The CardBoard
Attention Shaw doubters/haters - 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: Attention Shaw doubters/haters (/thread-9602.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Attention Shaw doubters/haters - Rally - 08-16-2015

Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - SUBuddha - 08-16-2015

Ferrari-

For me, none. Then again David and I were neighbors for 2 years and he roomed with one of my pledge brothers all 5 years. I will ride with Dshaw until the end.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - yvonne - 08-16-2015

tmi

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - SUBuddha - 08-16-2015

Shall I delete Yvonne?  :'(

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - yvonne - 08-16-2015

I'm teasing.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - SUBuddha - 08-16-2015

An i was joking. I spent a lot of time with members of the team from 90-94...I will never apologize for Shaw. Some may find my defense of him, at times, annoying, but I know what a truly special person he is. It is his first time as a head coach, as pointed out elsewhere, and he is the first coach since he who shall not be named to allow me to go to a rose bowl. 5 years of losing or more will not wash the glow of 2 straight Rose Bowls off my view.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - Mick - 08-16-2015

(08-16-2015, 03:12 PM)ferrari link Wrote:Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.


For me, it isn't so much about Shaw as it is about NFL-level coordinators.  Shaw's great, but I think Stanford will go only as far as its assistants and in particular its coordinators.  One of Stanford's big advantages -- maybe the biggest advantage -- is a team with players who have very high IQs, much higher than average. 

Same was true 75 years ago.  I read an interesting article that Clark Shaughnessey didn't invent the T-formation, rather he dusted it off from literally the latter part of the 19th century and added a lot of misdirection, given the small size of his team.  And if you go back and read the game articles, that's basically what happened.  When Pop Warner heard that Schwartz was going to run the T formation, he said "He won't win a game."  Thornhill had gone 1-7-1 in 1939, but returned Frankie Albert, Pete Kmetovic, Norm Standlee and Hugh Gallarneau, four players that Schwartz called the best that Stanford ever had, with the caveat that he was referencing their abilities in the T formation.  Shaughnessey had assistant coaches Phil Bengston (longtime NFL assistant who succeeded Vince Lombardi), Marchmont Schwartz and Bernie Masterson, who had just retired from a seven year NFL career with the 59-19 Chicago Bears to mentor Albert.

Buoyed by the coaching staff, they made numerous innovations.  The old T formation (Amos Alonzo Stagg) used power blocking, the new T used misdirection, and "brush" blocking, delaying rushers for a second or two.  Albert took the snap from under center, the better to hide the ball.  Supposedly, he drew inspiration from the panzer tactics of wehrmacht general Heinz Guderian.

That team, everyone knows, went 10-0 and beat Nebraska in the Rose Bowl, 21-13.  What you may not know is that Stanford's first five opponents were undefeated when they played Stanford, then Stanford beat UCLA, #11 Washington State, #19 Oregon State and C.al.  That's some strength of schedule right there.  Gallarneau, Albert, Shaughnessey and guard Chuck Taylor from that team made the College Football Hall of Fame.  Kmetovic was the Rose Bowl players of the game and played in the NFL for two years when he left the Army.  Standlee was drafted by the CHicago Bears and was fourth in the league in rushing before he went to WWII.

Another interesting piece...prior to the Rose Bowl, Shaughnessey traveled to Chicago to help Halas and Sid Luckman prepare the Bears for the national championship against the Washington team.  Shaughnessey noted that Washington shifted their linebackers in the direction of the man in motion, so he devised a series of counter plays.  Final score, Bears win 73-0.

By 1944, more than half the country's college teams were using the T formation.  By 1949, the only NFL team not using it was the Steelers.  Derivatives of that T formation include the power I, pro set, veer, wishbone, split T, wing T, and West Coast offense.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - winflop - 08-16-2015

(08-16-2015, 03:12 PM)ferrari link Wrote:Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.

None, but the two closest are Harbaugh & Green.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - Rally - 08-16-2015

(08-16-2015, 04:55 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12528.msg124626#msg124626 date=1439763135]
Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.

None, but the two closest are Harbaugh & Green.
[/quote]

This ain't horseshoes.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - CornFed - 08-16-2015

Harbaugh and Ralston.  Probably someone like Warner from an earlier era, but I confess to having very little detailed famiarity.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - CornFed - 08-16-2015

Ralston may have been responsible for providing the funds for my father to pay Stanford tuition for the year when the coach led the Indians to a massive upset (although not the Greatest Upset of All Time) of Ohio State.  I convinced my father that Stanford had a good chance to win the game, much less cover the spread.  He had no trouble at all getting 40 points or more from unbelievers among his friends and acquaintances in our little Midwestern community.  Many, many, many small bets, but they added up to a big day for Dad!  ;D

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - Rally - 08-16-2015

(08-16-2015, 05:32 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Harbaugh and Ralston.  Probably someone like Warner from an earlier era, but I confess to having very little detailed famiarity.

I loved Ralston, but just a bit outside the parameters of the question, doncha think?  Warner's gotta go; it's thanks to him we got that horribly racist nickname.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - terry - 08-16-2015

Ralston was not within the last 30 years.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - oman - 08-16-2015

Why do I only get to pick Stanford coaches?

I love my wife, my minister, my parents, and Shaw, but all of them could be more exciting. 

Actually, my minister is pretty exciting. 

Harbaugh is the only guy I would think twice about not replacing Shaw with.  But I'd just think about it.  It's Shaw's job now.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - Rally - 08-16-2015

(08-16-2015, 03:12 PM)ferrari link Wrote:Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.

Few of you did really well on standardized tests, did you?  Difficult to answer the question if you don't read and understand it, eh?

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - winflop - 08-16-2015

(08-16-2015, 04:57 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=12528.msg124637#msg124637 date=1439769309]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12528.msg124626#msg124626 date=1439763135]
Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.

None, but the two closest are Harbaugh & Green.
[/quote]

This ain't horseshoes.
[/quote]

Note the first word: "None"

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - Rally - 08-16-2015

(08-16-2015, 08:23 PM)winflop link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12528.msg124638#msg124638 date=1439769440]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=12528.msg124637#msg124637 date=1439769309]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12528.msg124626#msg124626 date=1439763135]
Name two Stanford football from the past 30 years you would rather have than Shaw.  Just curious.

None, but the two closest are Harbaugh & Green.
[/quote]

This ain't horseshoes.
[/quote]

Note the first word: "None"
[/quote]

In all fairness, Win (can I call you Win or do you prefer Winflop?) I did say "few," not "all."

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 08-16-2015

I'm a Shaw fan but your premise is flawed.  Stanford hasn't exactly had the most impressive chronology of football coaches over the past 30 years, so one's inability to come up with two better options from that group isn't necessarily a feather in Shaw's cap.  It's the same argument 49er fans use to defend Kaepernick.  "But he's the best 49er QB since Garcia!"  True, but all the QBs between Garcia and Kaepernick were laughably bad.  Not saying the coaches between 1985 and 2011 were equally miserable, but you get my point.

That said, it's still too soon to determine whether Harbaugh or Shaw is the better coach.  I'd like to see a rebound from last year and sustained success with his own guys before making that decision.  However, Harbaugh would be the only possibility.  Looking at the list, I can't find another one.

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - CornFed - 08-16-2015

And why was the 30 year limit chosen?

Re: Attention Shaw doubters/haters - Hulk01 - 08-17-2015

Shaw is a superb fit.  I disagree with the three most frequent criticisms of him: play calling, zeal, and recruiting.

Few coaches could have accomplished what Harbaugh did, but I've no evidence that he's other than a turnaround savant.  If I were playing for him, I am certain that I would succeed in spite of him, not because of him, and it'd be 80-20 chance that he would totally piss me off at least once a year, and that I'd eventually be thrown off the team.  That does not prevent me, however, from tossing him the credit he's earned: He turned us around.Â