[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".