[StanFan88]

I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting.  The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.

I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have.  But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same.  That's 10-4 coaching.

[StanFan88]

I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting.  The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.

I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have.  But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same.  That's 10-4 coaching.