[socalstanfan1]

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.

So, what you seem to be saying is the part of the coaching at which, by your own words, Shaw and his staff excel, recruiting and development of players, doesn't factor into the overall evaluation of their job as coaching. So let's take away the "fantastic job" of recruiting and development. Let's say the coaches are just average in both areas. This is all hypothetical, of course, but I'm guessing we never get to the PAC-12 Championship game, since an average team with average player development never beats Oregon, and probably doesn't beat Washington or UCLA. So exactly how good would we be if you disproportionately weigh the in-game play calling while essentially, despite your nod in your response to the excellent job of recruiting and development? Are we 6-6 and on the bubble for marginal bowls?



I'm not against criticizing play calls made by Shaw and his staff. But I think the overall evaluation of the coaches should include a not more than just a response to one aspect of what a coach does.

[socalstanfan1]

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.

So, what you seem to be saying is the part of the coaching at which, by your own words, Shaw and his staff excel, recruiting and development of players, doesn't factor into the overall evaluation of their job as coaching. So let's take away the "fantastic job" of recruiting and development. Let's say the coaches are just average in both areas. This is all hypothetical, of course, but I'm guessing we never get to the PAC-12 Championship game, since an average team with average player development never beats Oregon, and probably doesn't beat Washington or UCLA. So exactly how good would we be if you disproportionately weigh the in-game play calling while essentially, despite your nod in your response to the excellent job of recruiting and development? Are we 6-6 and on the bubble for marginal bowls?



I'm not against criticizing play calls made by Shaw and his staff. But I think the overall evaluation of the coaches should include a not more than just a response to one aspect of what a coach does.