[CardinalSagehen]

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I believe I heard on the broadcast of Big Game (or elsewhere?) that Andrew Luck is our honorary captain this week!  I had been wondering when that would happen this season.

I know pep-talks can't make a team learn how to block and tackle better overnight, but hey, we need some kind of sliver of a ray of hope, right?

If the game sucks, at least fans in attendance are likely to see some sweet #12 highlights on the scoreboard and the return of another all-time great to Stanford Stadium.

[CardinalSagehen]

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I believe I heard on the broadcast of Big Game (or elsewhere?) that Andrew Luck is our honorary captain this week!  I had been wondering when that would happen this season.

I know pep-talks can't make a team learn how to block and tackle better overnight, but hey, we need some kind of sliver of a ray of hope, right?

If the game sucks, at least fans in attendance are likely to see some sweet #12 highlights on the scoreboard and the return of another all-time great to Stanford Stadium.

[gailtate]

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I believe I heard on the broadcast of Big Game (or elsewhere?) that Andrew Luck is our honorary captain this week!  I had been wondering when that would happen this season.

I know pep-talks can't make a team learn how to block and tackle better overnight, but hey, we need some kind of sliver of a ray of hope, right?

If the game sucks, at least fans in attendance are likely to see some sweet #12 highlights on the scoreboard and the return of another all-time great to Stanford Stadium.

Sweet, for sure. My hope is that Luck's appearance will further remind the most influential people of just how far the program has fallen. I like to think that the more influential they are the more they already know. Still, always good to be reminded.

[gailtate]

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I believe I heard on the broadcast of Big Game (or elsewhere?) that Andrew Luck is our honorary captain this week!  I had been wondering when that would happen this season.

I know pep-talks can't make a team learn how to block and tackle better overnight, but hey, we need some kind of sliver of a ray of hope, right?

If the game sucks, at least fans in attendance are likely to see some sweet #12 highlights on the scoreboard and the return of another all-time great to Stanford Stadium.

Sweet, for sure. My hope is that Luck's appearance will further remind the most influential people of just how far the program has fallen. I like to think that the more influential they are the more they already know. Still, always good to be reminded.

[Austroturf]

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I believe I heard on the broadcast of Big Game (or elsewhere?) that Andrew Luck is our honorary captain this week!  I had been wondering when that would happen this season.

I know pep-talks can't make a team learn how to block and tackle better overnight, but hey, we need some kind of sliver of a ray of hope, right?

If the game sucks, at least fans in attendance are likely to see some sweet #12 highlights on the scoreboard and the return of another all-time great to Stanford Stadium.

The Luck era was golden (and it truly was an "era").  His glory days should be remembered and appreciated.  But when a program gets to the point where nostalgia is all we have to feed off of and motivate ourselves, well, that is not a good sign.  He should be honorary captain of a team that continues his legacy of excellence.  But who knows?  Maybe something akin to 2007 in the Coliseum will occur, with Luck as our revered talisman (for the record, Luck was 3-0 against Notre Dame).  The upset is not impossible, simply very improbable, despite Luck standing in as a possible "X-Factor" as honorary captain. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[Austroturf]

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I believe I heard on the broadcast of Big Game (or elsewhere?) that Andrew Luck is our honorary captain this week!  I had been wondering when that would happen this season.

I know pep-talks can't make a team learn how to block and tackle better overnight, but hey, we need some kind of sliver of a ray of hope, right?

If the game sucks, at least fans in attendance are likely to see some sweet #12 highlights on the scoreboard and the return of another all-time great to Stanford Stadium.

The Luck era was golden (and it truly was an "era").  His glory days should be remembered and appreciated.  But when a program gets to the point where nostalgia is all we have to feed off of and motivate ourselves, well, that is not a good sign.  He should be honorary captain of a team that continues his legacy of excellence.  But who knows?  Maybe something akin to 2007 in the Coliseum will occur, with Luck as our revered talisman (for the record, Luck was 3-0 against Notre Dame).  The upset is not impossible, simply very improbable, despite Luck standing in as a possible "X-Factor" as honorary captain. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[PalmTree]

Hey, maybe instead of honorary captain, he could be honorary Andrew Luck Director of Offense instead.....

[PalmTree]

Hey, maybe instead of honorary captain, he could be honorary Andrew Luck Director of Offense instead.....

[BostonCard]

How about Andrew Luck, honorary quarterback?  Doesn’t he have a year of eligibility left?

BC

[BostonCard]

How about Andrew Luck, honorary quarterback?  Doesn’t he have a year of eligibility left?

BC

[Austroturf]

How about Andrew Luck, honorary quarterback?  Doesn’t he have a year of eligibility left?

BC

I like that idea!

[Austroturf]

How about Andrew Luck, honorary quarterback?  Doesn’t he have a year of eligibility left?

BC

I like that idea!

[CardinalSagehen]

Hey, maybe instead of honorary captain, he could be honorary Andrew Luck Director of Offense instead.....

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to go there. Can you imagine this from Tavita’s perspective? You put in your time twice, only to be beaten out by the same guy again, twelve years later? If this ever occurred, he might have to demand satisfaction, like Aaron Burr or the “Three Musketeers”! (But it’s just not happening.)

[CardinalSagehen]

Hey, maybe instead of honorary captain, he could be honorary Andrew Luck Director of Offense instead.....

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to go there. Can you imagine this from Tavita’s perspective? You put in your time twice, only to be beaten out by the same guy again, twelve years later? If this ever occurred, he might have to demand satisfaction, like Aaron Burr or the “Three Musketeers”! (But it’s just not happening.)

[Austroturf]

Hey, maybe instead of honorary captain, he could be honorary Andrew Luck Director of Offense instead.....

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to go there. Can you imagine this from Tavita’s perspective? You put in your time twice, only to be beaten out by the same guy again, twelve years later? If this ever occurred, he might have to demand satisfaction, like Aaron Burr or the “Three Musketeers”! (But it’s just not happening.)

Interesting perspective, and how personally devastating for Tavita if it happened.  But it won't.  And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

[Austroturf]

Hey, maybe instead of honorary captain, he could be honorary Andrew Luck Director of Offense instead.....

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to go there. Can you imagine this from Tavita’s perspective? You put in your time twice, only to be beaten out by the same guy again, twelve years later? If this ever occurred, he might have to demand satisfaction, like Aaron Burr or the “Three Musketeers”! (But it’s just not happening.)

Interesting perspective, and how personally devastating for Tavita if it happened.  But it won't.  And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

[JohnR34231]

Hey, maybe instead of honorary captain, he could be honorary Andrew Luck Director of Offense instead.....

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to go there. Can you imagine this from Tavita’s perspective? You put in your time twice, only to be beaten out by the same guy again, twelve years later? If this ever occurred, he might have to demand satisfaction, like Aaron Burr or the “Three Musketeers”! (But it’s just not happening.)

Interesting perspective, and how personally devastating for Tavita if it happened.  But it won't.  And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

From what at least some people are saying, Shaw is really the one running the offense, so given that does it really matter who the OC is?
One would hope if Shaw brought in someone like Andrew Luck, he would give him more responsibility.

[JohnR34231]

Hey, maybe instead of honorary captain, he could be honorary Andrew Luck Director of Offense instead.....

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to go there. Can you imagine this from Tavita’s perspective? You put in your time twice, only to be beaten out by the same guy again, twelve years later? If this ever occurred, he might have to demand satisfaction, like Aaron Burr or the “Three Musketeers”! (But it’s just not happening.)

Interesting perspective, and how personally devastating for Tavita if it happened.  But it won't.  And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

From what at least some people are saying, Shaw is really the one running the offense, so given that does it really matter who the OC is?
One would hope if Shaw brought in someone like Andrew Luck, he would give him more responsibility.

[Austroturf]

Hey, maybe instead of honorary captain, he could be honorary Andrew Luck Director of Offense instead.....

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to go there. Can you imagine this from Tavita’s perspective? You put in your time twice, only to be beaten out by the same guy again, twelve years later? If this ever occurred, he might have to demand satisfaction, like Aaron Burr or the “Three Musketeers”! (But it’s just not happening.)

Interesting perspective, and how personally devastating for Tavita if it happened.  But it won't.  And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

From what at least some people are saying, Shaw is really the one running the offense, so given that does it really matter who the OC is?
One would hope if Shaw brought in someone like Andrew Luck, he would give him more responsibility.

Agree with your point.  Tavita is OC in name only and probably just takes some admin burden off Shaw.  A full-fledged OC would be great to have.  But Shaw has to hire that individual.

[Austroturf]

Hey, maybe instead of honorary captain, he could be honorary Andrew Luck Director of Offense instead.....

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to go there. Can you imagine this from Tavita’s perspective? You put in your time twice, only to be beaten out by the same guy again, twelve years later? If this ever occurred, he might have to demand satisfaction, like Aaron Burr or the “Three Musketeers”! (But it’s just not happening.)

Interesting perspective, and how personally devastating for Tavita if it happened.  But it won't.  And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

From what at least some people are saying, Shaw is really the one running the offense, so given that does it really matter who the OC is?
One would hope if Shaw brought in someone like Andrew Luck, he would give him more responsibility.

Agree with your point.  Tavita is OC in name only and probably just takes some admin burden off Shaw.  A full-fledged OC would be great to have.  But Shaw has to hire that individual.

[Goose]

And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

I agree, and have posted here many times, that Tavita shouldn't be the Stanford OC, but for reasons that are pretty orthogonal to yours. I think Tavita needs to get an OC job or similar in the NFL or at another P5 school to broaden his resume. If I were Shaw I would push him out of the nest. One advantage Tavita had when he first got the job was that he was more contemporary with the players. As time has passed, that is no longer true. Presumably Tavita knows the Stanford offense backwards and forwards by now. He needs to learn/demonstrate he knows offense in general, and to do that he has to leave.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

I suspect Tavita is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator. He has more coaching experience than Luck, who has no coaching resume at all AFAIK. Of the two, who would you hire as an OC? (real question, not rhetorical)

---

Agree with your point.  Tavita is OC in name only and probably just takes some admin burden off Shaw.

And we know that how? Because "people" are saying it? If we heard players complaining that Tavita is a cipher then I would lend credence to it. I do suspect that Tavita is a "Shaw disciple" and teaches what Shaw wants to be taught. They probably think alike on most subjects. Some may find that to be a problem.

 A full-fledged OC would be great to have.  But Shaw has to hire that individual.

There are different styles to being a head coach. By far the most common case is that the HC is either an offensive expert or a defensive expert and has very significant direct input on one side of the ball and much less on the other side of the ball. How much freedom they give the coordinator on the direct input side of the ball varies. For those of you that think having an "activist" OC would be a good idea at Stanford, I invite you to consider
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-utes/...taylor-is/.
There are head coaches that are CEO types and rely on a great staff to be successful. John Ralston was basically one of those. Shaw is not. Walsh was not. Saban is, at least as far as we can tell. He has vetoed some things, at least according to rumors. He does make lots of the decisions.
For coaches that are directly involved, it is best they have an OC that basically agrees with their philosophy but may bring some nuances to it. If you get a direct conflict in philosophy, it doesn't work well. Evolution is possible, revolution is not.

[Goose]

And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

I agree, and have posted here many times, that Tavita shouldn't be the Stanford OC, but for reasons that are pretty orthogonal to yours. I think Tavita needs to get an OC job or similar in the NFL or at another P5 school to broaden his resume. If I were Shaw I would push him out of the nest. One advantage Tavita had when he first got the job was that he was more contemporary with the players. As time has passed, that is no longer true. Presumably Tavita knows the Stanford offense backwards and forwards by now. He needs to learn/demonstrate he knows offense in general, and to do that he has to leave.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

I suspect Tavita is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator. He has more coaching experience than Luck, who has no coaching resume at all AFAIK. Of the two, who would you hire as an OC? (real question, not rhetorical)

---

Agree with your point.  Tavita is OC in name only and probably just takes some admin burden off Shaw.

And we know that how? Because "people" are saying it? If we heard players complaining that Tavita is a cipher then I would lend credence to it. I do suspect that Tavita is a "Shaw disciple" and teaches what Shaw wants to be taught. They probably think alike on most subjects. Some may find that to be a problem.

 A full-fledged OC would be great to have.  But Shaw has to hire that individual.

There are different styles to being a head coach. By far the most common case is that the HC is either an offensive expert or a defensive expert and has very significant direct input on one side of the ball and much less on the other side of the ball. How much freedom they give the coordinator on the direct input side of the ball varies. For those of you that think having an "activist" OC would be a good idea at Stanford, I invite you to consider
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-utes/...taylor-is/.
There are head coaches that are CEO types and rely on a great staff to be successful. John Ralston was basically one of those. Shaw is not. Walsh was not. Saban is, at least as far as we can tell. He has vetoed some things, at least according to rumors. He does make lots of the decisions.
For coaches that are directly involved, it is best they have an OC that basically agrees with their philosophy but may bring some nuances to it. If you get a direct conflict in philosophy, it doesn't work well. Evolution is possible, revolution is not.

[JJJ]

3 days ago, Toi Cook posted on IG that he ran into Luck and Sam Schwarzstein on campus. I realize this neither confirms nor denies honorary captaincy, but just FYI.

[JJJ]

3 days ago, Toi Cook posted on IG that he ran into Luck and Sam Schwarzstein on campus. I realize this neither confirms nor denies honorary captaincy, but just FYI.

[Austroturf]

And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

I agree, and have posted here many times, that Tavita shouldn't be the Stanford OC, but for reasons that are pretty orthogonal to yours. I think Tavita needs to get an OC job or similar in the NFL or at another P5 school to broaden his resume. If I were Shaw I would push him out of the nest. One advantage Tavita had when he first got the job was that he was more contemporary with the players. As time has passed, that is no longer true. Presumably Tavita knows the Stanford offense backwards and forwards by now. He needs to learn/demonstrate he knows offense in general, and to do that he has to leave.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

I suspect Tavita is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator. He has more coaching experience than Luck, who has no coaching resume at all AFAIK. Of the two, who would you hire as an OC? (real question, not rhetorical)

---

Agree with your point.  Tavita is OC in name only and probably just takes some admin burden off Shaw.

And we know that how? Because "people" are saying it? If we heard players complaining that Tavita is a cipher then I would lend credence to it. I do suspect that Tavita is a "Shaw disciple" and teaches what Shaw wants to be taught. They probably think alike on most subjects. Some may find that to be a problem.

 A full-fledged OC would be great to have.  But Shaw has to hire that individual.

There are different styles to being a head coach. By far the most common case is that the HC is either an offensive expert or a defensive expert and has very significant direct input on one side of the ball and much less on the other side of the ball. How much freedom they give the coordinator on the direct input side of the ball varies. For those of you that think having an "activist" OC would be a good idea at Stanford, I invite you to consider
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-utes/...taylor-is/.
There are head coaches that are CEO types and rely on a great staff to be successful. John Ralston was basically one of those. Shaw is not. Walsh was not. Saban is, at least as far as we can tell. He has vetoed some things, at least according to rumors. He does make lots of the decisions.
For coaches that are directly involved, it is best they have an OC that basically agrees with their philosophy but may bring some nuances to it. If you get a direct conflict in philosophy, it doesn't work well. Evolution is possible, revolution is not.

1) If Tavita is truly the OC, then he should be relieved of his duties purely on the basis of low performance.  Yes, it might add to his resume if he expanded his experience beyond Stanford, and that would be good for his career.  But that is secondary to his low performance.  The offense is currently a mess, and he should not be the OC.  Do you think that he is a good fit in his current job and simply needs to leave to become better rounded? If so, that is a surprising assessment.     

2) As to whether Tavita is really the OC, I admit that we cannot really know this; but Shaw holds the play card menu the entire game, as he did when Bloomgren was OC.  My suspicion is that, during the Bloomgren era, Shaw let his OC have total control of the offensive line and blocking schemes, while maintaining tight control himself of the offensive strategy and play-calling.  Today, he probably allows Tavita to provide inputs, but he ultimately makes the final call.  Tavita is QB/receivers coach with an additional layer of admin duty.  

3) All this leads me to conclude that Shaw is NOT the CEO version of a head coach.  This may or may not be a good model, but the current state of the offense leads me to believe that he needs a more assertive and creative offensive mind in his staff to right the ship.  Tavita will not provide this.  

4) Regarding the Luck vs. Tavita comparison, I have no doubt Tavita is smart.  But I am not sure how great a motivator he is.  This thread is called X-Factor; and I am convinced Luck possesses that element in abundance, which has certainly contributed to his success over the years.  If you put the gun to my head and told me to pick Luck or Pritchard for OC, I would take Luck, simply because he is a proven winner and would probably transfer that to his offensive squad.  Of course, there are no guarantees, but things on the offensive side of the ball are not great anyway, so why not give luck (Luck) a chance?  This is all purely hypothetical, as Luck is certainly not seeking an entry into college coaching.  But imagine if Shaw had an OC who was not at all dependent on the gig and told him point-blank what needed to be done from an offensive perspective.  It might rattle him a bit, and that would be a breath of fresh air.         

[Austroturf]

And, in my view, if Pritchard were a more successful OC than college QB, he would already have been poached for a head coaching job somewhere, maybe at an FCS-level program to prove his value before getting a top coaching job.  But that isn't happening, so any hypothetical competition with Mr. Luck for OC at Stanford is a moot point.  Pritchard is certainly a fine dude, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for what he wrought in 2007.  But he should not be OC at Stanford.  Let's see if Shaw recognizes this and adjusts accordingly.

I agree, and have posted here many times, that Tavita shouldn't be the Stanford OC, but for reasons that are pretty orthogonal to yours. I think Tavita needs to get an OC job or similar in the NFL or at another P5 school to broaden his resume. If I were Shaw I would push him out of the nest. One advantage Tavita had when he first got the job was that he was more contemporary with the players. As time has passed, that is no longer true. Presumably Tavita knows the Stanford offense backwards and forwards by now. He needs to learn/demonstrate he knows offense in general, and to do that he has to leave.

It is a crazy thought, but Luck is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator.  Maybe there is a spot for him on Shaw's staff.

I suspect Tavita is smart, an exemplary human being and a great motivator. He has more coaching experience than Luck, who has no coaching resume at all AFAIK. Of the two, who would you hire as an OC? (real question, not rhetorical)

---

Agree with your point.  Tavita is OC in name only and probably just takes some admin burden off Shaw.

And we know that how? Because "people" are saying it? If we heard players complaining that Tavita is a cipher then I would lend credence to it. I do suspect that Tavita is a "Shaw disciple" and teaches what Shaw wants to be taught. They probably think alike on most subjects. Some may find that to be a problem.

 A full-fledged OC would be great to have.  But Shaw has to hire that individual.

There are different styles to being a head coach. By far the most common case is that the HC is either an offensive expert or a defensive expert and has very significant direct input on one side of the ball and much less on the other side of the ball. How much freedom they give the coordinator on the direct input side of the ball varies. For those of you that think having an "activist" OC would be a good idea at Stanford, I invite you to consider
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-utes/...taylor-is/.
There are head coaches that are CEO types and rely on a great staff to be successful. John Ralston was basically one of those. Shaw is not. Walsh was not. Saban is, at least as far as we can tell. He has vetoed some things, at least according to rumors. He does make lots of the decisions.
For coaches that are directly involved, it is best they have an OC that basically agrees with their philosophy but may bring some nuances to it. If you get a direct conflict in philosophy, it doesn't work well. Evolution is possible, revolution is not.

1) If Tavita is truly the OC, then he should be relieved of his duties purely on the basis of low performance.  Yes, it might add to his resume if he expanded his experience beyond Stanford, and that would be good for his career.  But that is secondary to his low performance.  The offense is currently a mess, and he should not be the OC.  Do you think that he is a good fit in his current job and simply needs to leave to become better rounded? If so, that is a surprising assessment.     

2) As to whether Tavita is really the OC, I admit that we cannot really know this; but Shaw holds the play card menu the entire game, as he did when Bloomgren was OC.  My suspicion is that, during the Bloomgren era, Shaw let his OC have total control of the offensive line and blocking schemes, while maintaining tight control himself of the offensive strategy and play-calling.  Today, he probably allows Tavita to provide inputs, but he ultimately makes the final call.  Tavita is QB/receivers coach with an additional layer of admin duty.  

3) All this leads me to conclude that Shaw is NOT the CEO version of a head coach.  This may or may not be a good model, but the current state of the offense leads me to believe that he needs a more assertive and creative offensive mind in his staff to right the ship.  Tavita will not provide this.  

4) Regarding the Luck vs. Tavita comparison, I have no doubt Tavita is smart.  But I am not sure how great a motivator he is.  This thread is called X-Factor; and I am convinced Luck possesses that element in abundance, which has certainly contributed to his success over the years.  If you put the gun to my head and told me to pick Luck or Pritchard for OC, I would take Luck, simply because he is a proven winner and would probably transfer that to his offensive squad.  Of course, there are no guarantees, but things on the offensive side of the ball are not great anyway, so why not give luck (Luck) a chance?  This is all purely hypothetical, as Luck is certainly not seeking an entry into college coaching.  But imagine if Shaw had an OC who was not at all dependent on the gig and told him point-blank what needed to be done from an offensive perspective.  It might rattle him a bit, and that would be a breath of fresh air.         

[82lsju]

Welcome home, Andrew!

Andrew Luck will serve as our honorary captain tomorrow for our game against Notre Dame.

=AZW7JzqFkOtmFwcy8X33mKGz0MUXN3--FBX-v6RnwEfZ59cMSiqa86tCvaqbY3WnTloq0OoU-Ffw5rJu8ECC5xQAkfa-Zt1hsOk2sBJsOPC-m-UJS-fiPFdF-M5N5cD2-ZxIl31riVK275U_jFpdL3a0zcj4m2D5X0mkgXlE0-z-FQ&__tn__=*NK*F]#GoStanford

[82lsju]

Welcome home, Andrew!

Andrew Luck will serve as our honorary captain tomorrow for our game against Notre Dame.

=AZW7JzqFkOtmFwcy8X33mKGz0MUXN3--FBX-v6RnwEfZ59cMSiqa86tCvaqbY3WnTloq0OoU-Ffw5rJu8ECC5xQAkfa-Zt1hsOk2sBJsOPC-m-UJS-fiPFdF-M5N5cD2-ZxIl31riVK275U_jFpdL3a0zcj4m2D5X0mkgXlE0-z-FQ&__tn__=*NK*F]#GoStanford

[Farm93]

Love Luck and all HE did for Stanford Football, but I suspect he will be a horrible coach, and I mean that as a compliment.

In most sports the very best players have rarely been very good at coaching.  They saw the play or opponents in ways mere mortals took longer to process.  Or they did things that others couldn't dream to accomplish physically, or they had a drive to execute things at a level of consistent perfection that others would find annoying.    And any of those traits then makes it hard for them to coach the game. 

IMHO it is best to be good at the game, but not so great that you are unable to understand how less skilled types might be able to succeed.   So better to be a Harbaugh than an Elway.   Better to be a Shaw than a Rice or Moss.   One counterargument could be a coach that was a super player might recruit better, but at Stanford I don't think the celebrity recruit benefits would be meaningful given the academic screen.

In terms of Shaw and his bias, those in the stands know the deal by now.  When the offense was really struggling he would talk with that unit even while the game was taking place on the field.   I can't recall him ever talking to the defense while the offense was on the field.   So he is a CEO for the defense, but the family owner for the offense.

Once upon a time I thought Stanford could not afford to compete for top tier OCs, but now I suspect the money is there.   Shaw could even see the benefits of carving out some of his salary to secure a good OC to extend his time as head coach.  The team failures of 2019 and 2021 may actually make the hire easier.   Someone might agree to come in as long as they can implement their own system. Then they might see Stanford as a decent opportunity since any success in 2022 or 2023 would be attributed, in part, to the new OC.

I have long wondered if Coach Shaw has tells in his signals, expressions or player substitutions.  I remember the Pac-12 CG that Stanford lost, there were more than a few times when I thought Shaw's signals coupled with his expressions and the set of play specific players running into the huddle made it crystal clear what Stanford was about to attempt.   Additionally Coach Shaw and his tendencies must be clear with a decade of plays to analyze.   I can't help but suspect by now that a number of Pac-12 teams pretty much know what to expect on almost every play by mid-season.   All of that predictability must become even more problematic if the OL is not exactly best in the Pac and are unable to just do what they want to do even when the opponent knows what is coming.

FWIW - In 2022 I would really like to see Shaw not signal plays and hope he can find a new OC to bring in a fresh perspective.

[Farm93]

Love Luck and all HE did for Stanford Football, but I suspect he will be a horrible coach, and I mean that as a compliment.

In most sports the very best players have rarely been very good at coaching.  They saw the play or opponents in ways mere mortals took longer to process.  Or they did things that others couldn't dream to accomplish physically, or they had a drive to execute things at a level of consistent perfection that others would find annoying.    And any of those traits then makes it hard for them to coach the game. 

IMHO it is best to be good at the game, but not so great that you are unable to understand how less skilled types might be able to succeed.   So better to be a Harbaugh than an Elway.   Better to be a Shaw than a Rice or Moss.   One counterargument could be a coach that was a super player might recruit better, but at Stanford I don't think the celebrity recruit benefits would be meaningful given the academic screen.

In terms of Shaw and his bias, those in the stands know the deal by now.  When the offense was really struggling he would talk with that unit even while the game was taking place on the field.   I can't recall him ever talking to the defense while the offense was on the field.   So he is a CEO for the defense, but the family owner for the offense.

Once upon a time I thought Stanford could not afford to compete for top tier OCs, but now I suspect the money is there.   Shaw could even see the benefits of carving out some of his salary to secure a good OC to extend his time as head coach.  The team failures of 2019 and 2021 may actually make the hire easier.   Someone might agree to come in as long as they can implement their own system. Then they might see Stanford as a decent opportunity since any success in 2022 or 2023 would be attributed, in part, to the new OC.

I have long wondered if Coach Shaw has tells in his signals, expressions or player substitutions.  I remember the Pac-12 CG that Stanford lost, there were more than a few times when I thought Shaw's signals coupled with his expressions and the set of play specific players running into the huddle made it crystal clear what Stanford was about to attempt.   Additionally Coach Shaw and his tendencies must be clear with a decade of plays to analyze.   I can't help but suspect by now that a number of Pac-12 teams pretty much know what to expect on almost every play by mid-season.   All of that predictability must become even more problematic if the OL is not exactly best in the Pac and are unable to just do what they want to do even when the opponent knows what is coming.

FWIW - In 2022 I would really like to see Shaw not signal plays and hope he can find a new OC to bring in a fresh perspective.

[Goose]

1) If Tavita is truly the OC, then he should be relieved of his duties purely on the basis of low performance.  Yes, it might add to his resume if he expanded his experience beyond Stanford, and that would be good for his career.  But that is secondary to his low performance.  The offense is currently a mess, and he should not be the OC.  Do you think that he is a good fit in his current job and simply needs to leave to become better rounded? If so, that is a surprising assessment.     


2) As to whether Tavita is really the OC, I admit that we cannot really know this;

Since we can't know if he is truly the OC, indeed we can't know if he has provided low performance. Strange how many believe that is possible. I believe being a "true" OC isn't a yes or no. It is a more complex dynamic than that.
I really don't know how much Tavita brings to the table at Stanford. I do think he has shown himself to be a pretty good QB coach. That is another long thread that won't fit here. What I do know is that others evaluating Tavita for an OC/HC gig are going to have the same problem evaluating him as we do. What part is Tavita and what part is Shaw? For that reason, he needs to go elsewhere. Eventually, one way or another, that day will come. It is better to do it in a controlled, targeted manner where Shaw can still give him a meaningful recommendation than possibly later when Shaw gets fired/retires. Tavita won't get a HC job at Stanford without a better resume. It would be stupid to hang on here hoping for that to eventually happen. Go elsewhere, learn other systems, build cred, and then Tavita has a shot. If the Stanford thing doesn't work, he would then have other options. In fact, he may prefer other options once he has them. Probably for his future he should have moved on already.

but Shaw holds the play card menu the entire game, as he did when Bloomgren was OC.  My suspicion is that, during the Bloomgren era, Shaw let his OC have total control of the offensive line and blocking schemes, while maintaining tight control himself of the offensive strategy and play-calling.

I believe that at no time does ANYBODY have complete control of anything on offense except David Shaw. I do believe he is a good listener, and that he can be convinced. If he disagrees with you I suspect he will tell you exactly why. However, he is in control, period.

Today, he probably allows Tavita to provide inputs, but he ultimately makes the final call.  Tavita is QB/receivers coach with an additional layer of admin duty.

I don't believe it is just admin duty. I believe Tavita has lots of input and is vital in QB recruiting. In the end, Shaw decides however.

3) All this leads me to conclude that Shaw is NOT the CEO version of a head coach.  This may or may not be a good model, but the current state of the offense leads me to believe that he needs a more assertive and creative offensive mind in his staff to right the ship.  Tavita will not provide this.

As I stated originally, Shaw is not the CEO type of coach on offense. I believe he more or less is on defense. This is the mirror image of Wilcox at Kal. It is also absolutely true that Tavita is not going to directly challenge Shaw. Anyone who does will have a come to Jesus session. If it continues, they won't be Tarmaced, but they will be "Troy Taylored". If you read the link I provided you will understand the reference.

4) Regarding the Luck vs. Tavita comparison, I have no doubt Tavita is smart.  But I am not sure how great a motivator he is.  This thread is called X-Factor; and I am convinced Luck possesses that element in abundance, which has certainly contributed to his success over the years.  If you put the gun to my head and told me to pick Luck or Pritchard for OC, I would take Luck, simply because he is a proven winner and would probably transfer that to his offensive squad.  Of course, there are no guarantees, but things on the offensive side of the ball are not great anyway, so why not give luck (Luck) a chance?  This is all purely hypothetical, as Luck is certainly not seeking an entry into college coaching.  But imagine if Shaw had an OC who was not at all dependent on the gig and told him point-blank what needed to be done from an offensive perspective.  It might rattle him a bit, and that would be a breath of fresh air.         

It would rattle him a bit. If he agrees with the suggestions, they will be incorporated. If he doesn't, the person who did it will suddenly discover he really wants to coach at Nowhere U starting right now.

---

Love Luck and all HE did for Stanford Football, but I suspect he will be a horrible coach, and I mean that as a compliment.

In most sports the very best players have rarely been very good at coaching.  They saw the play or opponents in ways mere mortals took longer to process.  Or they did things that others couldn't dream to accomplish physically, or they had a drive to execute things at a level of consistent perfection that others would find annoying.    And any of those traits then makes it hard for them to coach the game. 

IMHO it is best to be good at the game, but not so great that you are unable to understand how less skilled types might be able to succeed.   So better to be a Harbaugh than an Elway.   Better to be a Shaw than a Rice or Moss.   One counterargument could be a coach that was a super player might recruit better, but at Stanford I don't think the celebrity recruit benefits would be meaningful given the academic screen.

In terms of Shaw and his bias, those in the stands know the deal by now.  When the offense was really struggling he would talk with that unit even while the game was taking place on the field.   I can't recall him ever talking to the defense while the offense was on the field.   So he is a CEO for the defense, but the family owner for the offense.

Totally agree with the above.

Once upon a time I thought Stanford could not afford to compete for top tier OCs, but now I suspect the money is there.   Shaw could even see the benefits of carving out some of his salary to secure a good OC to extend his time as head coach.  The team failures of 2019 and 2021 may actually make the hire easier.   Someone might agree to come in as long as they can implement their own system.

And David Shaw is never, ever going to agree to allow that, so it is a moot point. If the AD attempts to say "Do it or else", I am virtually certain Shaw takes "or else".

[Goose]

1) If Tavita is truly the OC, then he should be relieved of his duties purely on the basis of low performance.  Yes, it might add to his resume if he expanded his experience beyond Stanford, and that would be good for his career.  But that is secondary to his low performance.  The offense is currently a mess, and he should not be the OC.  Do you think that he is a good fit in his current job and simply needs to leave to become better rounded? If so, that is a surprising assessment.     


2) As to whether Tavita is really the OC, I admit that we cannot really know this;

Since we can't know if he is truly the OC, indeed we can't know if he has provided low performance. Strange how many believe that is possible. I believe being a "true" OC isn't a yes or no. It is a more complex dynamic than that.
I really don't know how much Tavita brings to the table at Stanford. I do think he has shown himself to be a pretty good QB coach. That is another long thread that won't fit here. What I do know is that others evaluating Tavita for an OC/HC gig are going to have the same problem evaluating him as we do. What part is Tavita and what part is Shaw? For that reason, he needs to go elsewhere. Eventually, one way or another, that day will come. It is better to do it in a controlled, targeted manner where Shaw can still give him a meaningful recommendation than possibly later when Shaw gets fired/retires. Tavita won't get a HC job at Stanford without a better resume. It would be stupid to hang on here hoping for that to eventually happen. Go elsewhere, learn other systems, build cred, and then Tavita has a shot. If the Stanford thing doesn't work, he would then have other options. In fact, he may prefer other options once he has them. Probably for his future he should have moved on already.

but Shaw holds the play card menu the entire game, as he did when Bloomgren was OC.  My suspicion is that, during the Bloomgren era, Shaw let his OC have total control of the offensive line and blocking schemes, while maintaining tight control himself of the offensive strategy and play-calling.

I believe that at no time does ANYBODY have complete control of anything on offense except David Shaw. I do believe he is a good listener, and that he can be convinced. If he disagrees with you I suspect he will tell you exactly why. However, he is in control, period.

Today, he probably allows Tavita to provide inputs, but he ultimately makes the final call.  Tavita is QB/receivers coach with an additional layer of admin duty.

I don't believe it is just admin duty. I believe Tavita has lots of input and is vital in QB recruiting. In the end, Shaw decides however.

3) All this leads me to conclude that Shaw is NOT the CEO version of a head coach.  This may or may not be a good model, but the current state of the offense leads me to believe that he needs a more assertive and creative offensive mind in his staff to right the ship.  Tavita will not provide this.

As I stated originally, Shaw is not the CEO type of coach on offense. I believe he more or less is on defense. This is the mirror image of Wilcox at Kal. It is also absolutely true that Tavita is not going to directly challenge Shaw. Anyone who does will have a come to Jesus session. If it continues, they won't be Tarmaced, but they will be "Troy Taylored". If you read the link I provided you will understand the reference.

4) Regarding the Luck vs. Tavita comparison, I have no doubt Tavita is smart.  But I am not sure how great a motivator he is.  This thread is called X-Factor; and I am convinced Luck possesses that element in abundance, which has certainly contributed to his success over the years.  If you put the gun to my head and told me to pick Luck or Pritchard for OC, I would take Luck, simply because he is a proven winner and would probably transfer that to his offensive squad.  Of course, there are no guarantees, but things on the offensive side of the ball are not great anyway, so why not give luck (Luck) a chance?  This is all purely hypothetical, as Luck is certainly not seeking an entry into college coaching.  But imagine if Shaw had an OC who was not at all dependent on the gig and told him point-blank what needed to be done from an offensive perspective.  It might rattle him a bit, and that would be a breath of fresh air.         

It would rattle him a bit. If he agrees with the suggestions, they will be incorporated. If he doesn't, the person who did it will suddenly discover he really wants to coach at Nowhere U starting right now.

---

Love Luck and all HE did for Stanford Football, but I suspect he will be a horrible coach, and I mean that as a compliment.

In most sports the very best players have rarely been very good at coaching.  They saw the play or opponents in ways mere mortals took longer to process.  Or they did things that others couldn't dream to accomplish physically, or they had a drive to execute things at a level of consistent perfection that others would find annoying.    And any of those traits then makes it hard for them to coach the game. 

IMHO it is best to be good at the game, but not so great that you are unable to understand how less skilled types might be able to succeed.   So better to be a Harbaugh than an Elway.   Better to be a Shaw than a Rice or Moss.   One counterargument could be a coach that was a super player might recruit better, but at Stanford I don't think the celebrity recruit benefits would be meaningful given the academic screen.

In terms of Shaw and his bias, those in the stands know the deal by now.  When the offense was really struggling he would talk with that unit even while the game was taking place on the field.   I can't recall him ever talking to the defense while the offense was on the field.   So he is a CEO for the defense, but the family owner for the offense.

Totally agree with the above.

Once upon a time I thought Stanford could not afford to compete for top tier OCs, but now I suspect the money is there.   Shaw could even see the benefits of carving out some of his salary to secure a good OC to extend his time as head coach.  The team failures of 2019 and 2021 may actually make the hire easier.   Someone might agree to come in as long as they can implement their own system.

And David Shaw is never, ever going to agree to allow that, so it is a moot point. If the AD attempts to say "Do it or else", I am virtually certain Shaw takes "or else".

[teejers1]

Once upon a time I thought Stanford could not afford to compete for top tier OCs, but now I suspect the money is there.   Shaw could even see the benefits of carving out some of his salary to secure a good OC to extend his time as head coach.  The team failures of 2019 and 2021 may actually make the hire easier.   Someone might agree to come in as long as they can implement their own system.

And David Shaw is never, ever going to agree to allow that, so it is a moot point. If the AD attempts to say "Do it or else", I am virtually certain Shaw takes "or else".

Good.  Let him suffer the "or else" consequence.  I think he'd opt to keep the $$.

All this talk of an OC and Tavita moving on is a JOKE because the offense at Stanford is 100% Shaw's baby (and it ain't a pretty one, that's for sure).  If Shaw canned Tavita, he would be admitting that he himself SUCKS at installing an O and calling a game, which he plainly does.  It's much better for him to simply say "we need a change on O, and I've hired __ to run it."  Until that (at least) is done; Stanford's chances of resurrection from the trash heap are ZERO.

[teejers1]

Once upon a time I thought Stanford could not afford to compete for top tier OCs, but now I suspect the money is there.   Shaw could even see the benefits of carving out some of his salary to secure a good OC to extend his time as head coach.  The team failures of 2019 and 2021 may actually make the hire easier.   Someone might agree to come in as long as they can implement their own system.

And David Shaw is never, ever going to agree to allow that, so it is a moot point. If the AD attempts to say "Do it or else", I am virtually certain Shaw takes "or else".

Good.  Let him suffer the "or else" consequence.  I think he'd opt to keep the $$.

All this talk of an OC and Tavita moving on is a JOKE because the offense at Stanford is 100% Shaw's baby (and it ain't a pretty one, that's for sure).  If Shaw canned Tavita, he would be admitting that he himself SUCKS at installing an O and calling a game, which he plainly does.  It's much better for him to simply say "we need a change on O, and I've hired __ to run it."  Until that (at least) is done; Stanford's chances of resurrection from the trash heap are ZERO.

[PAsportsfan]

Once is enough for taking the ball out of Luck's hands.

[PAsportsfan]

Once is enough for taking the ball out of Luck's hands.

[slide]

had to laugh at Goose's damning praise for Tavita's critical role in Stanford's QB recruiting.  I think Tavita needs a raise -- 4 QB offers in 5 years and landed 2.  thankfully one of the last verbal has emerged late as the starter on his HS team.

2019:  Hilinski (late panic offer with zero chance)
2020:  Gap Year III (?)
2021:  Patu
2022:  Daniels
2023:  Lonergan (an unofficial visit but Stanford not listed in his top 4)

[slide]

had to laugh at Goose's damning praise for Tavita's critical role in Stanford's QB recruiting.  I think Tavita needs a raise -- 4 QB offers in 5 years and landed 2.  thankfully one of the last verbal has emerged late as the starter on his HS team.

2019:  Hilinski (late panic offer with zero chance)
2020:  Gap Year III (?)
2021:  Patu
2022:  Daniels
2023:  Lonergan (an unofficial visit but Stanford not listed in his top 4)

[gailtate]

Once is enough for taking the ball out of Luck's hands.

At the time (Fiasco Bowl) I naively cut him some slack, remembering Harbaugh's brainfart at the conclusion of the '09 BG. Since then, his decision-making has been consistently indefensible.

[gailtate]

Once is enough for taking the ball out of Luck's hands.

At the time (Fiasco Bowl) I naively cut him some slack, remembering Harbaugh's brainfart at the conclusion of the '09 BG. Since then, his decision-making has been consistently indefensible.