[teejers1]

teejers1, we agree more than we disagree. Harbaugh's resurrection of Stanford football--of which David Shaw was an important part--was, by any measure, a testament to what a great coach he was for us. I wish he had stayed at Stanford, but he's been gone for over 9 years.

As for Shaw, going 9-5 or 9-4 with top 15 or 16 talent is OK with me. But that wasn't top 15 talent on the field in 2019. We lost our starting QB and left tackle in the first game, and it went downhill from there. 

At the end of August, the 2021 recruiting class is shaping up to be the worst of the Shaw era, but not nearly the worst in the past 20 years. Let's see where things end up and--more importantly--see how Shaw's new approach works out for the 2022 class.

Over the past 50 years, I would place David Shaw above Christianen, Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham, Teevens and Harris. I can't place Shaw above Walsh because, well, I can't. Only Ralston and Harbaugh--who both led Stanford's rise from the ashes, Ralston a slow rise, Harbaugh meteoric--would rank convincingly above Shaw, IMO.

I disagree with that "acceptance," even while acknowledging that 9-4 or 9-5 is good by Stanford standards.  If you get Top 15 talent (per recruit), I'd like to think that group can be "coached up" to 10 wins and some Big Bowls.  

But it may all be moot anyway, as Stanford is losing kids to schools that we used to mop the floor with on the recruiting trail, including Cal.  (I think that's directly related to the luster coming off the program and the increasing belief among the college football world that a significant chunk of Shaw's success at Stanford is attributable to being handed the keys to a Ferrari.).  Whatever the cause, the "average" recruiting class that Stanford can realistically aspire to over a 5 year period now may begin with a "2."  And I don't think Shaw can get to 8 (let alone 9) Ws with that talent level.

P.S.  I agree that Harbaugh was a blessing for the Stanford football program, but I was fine seeing him move on - talk about high maintenance!  Plus, his values did not necessarily align with the university's (just my suspicion), and it was ultimately not going to end well.  So probably best that he moved on when he did.

P.P.S.  I'd put Denny (n/w/s personal foibles) over Shaw on a football coaching ladder . . . and maybe Willingham, too. The latter was a great leader of young men who was not afraid to delegate (which is one of Shaw's greatest failings - and particularly his unwillingness to delegate on O).  Shaw definitely better than the others on your list.  Ralston is a tough one.  Yes, he led Stanford to back-to-back Rose Bowls (and maybe had the best team prior to the first RB); however, he benefited from the ability to recruit JCs . . . something that has been long gone.  Still, given what Ralston built over the years, he is likely ahead of Shaw.

[teejers1]

teejers1, we agree more than we disagree. Harbaugh's resurrection of Stanford football--of which David Shaw was an important part--was, by any measure, a testament to what a great coach he was for us. I wish he had stayed at Stanford, but he's been gone for over 9 years.

As for Shaw, going 9-5 or 9-4 with top 15 or 16 talent is OK with me. But that wasn't top 15 talent on the field in 2019. We lost our starting QB and left tackle in the first game, and it went downhill from there. 

At the end of August, the 2021 recruiting class is shaping up to be the worst of the Shaw era, but not nearly the worst in the past 20 years. Let's see where things end up and--more importantly--see how Shaw's new approach works out for the 2022 class.

Over the past 50 years, I would place David Shaw above Christianen, Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham, Teevens and Harris. I can't place Shaw above Walsh because, well, I can't. Only Ralston and Harbaugh--who both led Stanford's rise from the ashes, Ralston a slow rise, Harbaugh meteoric--would rank convincingly above Shaw, IMO.

I disagree with that "acceptance," even while acknowledging that 9-4 or 9-5 is good by Stanford standards.  If you get Top 15 talent (per recruit), I'd like to think that group can be "coached up" to 10 wins and some Big Bowls.  

But it may all be moot anyway, as Stanford is losing kids to schools that we used to mop the floor with on the recruiting trail, including Cal.  (I think that's directly related to the luster coming off the program and the increasing belief among the college football world that a significant chunk of Shaw's success at Stanford is attributable to being handed the keys to a Ferrari.).  Whatever the cause, the "average" recruiting class that Stanford can realistically aspire to over a 5 year period now may begin with a "2."  And I don't think Shaw can get to 8 (let alone 9) Ws with that talent level.

P.S.  I agree that Harbaugh was a blessing for the Stanford football program, but I was fine seeing him move on - talk about high maintenance!  Plus, his values did not necessarily align with the university's (just my suspicion), and it was ultimately not going to end well.  So probably best that he moved on when he did.

P.P.S.  I'd put Denny (n/w/s personal foibles) over Shaw on a football coaching ladder . . . and maybe Willingham, too. The latter was a great leader of young men who was not afraid to delegate (which is one of Shaw's greatest failings - and particularly his unwillingness to delegate on O).  Shaw definitely better than the others on your list.  Ralston is a tough one.  Yes, he led Stanford to back-to-back Rose Bowls (and maybe had the best team prior to the first RB); however, he benefited from the ability to recruit JCs . . . something that has been long gone.  Still, given what Ralston built over the years, he is likely ahead of Shaw.