, 09:04 AM)GK3 Wrote: If you look at the talent getting drafted by the NFL we have had 10 offensive players drafted in the last 5 years, and 15 in the 5 years before that. Biggest drop off has been in the Offensive Line, the place we are hurting the worst now. So we have either recruited the wrong guys the last 5 years or we haven't been able to develop them. I don't know which coaches coincided with which periods. This year I think the Offensive Line has been at best offensive.
I seem to recall reading that OLs were the most intelligent of the position groups. Wouldn't it stand to reason that they'd be the easiest to recruit to Stanford?
You've got to recruit five of them, so no. The easiest positions for us to recruit historically are QB, TE, and RB. OL isn't hard for us to recruit, but those other positions are very easy historically for us to recruit.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - gocard14 - 10-06-2022
(10-06-2022, 02:23 PM)BostonCard Wrote: One theory is that the good coaches have gotten hired away, and because Shaw has been reticent to fire bad coaches, they accumulated in the staff.
BC
This is the right view IMO. The inherent problem with assistants is the good ones will get poached or promoted. Thus turnover is expected and hiring should be frequent. Conversely, if your assistants are not getting poached, it’s probably because they aren’t any good. Assistants should really be on an “up or out” type approach, which we have not had.
Note that exceptions exist, sometimes great position coaches or coordinators move up, have less success, get fired, and can then be hired as long term position coaches/coordinators, but in general good head coaches should be replacing their assistants constantly, as the best ones leave and average ones get replaced.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - cctop - 10-06-2022
(10-06-2022, 07:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: David Shaw must go.
At the end of your detailed writeup, that pithy final line reminded me of, "Carthago delenda est."
Like Cato we should now use that to end any discussion on any topic.
"Honey, would you please pass the salt?"
"Yes. And David Shaw must go."
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - gailtate - 10-07-2022
(10-06-2022, 10:53 PM)cctop Wrote:(10-06-2022, 07:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: David Shaw must go.
At the end of your detailed writeup, that pithy final line reminded me of, "Carthago delenda est."
Like Cato we should now use that to end any discussion on any topic.
"Honey, would you please pass the salt?"
"Yes. And David Shaw must go."
After the 2021 BG, my then-extremist signature line was "Muir And Shaw Must Go." Predictably, it was met with sniffing dismissals by the true-believer, delusionals here.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - qwerty49 - 10-07-2022
(10-07-2022, 08:07 AM)gailtate Wrote:(10-06-2022, 10:53 PM)cctop Wrote:(10-06-2022, 07:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: David Shaw must go.
At the end of your detailed writeup, that pithy final line reminded me of, "Carthago delenda est."
Like Cato we should now use that to end any discussion on any topic.
"Honey, would you please pass the salt?"
"Yes. And David Shaw must go."
After the 2021 BG, my then-extremist signature line was "Muir And Shaw Must Go." Predictably, it was met with sniffing dismissals by the true-believer, delusionals here.
Y'know, I'm firmly in the Shaw Must Go camp. But all this chest-thumping is somehow conjuring up images of broken clocks being right twice a day. Yes, Shaw coasted on Harbaugh's legacy while failing to build one of his own. Yes, his recruiting and his choice of assistants and his playcalling ego have been wanting. But hey, Shaw and Muir are just the tip of the iceberg. Fix the systemic issues, address transfer admissions, come up with a meaningful NIL package.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - gailtate - 10-07-2022
(10-07-2022, 11:59 AM)qwerty49 Wrote:(10-07-2022, 08:07 AM)gailtate Wrote:(10-06-2022, 10:53 PM)cctop Wrote:(10-06-2022, 07:15 AM)msqueri Wrote: David Shaw must go.
At the end of your detailed writeup, that pithy final line reminded me of, "Carthago delenda est."
Like Cato we should now use that to end any discussion on any topic.
"Honey, would you please pass the salt?"
"Yes. And David Shaw must go."
After the 2021 BG, my then-extremist signature line was "Muir And Shaw Must Go." Predictably, it was met with sniffing dismissals by the true-believer, delusionals here.
Y'know, I'm firmly in the Shaw Must Go camp. But all this chest-thumping is somehow conjuring up images of broken clocks being right twice a day. Yes, Shaw coasted on Harbaugh's legacy while failing to build one of his own. Yes, his recruiting and his choice of assistants and his playcalling ego have been wanting. But hey, Shaw and Muir are just the tip of the iceberg. Fix the systemic issues, address transfer admissions, come up with a meaningful NIL package.
At what point do you dismiss Muir&Shaw? Before, during or after all the heavy lifting? I want the new AD and HC to have some ownership of the systemic fixes. Plus, get the right guys in here and it's a turbo-charge for recruiting.
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - mutoo1 - 10-07-2022
(10-06-2022, 10:50 AM)msqueri Wrote:(10-06-2022, 10:34 AM)mutoo1 Wrote: [quote="Jamesy" pid='365189' dateline='1665074738']
I think Bloomgren, Akina, Alomar, and to a lesser extent Carberry were all good hires. However, all these hires were 4+ years ago and he has whiffed on all the ones since. In addition, has he ever fired an assistant?
Bloomgren also played a role in play calling whereas it seems like it is all Shaw now. I wonder if Bloomgren would be interested in coming back to Stanford if the position opened...
carberry was, in a word, awful.
How do you figure? His first year he inherited an ok but not great OL room and they had ups and downs, with very good pass blocking but not good run blocking. Then in his second year Little, Hamilton, Hattis, and Bragg all got hurt, forcing us to play mostly true freshmen on the line and he miraculously mustered sub-par but not awful play from the line. In his third and final year the line was good to very good. During all of it he was dealing with an inheritance of Stanford not recruiting offensive linemen for a year and a half and having the only guy they did recruit immediately medically retire. Carberry coached with an arm tied behind his back and still mustered very competent results. This looks like an impressive track record to me.
One of the best teams and best offenses in football recognized how good Carberry was and scooped him up, and then they immediately won the Super Bowl.
Awful? NFW.
i'll never forget watching carberry yelling at his players during the game while they had just come out & were sitting on the bench. all but one of their backs were to me in the stands but my eyes through the binoculars were trained on all of them. mid-rant, the one player standing, facing me (as carberry was), slowly shook his head from side to side & rolled his eyes. carberry had lost his players well before then, a fact i subsequently confirmed through multiple sources. an awful coach for stanford.
YFW
RE: Shaw's track record hiring assistants - needle - 10-07-2022
As I’ve posted previously, Sanford (interim Colorado HC and former Stanford asst.) seemingly has gone out of his way to praise Shaw in some comments to the media, fwiw.
https://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/77539/shaw-petersen-share-mentoring-role