[gailtate]

Did any feckless reporter ask Shaw what a bad team might look like, if the 2021 version of Stanford Football isn't actually bad?

It's almost like Shaw is telling the world to not believe what their eyes tell them.

Maybe Stanford really went undefeated this season, and us mortals are too blinded by negativity to have seen it?

That's the part I don't get: we were so monumentally bad in the last four games of the season (173-46) that there is virtually zero credibility in arguing about inches and individual plays being the difference.  Scott Frost (also 3-9) could probably use that line of argument, because the Cornhuskers were often close to winning against quality opponents.  If you try to argue that you were inches away from being up 21-0 against mediocre Cal, then lose by 30 and only score 11 points, you are only dissimulating.  And of course, the obsequious press did not try to call him out on it.

...the obsequious press did not try to call him out on it.

I remember Woody Hayes answering reporters' questions after the 1971 Rose Bowl where he dismissed Stanford's shocking victory by citing what he described as the "mad-dog pass" as the reason for his team's 27-17 loss. Reason? Hardly. At least for anyone not named Hayes. Shaw's revised realities are created by the same denial. Until I see evidence that he knows what problems look like, I remain doubtful that he can solve any he has today. 

The first time I read a candid appraisal of this year's team was far too little far too late: Wilner's comment about the sorry-ass OL and DL, followed by Josh DuBrow's piece on the ND game.  It was straightforward reportage no one cared about. Shaw's insistence on insulting the few supporters he has left, trying to sell nonsense and fantasy, is reminiscent of the Kevin "All is well!" Bacon character during the chaotic parade in Animal House.

[gailtate]

Did any feckless reporter ask Shaw what a bad team might look like, if the 2021 version of Stanford Football isn't actually bad?

It's almost like Shaw is telling the world to not believe what their eyes tell them.

Maybe Stanford really went undefeated this season, and us mortals are too blinded by negativity to have seen it?

That's the part I don't get: we were so monumentally bad in the last four games of the season (173-46) that there is virtually zero credibility in arguing about inches and individual plays being the difference.  Scott Frost (also 3-9) could probably use that line of argument, because the Cornhuskers were often close to winning against quality opponents.  If you try to argue that you were inches away from being up 21-0 against mediocre Cal, then lose by 30 and only score 11 points, you are only dissimulating.  And of course, the obsequious press did not try to call him out on it.

...the obsequious press did not try to call him out on it.

I remember Woody Hayes answering reporters' questions after the 1971 Rose Bowl where he dismissed Stanford's shocking victory by citing what he described as the "mad-dog pass" as the reason for his team's 27-17 loss. Reason? Hardly. At least for anyone not named Hayes. Shaw's revised realities are created by the same denial. Until I see evidence that he knows what problems look like, I remain doubtful that he can solve any he has today. 

The first time I read a candid appraisal of this year's team was far too little far too late: Wilner's comment about the sorry-ass OL and DL, followed by Josh DuBrow's piece on the ND game.  It was straightforward reportage no one cared about. Shaw's insistence on insulting the few supporters he has left, trying to sell nonsense and fantasy, is reminiscent of the Kevin "All is well!" Bacon character during the chaotic parade in Animal House.