[qwerty49]

But if we restrict it to a four-year minimum, we get:
Pop Warner, .781, Stanford record the year before he started was 7-2
David Shaw, .759 (so far), Stanford record the year before he started was 12-1
John Ralston, .601, Stanford record the year before he started was 5-5
Bill Walsh, .585, Stanford records the year before he started were 6-5 (Walsh I) and 8-4
Jim Harbaugh, .580, Stanford record the year before he started was 1-11.

That's a great list, and I would rank them Warner, Harbaugh, Shaw, Ralston, Walsh.

I can't comment on Warner but I think context, (which you noted) is way more important than the W-L stats when "ranking" these coaches.

Ralston inherited a mediocre program and brought a pro pocket passing attack and eventually had the right guys, Plunkett and Bunce, to run it.  He also had great talent all around, particularly on D with the T-Chickens.  And his asst coaches (Walsh, Vermeil, etc) really succeeded later in their careers.

Walsh, rightfully dubbed The Genius, brought an innovative offense and got way more out of his (relatively limited) athletes as a result.

Harbaugh had easy acts to follow in Buddy and Wlat, and brought attitude that simply wasn't there before, and which was needed to run a merciless ground game with the TWU.  

Shaw inherited a 12-1 team, so in some ways there was nowhere to go but down, statistically.  I'm sure he brought an important recruiting advantage to reach the families of A-A recruits, but I'm having trouble seeing what else he brought to the table.

Bottom line is that I can't see ranking Shaw higher than the other 3, but the criteria are not crystal clear anyway.

[qwerty49]

But if we restrict it to a four-year minimum, we get:
Pop Warner, .781, Stanford record the year before he started was 7-2
David Shaw, .759 (so far), Stanford record the year before he started was 12-1
John Ralston, .601, Stanford record the year before he started was 5-5
Bill Walsh, .585, Stanford records the year before he started were 6-5 (Walsh I) and 8-4
Jim Harbaugh, .580, Stanford record the year before he started was 1-11.

That's a great list, and I would rank them Warner, Harbaugh, Shaw, Ralston, Walsh.

I can't comment on Warner but I think context, (which you noted) is way more important than the W-L stats when "ranking" these coaches.

Ralston inherited a mediocre program and brought a pro pocket passing attack and eventually had the right guys, Plunkett and Bunce, to run it.  He also had great talent all around, particularly on D with the T-Chickens.  And his asst coaches (Walsh, Vermeil, etc) really succeeded later in their careers.

Walsh, rightfully dubbed The Genius, brought an innovative offense and got way more out of his (relatively limited) athletes as a result.

Harbaugh had easy acts to follow in Buddy and Wlat, and brought attitude that simply wasn't there before, and which was needed to run a merciless ground game with the TWU.  

Shaw inherited a 12-1 team, so in some ways there was nowhere to go but down, statistically.  I'm sure he brought an important recruiting advantage to reach the families of A-A recruits, but I'm having trouble seeing what else he brought to the table.

Bottom line is that I can't see ranking Shaw higher than the other 3, but the criteria are not crystal clear anyway.