[pincemob]

Scorecard captured most of what I meant.  While true Monty's teams' points-per-game were not low, it was not an exciting style of play.  Tough? Yes. Efficient?  Yes.  Entertaining?  Not to most.  Teams would give us fast breaks and we would say no, back it out, and start our sets.  And our fans would cheer!  It was the winning/ dominance that created the fan following, not the style.  And I think if Shaw wins, even if it's with an offense that averages 180 yards passing, that will be fine.  Perhaps an analogy from the same sport is the 49ers, who under Harbaugh recaptured a large part of the fan base.  They don't run west coast offense, and what they do is often very ugly.  They mainly kick field goals and on 3rd and long just try to get field position.  But they win with defense, and the fans tune in. 

[pincemob]

Scorecard captured most of what I meant.  While true Monty's teams' points-per-game were not low, it was not an exciting style of play.  Tough? Yes. Efficient?  Yes.  Entertaining?  Not to most.  Teams would give us fast breaks and we would say no, back it out, and start our sets.  And our fans would cheer!  It was the winning/ dominance that created the fan following, not the style.  And I think if Shaw wins, even if it's with an offense that averages 180 yards passing, that will be fine.  Perhaps an analogy from the same sport is the 49ers, who under Harbaugh recaptured a large part of the fan base.  They don't run west coast offense, and what they do is often very ugly.  They mainly kick field goals and on 3rd and long just try to get field position.  But they win with defense, and the fans tune in. 

[pincemob]

Scorecard captured most of what I meant.  While true Monty's teams' points-per-game were not low, it was not an exciting style of play.  Tough? Yes. Efficient?  Yes.  Entertaining?  Not to most.  Teams would give us fast breaks and we would say no, back it out, and start our sets.  And our fans would cheer!  It was the winning/ dominance that created the fan following, not the style.  And I think if Shaw wins, even if it's with an offense that averages 180 yards passing, that will be fine.  Perhaps an analogy from the same sport is the 49ers, who under Harbaugh recaptured a large part of the fan base.  They don't run west coast offense, and what they do is often very ugly.  They mainly kick field goals and on 3rd and long just try to get field position.  But they win with defense, and the fans tune in. 

[pincemob]

Scorecard captured most of what I meant.  While true Monty's teams' points-per-game were not low, it was not an exciting style of play.  Tough? Yes. Efficient?  Yes.  Entertaining?  Not to most.  Teams would give us fast breaks and we would say no, back it out, and start our sets.  And our fans would cheer!  It was the winning/ dominance that created the fan following, not the style.  And I think if Shaw wins, even if it's with an offense that averages 180 yards passing, that will be fine.  Perhaps an analogy from the same sport is the 49ers, who under Harbaugh recaptured a large part of the fan base.  They don't run west coast offense, and what they do is often very ugly.  They mainly kick field goals and on 3rd and long just try to get field position.  But they win with defense, and the fans tune in. 

[ChicagoCard]

I am not a big fan of the up-rating and down-rating and how it gets applied.  I have seen many legitimate posts downrated for no other apparent reason than the people down-rating them disagreed with the viewpoint.

Is there any language in a FAQ here about using the plus and minus "respect" thingie? (Obviously I haven't checked.) I have some sympathy for the view expressed here by NYC, although I also think the feature has its place here. I hesitate but I'm pretty sure I've seen where a mere, essentially neutral mention of program near a Bart station in a post will get a negative point. I say this not as a fan of that program, but as someone who doesn't think much of doing that.

[ChicagoCard]

I am not a big fan of the up-rating and down-rating and how it gets applied.  I have seen many legitimate posts downrated for no other apparent reason than the people down-rating them disagreed with the viewpoint.

Is there any language in a FAQ here about using the plus and minus "respect" thingie? (Obviously I haven't checked.) I have some sympathy for the view expressed here by NYC, although I also think the feature has its place here. I hesitate but I'm pretty sure I've seen where a mere, essentially neutral mention of program near a Bart station in a post will get a negative point. I say this not as a fan of that program, but as someone who doesn't think much of doing that.

[ChicagoCard]

I am not a big fan of the up-rating and down-rating and how it gets applied.  I have seen many legitimate posts downrated for no other apparent reason than the people down-rating them disagreed with the viewpoint.

Is there any language in a FAQ here about using the plus and minus "respect" thingie? (Obviously I haven't checked.) I have some sympathy for the view expressed here by NYC, although I also think the feature has its place here. I hesitate but I'm pretty sure I've seen where a mere, essentially neutral mention of program near a Bart station in a post will get a negative point. I say this not as a fan of that program, but as someone who doesn't think much of doing that.

[ChicagoCard]

I am not a big fan of the up-rating and down-rating and how it gets applied.  I have seen many legitimate posts downrated for no other apparent reason than the people down-rating them disagreed with the viewpoint.

Is there any language in a FAQ here about using the plus and minus "respect" thingie? (Obviously I haven't checked.) I have some sympathy for the view expressed here by NYC, although I also think the feature has its place here. I hesitate but I'm pretty sure I've seen where a mere, essentially neutral mention of program near a Bart station in a post will get a negative point. I say this not as a fan of that program, but as someone who doesn't think much of doing that.

[JohnOlenchalk]

THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION.

[JohnOlenchalk]

THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION.

[jacketree]

.....

I certainly agree that our offensive production needs to improve.

However the notion that if it doesn't happen tout de suite the program is headed for the shoals of disaster strikes me as a bit much.  Especially when we are winning 75% of our games.

Also, I can remember when 7-5 was considered a pretty decent season. The fact people are now looking in horror at the prospects of it shows you how much expectations have changed post-Luck.

I am jacketree and I approve this message.

The offense does need to improve because an improved offense gives Stanford a much better chance of winning games the rest of this year, all else equal.

I think some of Teejers' concerns about the long-term ramifications of an el stinko offense despite W/L have a real basis in history, at least the history I remember.

Stanford football has an interesting past. Lots of ups and lots of downs - often with the auto-correlation you'd expect.  A good stretch from Chuck Taylor, then a bad one from Cactus Jack. The Ralston through Walsh era was perhaps the golden age of Stanford football where winning 57 percent of your games gets you fired. Then an era of, well 'mediocrity' seems generous; from Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway and Green. The last guy at least started an upswing before bailing.  Walsh came back to kill the upswing, W.i.l.l.i.n.g.h.a.m took the program from the ash heap to Pasadena; then Buddy Harris presented Jim Harbaugh with a nice way to impress the NFL folks. Are we in a Harbaugh-Shaw era or will it really be known as the Gerhart-Luck era?  If David Shaw somehow maintains his current pace with respect to winning, he'd absolutely blow away every post-war coach in Stanford history. He actually has a lot of wiggle room to do so.

But I digress. I mentioned a golden era of Stanford football.  That golden era had plenty of the dreaded 6-5 and 7-4 type seasons sprinkled throughout, but they seem to be years fondly remembered and attendance was good from what everyone says.  I believe the record shows that attendance peaked immediately after Elway's senior season, when the team went 1-10. Why did people show up despite pretty crappy football in terms of W/L?  Because they remembered Elway's aerial circus, beating an occasional big shot (UW, Oklahoma), and some miracle 70 yard pass over Ronnie Lott's head. (Never mind they lost the game.)

Then a slow decline in both team performance and butts in seats. I showed up during that decline (correlation is not necessarily causation!) and distinctly remember sitting in the Terman mezzanine reading an article in the Daily. This would be the 1985 season. An absolutely horrific display of football; the only decent team they beat was Arizona. I remember the sports editor bemoaning not the record so much, but the absolute boredom of Jack Elway's one-more-swing-pass-and-I'm-gouging-my-eyes-out offense. Or perhaps he was criticizing anyone pining for Michigan and Ohio State style winning. I don't remember that exactly, but I do remember his opinion:  'I'd rather lose 42-45 than win 6-3.'  I thought this guy was nuts, but more and more I think he was right as far as Stanford fans generally go.  There simply aren't enough no-matter-what-I'll-show-up diehards. To regularly fill even the downsized stadium is going to take bread and circuses I'm afraid. WSU, even with passes flung all over the place and a 7-0 record isn't going to do it.  It's the nature of Bay Area sports really.  Yeah, the Giants sold out every game this year; but obviously many came dressed as empty green chairs.  I simply cannot explain the Golden State Warriors. They are a total anomaly.

P.S. Re: Bread and circuses.  I work at Powell and Market.  I think 6 billion were trying to board Caltrain at 5:27 yesterday.

[jacketree]

.....

I certainly agree that our offensive production needs to improve.

However the notion that if it doesn't happen tout de suite the program is headed for the shoals of disaster strikes me as a bit much.  Especially when we are winning 75% of our games.

Also, I can remember when 7-5 was considered a pretty decent season. The fact people are now looking in horror at the prospects of it shows you how much expectations have changed post-Luck.

I am jacketree and I approve this message.

The offense does need to improve because an improved offense gives Stanford a much better chance of winning games the rest of this year, all else equal.

I think some of Teejers' concerns about the long-term ramifications of an el stinko offense despite W/L have a real basis in history, at least the history I remember.

Stanford football has an interesting past. Lots of ups and lots of downs - often with the auto-correlation you'd expect.  A good stretch from Chuck Taylor, then a bad one from Cactus Jack. The Ralston through Walsh era was perhaps the golden age of Stanford football where winning 57 percent of your games gets you fired. Then an era of, well 'mediocrity' seems generous; from Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway and Green. The last guy at least started an upswing before bailing.  Walsh came back to kill the upswing, W.i.l.l.i.n.g.h.a.m took the program from the ash heap to Pasadena; then Buddy Harris presented Jim Harbaugh with a nice way to impress the NFL folks. Are we in a Harbaugh-Shaw era or will it really be known as the Gerhart-Luck era?  If David Shaw somehow maintains his current pace with respect to winning, he'd absolutely blow away every post-war coach in Stanford history. He actually has a lot of wiggle room to do so.

But I digress. I mentioned a golden era of Stanford football.  That golden era had plenty of the dreaded 6-5 and 7-4 type seasons sprinkled throughout, but they seem to be years fondly remembered and attendance was good from what everyone says.  I believe the record shows that attendance peaked immediately after Elway's senior season, when the team went 1-10. Why did people show up despite pretty crappy football in terms of W/L?  Because they remembered Elway's aerial circus, beating an occasional big shot (UW, Oklahoma), and some miracle 70 yard pass over Ronnie Lott's head. (Never mind they lost the game.)

Then a slow decline in both team performance and butts in seats. I showed up during that decline (correlation is not necessarily causation!) and distinctly remember sitting in the Terman mezzanine reading an article in the Daily. This would be the 1985 season. An absolutely horrific display of football; the only decent team they beat was Arizona. I remember the sports editor bemoaning not the record so much, but the absolute boredom of Jack Elway's one-more-swing-pass-and-I'm-gouging-my-eyes-out offense. Or perhaps he was criticizing anyone pining for Michigan and Ohio State style winning. I don't remember that exactly, but I do remember his opinion:  'I'd rather lose 42-45 than win 6-3.'  I thought this guy was nuts, but more and more I think he was right as far as Stanford fans generally go.  There simply aren't enough no-matter-what-I'll-show-up diehards. To regularly fill even the downsized stadium is going to take bread and circuses I'm afraid. WSU, even with passes flung all over the place and a 7-0 record isn't going to do it.  It's the nature of Bay Area sports really.  Yeah, the Giants sold out every game this year; but obviously many came dressed as empty green chairs.  I simply cannot explain the Golden State Warriors. They are a total anomaly.

P.S. Re: Bread and circuses.  I work at Powell and Market.  I think 6 billion were trying to board Caltrain at 5:27 yesterday.

[jacketree]

.....

I certainly agree that our offensive production needs to improve.

However the notion that if it doesn't happen tout de suite the program is headed for the shoals of disaster strikes me as a bit much.  Especially when we are winning 75% of our games.

Also, I can remember when 7-5 was considered a pretty decent season. The fact people are now looking in horror at the prospects of it shows you how much expectations have changed post-Luck.

I am jacketree and I approve this message.

The offense does need to improve because an improved offense gives Stanford a much better chance of winning games the rest of this year, all else equal.

I think some of Teejers' concerns about the long-term ramifications of an el stinko offense despite W/L have a real basis in history, at least the history I remember.

Stanford football has an interesting past. Lots of ups and lots of downs - often with the auto-correlation you'd expect.  A good stretch from Chuck Taylor, then a bad one from Cactus Jack. The Ralston through Walsh era was perhaps the golden age of Stanford football where winning 57 percent of your games gets you fired. Then an era of, well 'mediocrity' seems generous; from Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway and Green. The last guy at least started an upswing before bailing.  Walsh came back to kill the upswing, W.i.l.l.i.n.g.h.a.m took the program from the ash heap to Pasadena; then Buddy Harris presented Jim Harbaugh with a nice way to impress the NFL folks. Are we in a Harbaugh-Shaw era or will it really be known as the Gerhart-Luck era?  If David Shaw somehow maintains his current pace with respect to winning, he'd absolutely blow away every post-war coach in Stanford history. He actually has a lot of wiggle room to do so.

But I digress. I mentioned a golden era of Stanford football.  That golden era had plenty of the dreaded 6-5 and 7-4 type seasons sprinkled throughout, but they seem to be years fondly remembered and attendance was good from what everyone says.  I believe the record shows that attendance peaked immediately after Elway's senior season, when the team went 1-10. Why did people show up despite pretty crappy football in terms of W/L?  Because they remembered Elway's aerial circus, beating an occasional big shot (UW, Oklahoma), and some miracle 70 yard pass over Ronnie Lott's head. (Never mind they lost the game.)

Then a slow decline in both team performance and butts in seats. I showed up during that decline (correlation is not necessarily causation!) and distinctly remember sitting in the Terman mezzanine reading an article in the Daily. This would be the 1985 season. An absolutely horrific display of football; the only decent team they beat was Arizona. I remember the sports editor bemoaning not the record so much, but the absolute boredom of Jack Elway's one-more-swing-pass-and-I'm-gouging-my-eyes-out offense. Or perhaps he was criticizing anyone pining for Michigan and Ohio State style winning. I don't remember that exactly, but I do remember his opinion:  'I'd rather lose 42-45 than win 6-3.'  I thought this guy was nuts, but more and more I think he was right as far as Stanford fans generally go.  There simply aren't enough no-matter-what-I'll-show-up diehards. To regularly fill even the downsized stadium is going to take bread and circuses I'm afraid. WSU, even with passes flung all over the place and a 7-0 record isn't going to do it.  It's the nature of Bay Area sports really.  Yeah, the Giants sold out every game this year; but obviously many came dressed as empty green chairs.  I simply cannot explain the Golden State Warriors. They are a total anomaly.

P.S. Re: Bread and circuses.  I work at Powell and Market.  I think 6 billion were trying to board Caltrain at 5:27 yesterday.

[jacketree]

.....

I certainly agree that our offensive production needs to improve.

However the notion that if it doesn't happen tout de suite the program is headed for the shoals of disaster strikes me as a bit much.  Especially when we are winning 75% of our games.

Also, I can remember when 7-5 was considered a pretty decent season. The fact people are now looking in horror at the prospects of it shows you how much expectations have changed post-Luck.

I am jacketree and I approve this message.

The offense does need to improve because an improved offense gives Stanford a much better chance of winning games the rest of this year, all else equal.

I think some of Teejers' concerns about the long-term ramifications of an el stinko offense despite W/L have a real basis in history, at least the history I remember.

Stanford football has an interesting past. Lots of ups and lots of downs - often with the auto-correlation you'd expect.  A good stretch from Chuck Taylor, then a bad one from Cactus Jack. The Ralston through Walsh era was perhaps the golden age of Stanford football where winning 57 percent of your games gets you fired. Then an era of, well 'mediocrity' seems generous; from Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway and Green. The last guy at least started an upswing before bailing.  Walsh came back to kill the upswing, W.i.l.l.i.n.g.h.a.m took the program from the ash heap to Pasadena; then Buddy Harris presented Jim Harbaugh with a nice way to impress the NFL folks. Are we in a Harbaugh-Shaw era or will it really be known as the Gerhart-Luck era?  If David Shaw somehow maintains his current pace with respect to winning, he'd absolutely blow away every post-war coach in Stanford history. He actually has a lot of wiggle room to do so.

But I digress. I mentioned a golden era of Stanford football.  That golden era had plenty of the dreaded 6-5 and 7-4 type seasons sprinkled throughout, but they seem to be years fondly remembered and attendance was good from what everyone says.  I believe the record shows that attendance peaked immediately after Elway's senior season, when the team went 1-10. Why did people show up despite pretty crappy football in terms of W/L?  Because they remembered Elway's aerial circus, beating an occasional big shot (UW, Oklahoma), and some miracle 70 yard pass over Ronnie Lott's head. (Never mind they lost the game.)

Then a slow decline in both team performance and butts in seats. I showed up during that decline (correlation is not necessarily causation!) and distinctly remember sitting in the Terman mezzanine reading an article in the Daily. This would be the 1985 season. An absolutely horrific display of football; the only decent team they beat was Arizona. I remember the sports editor bemoaning not the record so much, but the absolute boredom of Jack Elway's one-more-swing-pass-and-I'm-gouging-my-eyes-out offense. Or perhaps he was criticizing anyone pining for Michigan and Ohio State style winning. I don't remember that exactly, but I do remember his opinion:  'I'd rather lose 42-45 than win 6-3.'  I thought this guy was nuts, but more and more I think he was right as far as Stanford fans generally go.  There simply aren't enough no-matter-what-I'll-show-up diehards. To regularly fill even the downsized stadium is going to take bread and circuses I'm afraid. WSU, even with passes flung all over the place and a 7-0 record isn't going to do it.  It's the nature of Bay Area sports really.  Yeah, the Giants sold out every game this year; but obviously many came dressed as empty green chairs.  I simply cannot explain the Golden State Warriors. They are a total anomaly.

P.S. Re: Bread and circuses.  I work at Powell and Market.  I think 6 billion were trying to board Caltrain at 5:27 yesterday.

[JohnOlenchalk]

the problem is we should be pissed off we've lost two road games we should've won, if we had even a jc qb like Taco Tech's behind center, or would run outside the tackle box.  There are serious questions as to Shaw's judgement on personnel, playcalling, clock management, and wasting a great defense.  C'mon, we're Stanford- NO ROAD TD's until Kal?  Give me an effing break, Nottingham can't be worse than Nunes, and if he doesn't have "full command of the playbook" then cut it down AND COACH HIM UP!  Nunes doesn't appear to be very coachable, or he's just not very good.  Is it one, or the other, or BOTH? 
WE ARE VERY CAPABLE OF LOSING A TRAP GAME TO COLORADO, AFTER ALL THEY OWNED WSU...  AND UCLA AND OSU NOW AREN'T THE GIMME'S WE THOUGHT EITHER.

[JohnOlenchalk]

the problem is we should be pissed off we've lost two road games we should've won, if we had even a jc qb like Taco Tech's behind center, or would run outside the tackle box.  There are serious questions as to Shaw's judgement on personnel, playcalling, clock management, and wasting a great defense.  C'mon, we're Stanford- NO ROAD TD's until Kal?  Give me an effing break, Nottingham can't be worse than Nunes, and if he doesn't have "full command of the playbook" then cut it down AND COACH HIM UP!  Nunes doesn't appear to be very coachable, or he's just not very good.  Is it one, or the other, or BOTH? 
WE ARE VERY CAPABLE OF LOSING A TRAP GAME TO COLORADO, AFTER ALL THEY OWNED WSU...  AND UCLA AND OSU NOW AREN'T THE GIMME'S WE THOUGHT EITHER.

[JohnOlenchalk]

the problem is we should be pissed off we've lost two road games we should've won, if we had even a jc qb like Taco Tech's behind center, or would run outside the tackle box.  There are serious questions as to Shaw's judgement on personnel, playcalling, clock management, and wasting a great defense.  C'mon, we're Stanford- NO ROAD TD's until Kal?  Give me an effing break, Nottingham can't be worse than Nunes, and if he doesn't have "full command of the playbook" then cut it down AND COACH HIM UP!  Nunes doesn't appear to be very coachable, or he's just not very good.  Is it one, or the other, or BOTH? 
WE ARE VERY CAPABLE OF LOSING A TRAP GAME TO COLORADO, AFTER ALL THEY OWNED WSU...  AND UCLA AND OSU NOW AREN'T THE GIMME'S WE THOUGHT EITHER.

[JohnOlenchalk]

the problem is we should be pissed off we've lost two road games we should've won, if we had even a jc qb like Taco Tech's behind center, or would run outside the tackle box.  There are serious questions as to Shaw's judgement on personnel, playcalling, clock management, and wasting a great defense.  C'mon, we're Stanford- NO ROAD TD's until Kal?  Give me an effing break, Nottingham can't be worse than Nunes, and if he doesn't have "full command of the playbook" then cut it down AND COACH HIM UP!  Nunes doesn't appear to be very coachable, or he's just not very good.  Is it one, or the other, or BOTH? 
WE ARE VERY CAPABLE OF LOSING A TRAP GAME TO COLORADO, AFTER ALL THEY OWNED WSU...  AND UCLA AND OSU NOW AREN'T THE GIMME'S WE THOUGHT EITHER.

[76lsjumb]

the problem is we should be pissed off we've lost two road games we should've won, if we had even a jc qb like Taco Tech's behind center, or would run outside the tackle box.  There are serious questions as to Shaw's judgement on personnel, playcalling, clock management, and wasting a great defense.  C'mon, we're Stanford- NO ROAD TD's until Kal?  Give me an effing break, Nottingham can't be worse than Nunes, and if he doesn't have "full command of the playbook" then cut it down AND COACH HIM UP!  Nunes doesn't appear to be very coachable, or he's just not very good.  Is it one, or the other, or BOTH? 
WE ARE VERY CAPABLE OF LOSING A TRAP GAME TO COLORADO, AFTER ALL THEY OWNED WSU...  AND UCLA AND OSU NOW AREN'T THE GIMME'S WE THOUGHT EITHER.

Hey...will somebody get johnnyo53 another dead horse?  He's beaten this one to pulp...

[76lsjumb]

the problem is we should be pissed off we've lost two road games we should've won, if we had even a jc qb like Taco Tech's behind center, or would run outside the tackle box.  There are serious questions as to Shaw's judgement on personnel, playcalling, clock management, and wasting a great defense.  C'mon, we're Stanford- NO ROAD TD's until Kal?  Give me an effing break, Nottingham can't be worse than Nunes, and if he doesn't have "full command of the playbook" then cut it down AND COACH HIM UP!  Nunes doesn't appear to be very coachable, or he's just not very good.  Is it one, or the other, or BOTH? 
WE ARE VERY CAPABLE OF LOSING A TRAP GAME TO COLORADO, AFTER ALL THEY OWNED WSU...  AND UCLA AND OSU NOW AREN'T THE GIMME'S WE THOUGHT EITHER.

Hey...will somebody get johnnyo53 another dead horse?  He's beaten this one to pulp...

[76lsjumb]

the problem is we should be pissed off we've lost two road games we should've won, if we had even a jc qb like Taco Tech's behind center, or would run outside the tackle box.  There are serious questions as to Shaw's judgement on personnel, playcalling, clock management, and wasting a great defense.  C'mon, we're Stanford- NO ROAD TD's until Kal?  Give me an effing break, Nottingham can't be worse than Nunes, and if he doesn't have "full command of the playbook" then cut it down AND COACH HIM UP!  Nunes doesn't appear to be very coachable, or he's just not very good.  Is it one, or the other, or BOTH? 
WE ARE VERY CAPABLE OF LOSING A TRAP GAME TO COLORADO, AFTER ALL THEY OWNED WSU...  AND UCLA AND OSU NOW AREN'T THE GIMME'S WE THOUGHT EITHER.

Hey...will somebody get johnnyo53 another dead horse?  He's beaten this one to pulp...

[76lsjumb]

the problem is we should be pissed off we've lost two road games we should've won, if we had even a jc qb like Taco Tech's behind center, or would run outside the tackle box.  There are serious questions as to Shaw's judgement on personnel, playcalling, clock management, and wasting a great defense.  C'mon, we're Stanford- NO ROAD TD's until Kal?  Give me an effing break, Nottingham can't be worse than Nunes, and if he doesn't have "full command of the playbook" then cut it down AND COACH HIM UP!  Nunes doesn't appear to be very coachable, or he's just not very good.  Is it one, or the other, or BOTH? 
WE ARE VERY CAPABLE OF LOSING A TRAP GAME TO COLORADO, AFTER ALL THEY OWNED WSU...  AND UCLA AND OSU NOW AREN'T THE GIMME'S WE THOUGHT EITHER.

Hey...will somebody get johnnyo53 another dead horse?  He's beaten this one to pulp...

[JohnOlenchalk]

AND I'M GOOD AT IT! LMAO!

[JohnOlenchalk]

AND I'M GOOD AT IT! LMAO!

[JohnOlenchalk]

AND I'M GOOD AT IT! LMAO!

[JohnOlenchalk]

AND I'M GOOD AT IT! LMAO!

[JohnOlenchalk]

Hey, we can still run the table...But I'd feel a lot better about it if I thought our offense shows up to play every week...  Stranger things have happened, Tavita Loco beat USC in the coliseum, maybe there's some magic left for Eugene...but again, I'd feel a lot better about that if Harbs and Roman were running the offense, with or without Luck!

[JohnOlenchalk]

Hey, we can still run the table...But I'd feel a lot better about it if I thought our offense shows up to play every week...  Stranger things have happened, Tavita Loco beat USC in the coliseum, maybe there's some magic left for Eugene...but again, I'd feel a lot better about that if Harbs and Roman were running the offense, with or without Luck!

[JohnOlenchalk]

Hey, we can still run the table...But I'd feel a lot better about it if I thought our offense shows up to play every week...  Stranger things have happened, Tavita Loco beat USC in the coliseum, maybe there's some magic left for Eugene...but again, I'd feel a lot better about that if Harbs and Roman were running the offense, with or without Luck!

[JohnOlenchalk]

Hey, we can still run the table...But I'd feel a lot better about it if I thought our offense shows up to play every week...  Stranger things have happened, Tavita Loco beat USC in the coliseum, maybe there's some magic left for Eugene...but again, I'd feel a lot better about that if Harbs and Roman were running the offense, with or without Luck!

[ATLCard]

We would all feel much better if Harbs 2010 was still running the show, but the 49ers had other ideas.  Now most of the NFL would also feel bettor if they had him.  Tough comparison for Shaw given that Harbs 2010-2012 is arguably performing higher than any other football coach at any level now.

For a more relevant comparison, how did you feel about Harbs 2008, in his second year?  You know, the one who pissed away the UCLA game, who started Tavita because he didn't think Luck was ready (which also likely cost us a game or two in 2009)?  That Harbs was still learning and made a lot of mistakes.  The horrendous UCLA game was 8 games into his second year and there were people calling for his head at that point.  I'm optimistic that Shaw will be a long-term winner here, although I have no clue what's going to happen in that last three games of this year.

[ATLCard]

We would all feel much better if Harbs 2010 was still running the show, but the 49ers had other ideas.  Now most of the NFL would also feel bettor if they had him.  Tough comparison for Shaw given that Harbs 2010-2012 is arguably performing higher than any other football coach at any level now.

For a more relevant comparison, how did you feel about Harbs 2008, in his second year?  You know, the one who pissed away the UCLA game, who started Tavita because he didn't think Luck was ready (which also likely cost us a game or two in 2009)?  That Harbs was still learning and made a lot of mistakes.  The horrendous UCLA game was 8 games into his second year and there were people calling for his head at that point.  I'm optimistic that Shaw will be a long-term winner here, although I have no clue what's going to happen in that last three games of this year.

[ATLCard]

We would all feel much better if Harbs 2010 was still running the show, but the 49ers had other ideas.  Now most of the NFL would also feel bettor if they had him.  Tough comparison for Shaw given that Harbs 2010-2012 is arguably performing higher than any other football coach at any level now.

For a more relevant comparison, how did you feel about Harbs 2008, in his second year?  You know, the one who pissed away the UCLA game, who started Tavita because he didn't think Luck was ready (which also likely cost us a game or two in 2009)?  That Harbs was still learning and made a lot of mistakes.  The horrendous UCLA game was 8 games into his second year and there were people calling for his head at that point.  I'm optimistic that Shaw will be a long-term winner here, although I have no clue what's going to happen in that last three games of this year.

[ATLCard]

We would all feel much better if Harbs 2010 was still running the show, but the 49ers had other ideas.  Now most of the NFL would also feel bettor if they had him.  Tough comparison for Shaw given that Harbs 2010-2012 is arguably performing higher than any other football coach at any level now.

For a more relevant comparison, how did you feel about Harbs 2008, in his second year?  You know, the one who pissed away the UCLA game, who started Tavita because he didn't think Luck was ready (which also likely cost us a game or two in 2009)?  That Harbs was still learning and made a lot of mistakes.  The horrendous UCLA game was 8 games into his second year and there were people calling for his head at that point.  I'm optimistic that Shaw will be a long-term winner here, although I have no clue what's going to happen in that last three games of this year.

[JohnOlenchalk]

I was pissed at him for starting TAVITA Loco instead of Luck, taking the ball out of Gerharts hands against UCLA and against Kal.  But when he replaced Shaw with Roman, and Lynn with Fangio, he elevated us to a whole new level.  There's a reason Shaw didn't go with him to SF.  He wasn't invited.  I don't believe SHAW'S coaching DNA compares to Harbs, not even close. He didn't start from scratch like Harbs did, so your "relevant" comparison is a little skewed. 

[JohnOlenchalk]

I was pissed at him for starting TAVITA Loco instead of Luck, taking the ball out of Gerharts hands against UCLA and against Kal.  But when he replaced Shaw with Roman, and Lynn with Fangio, he elevated us to a whole new level.  There's a reason Shaw didn't go with him to SF.  He wasn't invited.  I don't believe SHAW'S coaching DNA compares to Harbs, not even close. He didn't start from scratch like Harbs did, so your "relevant" comparison is a little skewed. 

[JohnOlenchalk]

I was pissed at him for starting TAVITA Loco instead of Luck, taking the ball out of Gerharts hands against UCLA and against Kal.  But when he replaced Shaw with Roman, and Lynn with Fangio, he elevated us to a whole new level.  There's a reason Shaw didn't go with him to SF.  He wasn't invited.  I don't believe SHAW'S coaching DNA compares to Harbs, not even close. He didn't start from scratch like Harbs did, so your "relevant" comparison is a little skewed. 

[JohnOlenchalk]

I was pissed at him for starting TAVITA Loco instead of Luck, taking the ball out of Gerharts hands against UCLA and against Kal.  But when he replaced Shaw with Roman, and Lynn with Fangio, he elevated us to a whole new level.  There's a reason Shaw didn't go with him to SF.  He wasn't invited.  I don't believe SHAW'S coaching DNA compares to Harbs, not even close. He didn't start from scratch like Harbs did, so your "relevant" comparison is a little skewed. 

[fullers]

"But when he replaced Shaw with Roman"

Oh... Are you sure you don't mean 'when he replaced Tavita with Luck'?

I love Roman, but I think Luck replacing Tavita, which coincided with Roman's hiring, may have been just a little bit more significant. ;-)

[fullers]

"But when he replaced Shaw with Roman"

Oh... Are you sure you don't mean 'when he replaced Tavita with Luck'?

I love Roman, but I think Luck replacing Tavita, which coincided with Roman's hiring, may have been just a little bit more significant. ;-)