[teejers1]

There are so many brilliant coaches that never make the wrong decision . . . on internet bulletin boards.

Ah yes, the Internet Coach retort.

So I'll ask you the same question I asked CI - when watching a Stanford football game, do you just sit there and watch events unfold and react after the fact?  Or, while watching, are you thinking Stanford should do X?  Or Stanford shouldn't do Y?  I am in the latter camp and just assumed that most fans are the same.  But perhaps not.

Regardless, I recognize that in most situations there are no right or smart calls, especially early when feel for the game has not been established in any way.  And whether a play "works" or not is not determinative as to whether it was the smart/correct call because (a) sometimes there is no right/wrong, and (b) sometimes there are execution errors.  But there are times when very basic things are apparent . . . at least to me.  And it's only those in the latter category that I comment on, and only on situations where I have a conviction real time as to what Stanford should or should not do.  Shaw has come up short on the basics a number of times.  You disagree.  Fine. But I really wonder if you watch the game with any kind of critical eye, or just say "Hey, Shaw's record overall is ______; that's great by Stanford standards; all is therefore well."  

Plus, this is a fan board . . . where a certain degree of fanatic commentary is expected.

[teejers1]

There are so many brilliant coaches that never make the wrong decision . . . on internet bulletin boards.

Ah yes, the Internet Coach retort.

So I'll ask you the same question I asked CI - when watching a Stanford football game, do you just sit there and watch events unfold and react after the fact?  Or, while watching, are you thinking Stanford should do X?  Or Stanford shouldn't do Y?  I am in the latter camp and just assumed that most fans are the same.  But perhaps not.

Regardless, I recognize that in most situations there are no right or smart calls, especially early when feel for the game has not been established in any way.  And whether a play "works" or not is not determinative as to whether it was the smart/correct call because (a) sometimes there is no right/wrong, and (b) sometimes there are execution errors.  But there are times when very basic things are apparent . . . at least to me.  And it's only those in the latter category that I comment on, and only on situations where I have a conviction real time as to what Stanford should or should not do.  Shaw has come up short on the basics a number of times.  You disagree.  Fine. But I really wonder if you watch the game with any kind of critical eye, or just say "Hey, Shaw's record overall is ______; that's great by Stanford standards; all is therefore well."  

Plus, this is a fan board . . . where a certain degree of fanatic commentary is expected.