[washingtonismoney]

The differences between Helfrich and Shaw are many:

1) Shaw has put together multiple elite offenses and defenses. Helfrich only did the former.
2) Shaw improved recruiting relative to his predecessor. Helfrich's recruiting is worse than his.
3) Both Helfrich and Shaw benefitted from coaching elite QBs when they got the head job. Shaw got one year out of Luck; Helfrich, two out of Mariota.
4) Shaw's teams cover 63% of the time against the spread, showing that they consistently exceeded expectations. Helfrich's are just above .500.
5) Shaw has manufactured good seasons out of mediocre or bad quarterbacks. Helfrich didn't.

I'm sure I could think of more, but the comparison is really asinine. Shaw's a good coach. In some ways I regard this season as the ultimate proof of that. I haven't comprehensively looked at every single season since the Harbaugh/Shaw era began, but I doubt any year has seen more injuries -- not just the ones that kept players out, but debilitating ones (such as the one to McCaffrey. Also heard some other players were hurting throughout long stretches of the season). And yet, there Stanford is, with another top fifteen type of season.

Every good coach eventually runs out of answers, of course. But there's very little evidence that this is occurring anytime soon. Someday Shaw critics will be right and he'll falter -- turn in a 5-7 season or something like that, or even have a sustained downturn. But they'll be like the economist who calls eight out of the last two recessions.

[washingtonismoney]

The differences between Helfrich and Shaw are many:

1) Shaw has put together multiple elite offenses and defenses. Helfrich only did the former.
2) Shaw improved recruiting relative to his predecessor. Helfrich's recruiting is worse than his.
3) Both Helfrich and Shaw benefitted from coaching elite QBs when they got the head job. Shaw got one year out of Luck; Helfrich, two out of Mariota.
4) Shaw's teams cover 63% of the time against the spread, showing that they consistently exceeded expectations. Helfrich's are just above .500.
5) Shaw has manufactured good seasons out of mediocre or bad quarterbacks. Helfrich didn't.

I'm sure I could think of more, but the comparison is really asinine. Shaw's a good coach. In some ways I regard this season as the ultimate proof of that. I haven't comprehensively looked at every single season since the Harbaugh/Shaw era began, but I doubt any year has seen more injuries -- not just the ones that kept players out, but debilitating ones (such as the one to McCaffrey. Also heard some other players were hurting throughout long stretches of the season). And yet, there Stanford is, with another top fifteen type of season.

Every good coach eventually runs out of answers, of course. But there's very little evidence that this is occurring anytime soon. Someday Shaw critics will be right and he'll falter -- turn in a 5-7 season or something like that, or even have a sustained downturn. But they'll be like the economist who calls eight out of the last two recessions.

[BurgXXIII]

I haven't been paying attention. What are the consequences of achieving -4?

[BurgXXIII]

I haven't been paying attention. What are the consequences of achieving -4?

[76lsjumb]

I haven't been paying attention. What are the consequences of achieving -4?

A few more and you become an honorary Oklahoma State fan... ;D

[76lsjumb]

I haven't been paying attention. What are the consequences of achieving -4?

A few more and you become an honorary Oklahoma State fan... ;D

[BurgXXIII]

4) Shaw's teams cover 63% of the time against the spread, showing that they consistently exceeded expectations. Helfrich's are just above .500.

This is also susceptible to the interpretation that Stanford is regularly underappreciated by the betting public.

[BurgXXIII]

4) Shaw's teams cover 63% of the time against the spread, showing that they consistently exceeded expectations. Helfrich's are just above .500.

This is also susceptible to the interpretation that Stanford is regularly underappreciated by the betting public.

[washingtonismoney]

This is also susceptible to the interpretation that Stanford is regularly underappreciated by the betting public.

Well then go make money off of the rubes.

[washingtonismoney]

This is also susceptible to the interpretation that Stanford is regularly underappreciated by the betting public.

Well then go make money off of the rubes.

[BurgXXIII]

[quote author=BurgXXIII link=topic=16353.msg184557#msg184557 date=1483217281]
This is also susceptible to the interpretation that Stanford is regularly underappreciated by the betting public.

Well then go make money off of the rubes.
[/quote]

I always make the passionate pick of Stanford in the family bowl pool and regularly end up losing to another Stanford alum who doesn't mind picking against us.

[BurgXXIII]

[quote author=BurgXXIII link=topic=16353.msg184557#msg184557 date=1483217281]
This is also susceptible to the interpretation that Stanford is regularly underappreciated by the betting public.

Well then go make money off of the rubes.
[/quote]

I always make the passionate pick of Stanford in the family bowl pool and regularly end up losing to another Stanford alum who doesn't mind picking against us.

[BostonCard]

One other comment in praise of Shaw.

The narrative going into the game was that with McCaffrey sitting himself out and coming off of a Rose Bowl game last year that we would be prone to coming out flat as the "less motivated" team.  And certainly, after the first series for each team, it looked like it.  But give Shaw credit for keeping the team motivated and into the game, even after Chryst went down, even after some frustrating offensive series.  While I tend to think "playcalling" is overrated as an important attribute for a coach, knowing how to keep the team motivated tends to be underappreciated, and generally, Shaw is quite good at it (last year's Northwestern game excepted).

BC

[BostonCard]

One other comment in praise of Shaw.

The narrative going into the game was that with McCaffrey sitting himself out and coming off of a Rose Bowl game last year that we would be prone to coming out flat as the "less motivated" team.  And certainly, after the first series for each team, it looked like it.  But give Shaw credit for keeping the team motivated and into the game, even after Chryst went down, even after some frustrating offensive series.  While I tend to think "playcalling" is overrated as an important attribute for a coach, knowing how to keep the team motivated tends to be underappreciated, and generally, Shaw is quite good at it (last year's Northwestern game excepted).

BC

[CornFed]

One other comment in praise of Shaw.

The narrative going into the game was that with McCaffrey sitting himself out and coming off of a Rose Bowl game last year that we would be prone to coming out flat as the "less motivated" team.  And certainly, after the first series for each team, it looked like it.  But give Shaw credit for keeping the team motivated and into the game, even after Chryst went down, even after some frustrating offensive series.  While I tend to think "playcalling" is overrated as an important attribute for a coach, knowing how to keep the team motivated tends to be underappreciated, and generally, Shaw is quite good at it (last year's Northwestern game excepted).

BC

Good point and I would add that, even in the case you cite of the letdown at Northwestern, he successfully motivated the team to recover from that disappointment in fairly stunning fashion.

[CornFed]

One other comment in praise of Shaw.

The narrative going into the game was that with McCaffrey sitting himself out and coming off of a Rose Bowl game last year that we would be prone to coming out flat as the "less motivated" team.  And certainly, after the first series for each team, it looked like it.  But give Shaw credit for keeping the team motivated and into the game, even after Chryst went down, even after some frustrating offensive series.  While I tend to think "playcalling" is overrated as an important attribute for a coach, knowing how to keep the team motivated tends to be underappreciated, and generally, Shaw is quite good at it (last year's Northwestern game excepted).

BC

Good point and I would add that, even in the case you cite of the letdown at Northwestern, he successfully motivated the team to recover from that disappointment in fairly stunning fashion.