[Mick]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=16362.msg184793#msg184793 date=1483378273]
Since this thread is fully off-topic, can someone explain to me what in the world happened to Baalke? He didn't become GM until Harbaugh's first year, but he was clearly quite involved with personnel before that. How did that roster go from one of the most talented in the NFL to such a dumpster fire in such a short time period? I know the unexpected retirements hurt, but you'd think you could replace those guys with players who are at least competent...

I think Scot McCloughan was the true mastermind in the Niners' personnel department at the time. He's currently doing a good job with the DC football team.
[/quote]


Baalke was the Western scout for the 49ers in 2005.  McCloughan was the actual brains, but he had Sarkisian disease.  He ran the 49er drafts through 2010...he selected the players who got them to the Super Bowl.

Grant Cohn on Baalke vs. McCloughan
http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/49ers-han...-failures/

[Mick]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=16362.msg184793#msg184793 date=1483378273]
Since this thread is fully off-topic, can someone explain to me what in the world happened to Baalke? He didn't become GM until Harbaugh's first year, but he was clearly quite involved with personnel before that. How did that roster go from one of the most talented in the NFL to such a dumpster fire in such a short time period? I know the unexpected retirements hurt, but you'd think you could replace those guys with players who are at least competent...

I think Scot McCloughan was the true mastermind in the Niners' personnel department at the time. He's currently doing a good job with the DC football team.
[/quote]


Baalke was the Western scout for the 49ers in 2005.  McCloughan was the actual brains, but he had Sarkisian disease.  He ran the 49er drafts through 2010...he selected the players who got them to the Super Bowl.

Grant Cohn on Baalke vs. McCloughan
http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/49ers-han...-failures/

[washingtonismoney]

Already stipulated to the fact that he's arguably the most successful coach in Stanford history.  Will you acknowledge the fact that Stanford finished #103 in total offense last year?  Here's the reference point for quick lookup, but you'll have to go to the third screen, because the first two screens are reserved for the top 50, and then the next 50 offenses.
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21

I hate the use of total offense and total scoring offense to judge offensive quality. Your Oregons and Texas Techs play at such a fast pace that this usefulness of these stats are about nil.

Anyway, obviously the offense was quite poor. Should it have been? While you might say that an offense with Christian McCaffrey should've been good, keep in mind that he was (seemingly) injured throughout much of the year, and that much of the rest of the team was also injured. So I think a substantial part of the offensive doldrums are not Shaw's fault.

Then again, this isn't the first rodeo with frustrating offense. 2014 wasn't necessarily poor but seemed underperforming relative to the talent. 2012 was poor. Odd years have seen good or elite offenses. How does it average out, once you adjust for pace and opposition? (Keep in mind Stanford plays slow and against tougher competition than most, meaning its stats will appear more modest than a lot of teams.)

As I get into here, not so bad: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg176337

[washingtonismoney]

Already stipulated to the fact that he's arguably the most successful coach in Stanford history.  Will you acknowledge the fact that Stanford finished #103 in total offense last year?  Here's the reference point for quick lookup, but you'll have to go to the third screen, because the first two screens are reserved for the top 50, and then the next 50 offenses.
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21

I hate the use of total offense and total scoring offense to judge offensive quality. Your Oregons and Texas Techs play at such a fast pace that this usefulness of these stats are about nil.

Anyway, obviously the offense was quite poor. Should it have been? While you might say that an offense with Christian McCaffrey should've been good, keep in mind that he was (seemingly) injured throughout much of the year, and that much of the rest of the team was also injured. So I think a substantial part of the offensive doldrums are not Shaw's fault.

Then again, this isn't the first rodeo with frustrating offense. 2014 wasn't necessarily poor but seemed underperforming relative to the talent. 2012 was poor. Odd years have seen good or elite offenses. How does it average out, once you adjust for pace and opposition? (Keep in mind Stanford plays slow and against tougher competition than most, meaning its stats will appear more modest than a lot of teams.)

As I get into here, not so bad: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg176337

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16362.msg184808#msg184808 date=1483384503]
Already stipulated to the fact that he's arguably the most successful coach in Stanford history.  Will you acknowledge the fact that Stanford finished #103 in total offense last year?  Here's the reference point for quick lookup, but you'll have to go to the third screen, because the first two screens are reserved for the top 50, and then the next 50 offenses.
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21

I hate the use of total offense and total scoring offense to judge offensive quality. Your Oregons and Texas Techs play at such a fast pace that this usefulness of these stats are about nil.

Anyway, obviously the offense was quite poor. Should it have been? While you might say that an offense with Christian McCaffrey should've been good, keep in mind that he was (seemingly) injured throughout much of the year, and that much of the rest of the team was also injured. So I think a substantial part of the offensive doldrums are not Shaw's fault.

Then again, this isn't the first rodeo with frustrating offense. 2014 wasn't necessarily poor but seemed underperforming relative to the talent. 2012 was poor. Odd years have seen good or elite offenses. How does it average out, once you adjust for pace and opposition? (Keep in mind Stanford plays slow and against tougher competition than most, meaning its stats will appear more modest than a lot of teams.)

As I get into here, not so bad: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg176337
[/quote]
Fine.  Stanford #85 in scoring offense.  Better?
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...team/27/p2

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=16362.msg184808#msg184808 date=1483384503]
Already stipulated to the fact that he's arguably the most successful coach in Stanford history.  Will you acknowledge the fact that Stanford finished #103 in total offense last year?  Here's the reference point for quick lookup, but you'll have to go to the third screen, because the first two screens are reserved for the top 50, and then the next 50 offenses.
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21

I hate the use of total offense and total scoring offense to judge offensive quality. Your Oregons and Texas Techs play at such a fast pace that this usefulness of these stats are about nil.

Anyway, obviously the offense was quite poor. Should it have been? While you might say that an offense with Christian McCaffrey should've been good, keep in mind that he was (seemingly) injured throughout much of the year, and that much of the rest of the team was also injured. So I think a substantial part of the offensive doldrums are not Shaw's fault.

Then again, this isn't the first rodeo with frustrating offense. 2014 wasn't necessarily poor but seemed underperforming relative to the talent. 2012 was poor. Odd years have seen good or elite offenses. How does it average out, once you adjust for pace and opposition? (Keep in mind Stanford plays slow and against tougher competition than most, meaning its stats will appear more modest than a lot of teams.)

As I get into here, not so bad: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg176337
[/quote]
Fine.  Stanford #85 in scoring offense.  Better?
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...team/27/p2

[Phogge]

Shaw is a great rep for the Stanford Ideal. A perfect CEO. Not many vice presidents became good presidents.

A few things drive me crazy, especially the delays and useless time outs. But that syndrome is known as Roman Disease and the virus passed on to Bloom and Shaw. Sparky Anderson was once quoted as preparing for two hitters beyond the guy at the plate. No excuse for not having the next play ready.

All in all not many observers thought that Shaw could pull off what he has accomplished.

[Phogge]

Shaw is a great rep for the Stanford Ideal. A perfect CEO. Not many vice presidents became good presidents.

A few things drive me crazy, especially the delays and useless time outs. But that syndrome is known as Roman Disease and the virus passed on to Bloom and Shaw. Sparky Anderson was once quoted as preparing for two hitters beyond the guy at the plate. No excuse for not having the next play ready.

All in all not many observers thought that Shaw could pull off what he has accomplished.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=16362.msg184763#msg184763 date=1483333664]
I start a thread about one of the most successful coaches in Stanford history. Folks follow up by saying how much they'd rather have someone else. Go figure.

Already stipulated to the fact that he's arguably the most successful coach in Stanford history.  Will you acknowledge the fact that Stanford finished #103 in total offense last year?  Here's the reference point for quick lookup, but you'll have to go to the third screen, because the first two screens are reserved for the top 50, and then the next 50 offenses.
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21
[/quote]

The offense rankings are there. We all know Burns was not able to run the offense. Was it the scheme?  His inability to audible to the more appropriate play?  Hard to say. 

A better offense (14 points for each and every game) without impacting anything else moves the team from 10-3 to 11-2.  So in the end a higher scoring offense would not have changed much.  Save for probably allowing USC to win the CFP (gasp).

Many of the stats are all misleading anyway.  Stanford huddles and runs a power game.  It is not a stat friendly style.  In the last 8 seasons Stanford has had portions of three when the offense was not good-to-great (on a per possession basis).  The Nunes led offense.  The Hogan with dad dying of cancer offense.  The Burns offense.  From that I get that Stanford's offense needs a great QB and/or a very sharp game manager.  Apparently the Costello/Mills combination can provide that needed QB level of play desired by the program, so not too worried about the "O" given that the actual objective of the game is to win the game.  Coach Shaw's team is certainly not #103 on that list.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=16362.msg184763#msg184763 date=1483333664]
I start a thread about one of the most successful coaches in Stanford history. Folks follow up by saying how much they'd rather have someone else. Go figure.

Already stipulated to the fact that he's arguably the most successful coach in Stanford history.  Will you acknowledge the fact that Stanford finished #103 in total offense last year?  Here's the reference point for quick lookup, but you'll have to go to the third screen, because the first two screens are reserved for the top 50, and then the next 50 offenses.
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21
[/quote]

The offense rankings are there. We all know Burns was not able to run the offense. Was it the scheme?  His inability to audible to the more appropriate play?  Hard to say. 

A better offense (14 points for each and every game) without impacting anything else moves the team from 10-3 to 11-2.  So in the end a higher scoring offense would not have changed much.  Save for probably allowing USC to win the CFP (gasp).

Many of the stats are all misleading anyway.  Stanford huddles and runs a power game.  It is not a stat friendly style.  In the last 8 seasons Stanford has had portions of three when the offense was not good-to-great (on a per possession basis).  The Nunes led offense.  The Hogan with dad dying of cancer offense.  The Burns offense.  From that I get that Stanford's offense needs a great QB and/or a very sharp game manager.  Apparently the Costello/Mills combination can provide that needed QB level of play desired by the program, so not too worried about the "O" given that the actual objective of the game is to win the game.  Coach Shaw's team is certainly not #103 on that list.

[washingtonismoney]

Fine.  Stanford #85 in scoring offense.  Better?
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...team/27/p2

No, for the same reason total offense is a flawed stat. If you hurry the game up, you get more scoring. Texas Tech had 25% more plays than Stanford did last year. Regardless of each offense's individual merits, it's going to be hard for Stanford to score as many points and move as many yards as Tech does. It's really just simple math.

That's why a more effective way to judge offenses are per-play and per-possession.

[washingtonismoney]

Fine.  Stanford #85 in scoring offense.  Better?
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...team/27/p2

No, for the same reason total offense is a flawed stat. If you hurry the game up, you get more scoring. Texas Tech had 25% more plays than Stanford did last year. Regardless of each offense's individual merits, it's going to be hard for Stanford to score as many points and move as many yards as Tech does. It's really just simple math.

That's why a more effective way to judge offenses are per-play and per-possession.

[OutsiderFan]

I bolded the Red Zone stats for a reason.

[OutsiderFan]

I bolded the Red Zone stats for a reason.

[washingtonismoney]

I bolded the Red Zone stats for a reason.

Yeah, Red Zone stats are better in the sense that they're agnostic to pace. But I'm not convinced red zone skill exists. In 2014 people up in arms about alleged red zone incompetence. 2015, everything's great! 2016, not-so-great anymore. I'm not convinced red zone stats are distinct from "are you good at offense?"

[washingtonismoney]

I bolded the Red Zone stats for a reason.

Yeah, Red Zone stats are better in the sense that they're agnostic to pace. But I'm not convinced red zone skill exists. In 2014 people up in arms about alleged red zone incompetence. 2015, everything's great! 2016, not-so-great anymore. I'm not convinced red zone stats are distinct from "are you good at offense?"

[OutsiderFan]

Red Zone has been a problem for years.  Let me throw out Stanford's FBS TD% in Red Zone:

2016: 48.7%  - #123 (Burns/Chryst QB)
2015: 66.1% - #30 (Hogan QB)
2014: 54.4% - #88 (Hogan QB)
2013: 57.7% - #83 (Hogan QB)
2012: 60.8% - #67 (Hogan QB)
2011: 76.8% - #4 (Luck QB)
2010: 68.6% - #17 (Luck QB)
2009: 68.9 - #19 (Luck QB)

Over the last 5 seasons, Stanford is only #78 out of all FBS teams in Red Zone TD%.  That works out to scoring a TD when inside the 20 yard line only 57% of the time over the last 5 seasons.  It seems to me Stanford, as a Top 15 program, can and should commit to improving on this percentage.  That means looking at different possible approaches to Red Zone offense.

During the time Kelly was at Oregon, here were their FBS Red Zone TD% rankings:

2009: #9
2010: #37
2011: #6
2012: #1
2013: #36

I'm pretty sure Kelly could offer Stanford some different ideas that could improve Stanford's Red Zone TD efficiency, even with Stanford running a pro style offense. 

[OutsiderFan]

Red Zone has been a problem for years.  Let me throw out Stanford's FBS TD% in Red Zone:

2016: 48.7%  - #123 (Burns/Chryst QB)
2015: 66.1% - #30 (Hogan QB)
2014: 54.4% - #88 (Hogan QB)
2013: 57.7% - #83 (Hogan QB)
2012: 60.8% - #67 (Hogan QB)
2011: 76.8% - #4 (Luck QB)
2010: 68.6% - #17 (Luck QB)
2009: 68.9 - #19 (Luck QB)

Over the last 5 seasons, Stanford is only #78 out of all FBS teams in Red Zone TD%.  That works out to scoring a TD when inside the 20 yard line only 57% of the time over the last 5 seasons.  It seems to me Stanford, as a Top 15 program, can and should commit to improving on this percentage.  That means looking at different possible approaches to Red Zone offense.

During the time Kelly was at Oregon, here were their FBS Red Zone TD% rankings:

2009: #9
2010: #37
2011: #6
2012: #1
2013: #36

I'm pretty sure Kelly could offer Stanford some different ideas that could improve Stanford's Red Zone TD efficiency, even with Stanford running a pro style offense. 

[CTcard]

No, for the same reason total offense is a flawed stat.
...

That's why a more effective way to judge offenses are per-play and per-possession.

Absolutely true.
You might as well use total points (or total yards) on the season and ignore the number of games played as using yards or points per game.

Unfortunately, few people compile per possession stats. The main site I know that does so, is bcftoys.com. However, it is frequently down and not always updated. There are also several advanced stats that take into account pace of play in various ways. I think the two that are best known (and at least kind of state what is involved in the stat) are S&P+ that is done on a per play basis and FEI that is done on a per drive basis.
I prefer per possession, because per play still depends upon style (if not pace). i.e. an offense that relies upon big plays versus grind it out.

So, a few pace of play stats for Stanford 2016:
Raw Yds/play = #65 at 5.77
FEI Offense = #73
S&P+ offense = #58
Points per Drive = #54  at 2.74 

[FEI, S&P, PPD all as of end of regular season.]

Those are still not good numbers, but I think they are a more realistic relative evaluation of Stanford's offense than the per game numbers.

By the way, in 2015 Stanford's offense was,
Raw Yds/play = #19 at 6.57
FEI Offense = #2 (behind Navy)
S&P+ offense = #5
Points per Drive = #2 at 3.58 (behind W. Kentucky)

and I think I saw Stanford was #1 in yds/drive last year but I cannot find that stat now.

[CTcard]

No, for the same reason total offense is a flawed stat.
...

That's why a more effective way to judge offenses are per-play and per-possession.

Absolutely true.
You might as well use total points (or total yards) on the season and ignore the number of games played as using yards or points per game.

Unfortunately, few people compile per possession stats. The main site I know that does so, is bcftoys.com. However, it is frequently down and not always updated. There are also several advanced stats that take into account pace of play in various ways. I think the two that are best known (and at least kind of state what is involved in the stat) are S&P+ that is done on a per play basis and FEI that is done on a per drive basis.
I prefer per possession, because per play still depends upon style (if not pace). i.e. an offense that relies upon big plays versus grind it out.

So, a few pace of play stats for Stanford 2016:
Raw Yds/play = #65 at 5.77
FEI Offense = #73
S&P+ offense = #58
Points per Drive = #54  at 2.74 

[FEI, S&P, PPD all as of end of regular season.]

Those are still not good numbers, but I think they are a more realistic relative evaluation of Stanford's offense than the per game numbers.

By the way, in 2015 Stanford's offense was,
Raw Yds/play = #19 at 6.57
FEI Offense = #2 (behind Navy)
S&P+ offense = #5
Points per Drive = #2 at 3.58 (behind W. Kentucky)

and I think I saw Stanford was #1 in yds/drive last year but I cannot find that stat now.

[teejers1]

As I've said tens of times (if not hundreds), forget the stats:  what do your eyes tell you?

The offenses under Shaw have been mediocre, and arguably have underperformed to talent every single year (even the "good" years have had AYFKM brain locks that just shouldn't happen).

The W/L record has been great, so I think many fans overlook what would otherwise be so obvious:  the record could even have been better.  Stanford has incurred Ls that it should not have due to poor game management (see Fiesta Bowl, see at Utah, see home against SC, see at SC (back to back years), and Stanford has won games by much smaller margins than it should have (see too many games to count).

Shaw performs 95% of his head coaching duties incredibly well (recruiting, practices are sharp (at least the few I've seen have been), keeping an even keel in tumultuous season, preparing teams mentally, and perhaps most importantly, "representing" Stanford so well as a coach who mentors young men, and not just football players).  But running a good offense is in the 5%. 

Someone else mentioned CEOs - what I would give for Shaw to act as a great CEO and recognize this deficiency and fix it.  Hire a good OC who will install and call a pro style offense consistent with the principles that make Stanford what it is, and I think we'd all be shocked at the results.

And btw, forget Chip Kelly as consultant or what have you.  The guy Shaw should hire as OC is currently in the booth:  Todd Husak.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

[teejers1]

As I've said tens of times (if not hundreds), forget the stats:  what do your eyes tell you?

The offenses under Shaw have been mediocre, and arguably have underperformed to talent every single year (even the "good" years have had AYFKM brain locks that just shouldn't happen).

The W/L record has been great, so I think many fans overlook what would otherwise be so obvious:  the record could even have been better.  Stanford has incurred Ls that it should not have due to poor game management (see Fiesta Bowl, see at Utah, see home against SC, see at SC (back to back years), and Stanford has won games by much smaller margins than it should have (see too many games to count).

Shaw performs 95% of his head coaching duties incredibly well (recruiting, practices are sharp (at least the few I've seen have been), keeping an even keel in tumultuous season, preparing teams mentally, and perhaps most importantly, "representing" Stanford so well as a coach who mentors young men, and not just football players).  But running a good offense is in the 5%. 

Someone else mentioned CEOs - what I would give for Shaw to act as a great CEO and recognize this deficiency and fix it.  Hire a good OC who will install and call a pro style offense consistent with the principles that make Stanford what it is, and I think we'd all be shocked at the results.

And btw, forget Chip Kelly as consultant or what have you.  The guy Shaw should hire as OC is currently in the booth:  Todd Husak.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

[dabigv13]

Teejers, I nodded my head at plenty of your post until I got to the end.

Let me quote the "After the NFL" section of Todd Husak's Wikipedia page- 

Husak retired from professional football in 2004. In 2005, he served as a graduate assistant football coach at Stanford, working with tight ends.

In 2005 Husak was slated to be the next Bachelor but passed due to other opportunities.

Beginning with the 2008 college football season, Husak began serving as the color commentator for Stanford football radio broadcasts.[4]

Is an avid player of Pokemon Go.

Not exactly seeing Future Stanford Offensive Messiah in there....

[dabigv13]

Teejers, I nodded my head at plenty of your post until I got to the end.

Let me quote the "After the NFL" section of Todd Husak's Wikipedia page- 

Husak retired from professional football in 2004. In 2005, he served as a graduate assistant football coach at Stanford, working with tight ends.

In 2005 Husak was slated to be the next Bachelor but passed due to other opportunities.

Beginning with the 2008 college football season, Husak began serving as the color commentator for Stanford football radio broadcasts.[4]

Is an avid player of Pokemon Go.

Not exactly seeing Future Stanford Offensive Messiah in there....

[teejers1]

Husak ran the pro-style O under Willingham/Diedrick that was the best style of O Stanford has ever seen.  It produced very very good numbers with much less roster talent than Stanford has now.

I also think bright QBs make good O coordinators because they've run offenses previously.  Lastly, listening to Husak on the broadcasts further convinces me he knows what the Stanford O needs to do/improve upon to be a truly elite team.

The defenses under Shaw have been terrific; it's the O that is holding the team back.

Finally, I just read the thread on the Sun Bowl.  Hilarious, as usual.  Love the in-game commentary.  But I have to say that those calling the Sun Bowl meaningless have no effing clue what they're talking about.  All you had to do was see the emotion on the sideline both late in the game, and then after the hard-fought W, to realize that the game meant a lot to those participating.  And those of us in the stands cared about the W, too.  Major kudos to the D, "the 'Kro," and the entire team for "finding a way" to win.  It sure the hell wasn't pretty - and it was exasperating at times - but you have to admire the way they . . . well, found a way.

[teejers1]

Husak ran the pro-style O under Willingham/Diedrick that was the best style of O Stanford has ever seen.  It produced very very good numbers with much less roster talent than Stanford has now.

I also think bright QBs make good O coordinators because they've run offenses previously.  Lastly, listening to Husak on the broadcasts further convinces me he knows what the Stanford O needs to do/improve upon to be a truly elite team.

The defenses under Shaw have been terrific; it's the O that is holding the team back.

Finally, I just read the thread on the Sun Bowl.  Hilarious, as usual.  Love the in-game commentary.  But I have to say that those calling the Sun Bowl meaningless have no effing clue what they're talking about.  All you had to do was see the emotion on the sideline both late in the game, and then after the hard-fought W, to realize that the game meant a lot to those participating.  And those of us in the stands cared about the W, too.  Major kudos to the D, "the 'Kro," and the entire team for "finding a way" to win.  It sure the hell wasn't pretty - and it was exasperating at times - but you have to admire the way they . . . well, found a way.

[JohnR34231]

Husak ran the pro-style O under Willingham/Diedrick that was the best style of O Stanford has ever seen.  It produced very very good numbers with much less roster talent than Stanford has now.

I also think bright QBs make good O coordinators because they've run offenses previously.  Lastly, listening to Husak on the broadcasts further convinces me he knows what the Stanford O needs to do/improve upon to be a truly elite team.

The defenses under Shaw have been terrific; it's the O that is holding the team back.

Finally, I just read the thread on the Sun Bowl.  Hilarious, as usual.  Love the in-game commentary.  But I have to say that those calling the Sun Bowl meaningless have no effing clue what they're talking about.  All you had to do was see the emotion on the sideline both late in the game, and then after the hard-fought W, to realize that the game meant a lot to those participating.  And those of us in the stands cared about the W, too.  Major kudos to the D, "the 'Kro," and the entire team for "finding a way" to win.  It sure the hell wasn't pretty - and it was exasperating at times - but you have to admire the way they . . . well, found a way.

1. I agree that bringing in a top notch OC would be a good idea, assuming we can find one. However, people have been calling for this for years now, and it doesn't happen. So I think in a certain sense you are wasting your breath; it just isn't in Shaw's DNA. In other words, bringing in someone like Kelly as a consultant is probably the best thing we can hope for.
2. "Meaningless" is a normative term, depending on how you view the world. So IMO people arguing about whether something is "meaningless" is, well, a meaningless endeavor.

[JohnR34231]

Husak ran the pro-style O under Willingham/Diedrick that was the best style of O Stanford has ever seen.  It produced very very good numbers with much less roster talent than Stanford has now.

I also think bright QBs make good O coordinators because they've run offenses previously.  Lastly, listening to Husak on the broadcasts further convinces me he knows what the Stanford O needs to do/improve upon to be a truly elite team.

The defenses under Shaw have been terrific; it's the O that is holding the team back.

Finally, I just read the thread on the Sun Bowl.  Hilarious, as usual.  Love the in-game commentary.  But I have to say that those calling the Sun Bowl meaningless have no effing clue what they're talking about.  All you had to do was see the emotion on the sideline both late in the game, and then after the hard-fought W, to realize that the game meant a lot to those participating.  And those of us in the stands cared about the W, too.  Major kudos to the D, "the 'Kro," and the entire team for "finding a way" to win.  It sure the hell wasn't pretty - and it was exasperating at times - but you have to admire the way they . . . well, found a way.

1. I agree that bringing in a top notch OC would be a good idea, assuming we can find one. However, people have been calling for this for years now, and it doesn't happen. So I think in a certain sense you are wasting your breath; it just isn't in Shaw's DNA. In other words, bringing in someone like Kelly as a consultant is probably the best thing we can hope for.
2. "Meaningless" is a normative term, depending on how you view the world. So IMO people arguing about whether something is "meaningless" is, well, a meaningless endeavor.

[stupac2]

As I've said tens of times (if not hundreds), forget the stats:  what do your eyes tell you?

There's a reason people continue to ignore this sage advice.

[stupac2]

As I've said tens of times (if not hundreds), forget the stats:  what do your eyes tell you?

There's a reason people continue to ignore this sage advice.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=16362.msg184902#msg184902 date=1483425091]As I've said tens of times (if not hundreds), forget the stats:  what do your eyes tell you?

There's a reason people continue to ignore this sage advice.
[/quote]

Yeah, stat systems typically do pretty solid against the betting lines, but are we going to trust actual results or feelings?

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=16362.msg184902#msg184902 date=1483425091]As I've said tens of times (if not hundreds), forget the stats:  what do your eyes tell you?

There's a reason people continue to ignore this sage advice.
[/quote]

Yeah, stat systems typically do pretty solid against the betting lines, but are we going to trust actual results or feelings?

[teejers1]

And there is a reason why people are in denial.

P.S.  Solidly.

[teejers1]

And there is a reason why people are in denial.

P.S.  Solidly.

[fullmetal]

Shaw runs a successful ship, and there's no denying that it could be a little better.  Our OL is struggling right now despite having top recruiting talent in the pipeline.  Our QBs have struggled some despite having "top" recruiting talent.  Hopefully the same malaise isn't going to hit the defense (c'mon LBs).  But really, the major weakness in this year's team has been the offense, particularly at OL/QB. 

I don't know what earned Bloomgren the assistant coach of the year finalist this season, but CMac really made that OL look better than they were with his tackle-breaking runs and speed.

Also, my "best offense" award would go to Harbaugh's run-first, PA pass to TE-second offense.  I miss those days...

[fullmetal]

Shaw runs a successful ship, and there's no denying that it could be a little better.  Our OL is struggling right now despite having top recruiting talent in the pipeline.  Our QBs have struggled some despite having "top" recruiting talent.  Hopefully the same malaise isn't going to hit the defense (c'mon LBs).  But really, the major weakness in this year's team has been the offense, particularly at OL/QB. 

I don't know what earned Bloomgren the assistant coach of the year finalist this season, but CMac really made that OL look better than they were with his tackle-breaking runs and speed.

Also, my "best offense" award would go to Harbaugh's run-first, PA pass to TE-second offense.  I miss those days...

[BostonCard]

I really liked the 2015 offense.

BC

[BostonCard]

I really liked the 2015 offense.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Our OL is struggling right now despite having top recruiting talent in the pipeline.  Our QBs have struggled some despite having "top" recruiting talent. 

Did our OL have "top recruiting talent" in the pipeline this year? It started out the year with Tucker (four-star)/Caspers (three star)/Burkett (three-star)/Bright (three star)/Hall (three star). After injuries Tucker couldn't go, and got replaced by three-star Herbig.

The highly-ranked players Hamilton and Yarbrough were four-star, but were true freshman. Pretty generous to say they're "in the pipeline" -- in the back of it, I would say. 2017 is really the first year we can realistically expect contributions. (I know we've mentioned Sarell and Little before, but they're an entirely different category of recruit.)

The idea that we had "top returning talent" for QB is stronger. Chryst was a top-100 overall recruit, while Burns had extremely mixed ratings. (Some rated him as a three-star, some as a four-star.) It's not unusual for two recruits of their ratings to flame out, as a matter of fact. It happens all the time with power programs. (This is why it was a mistake to forego taking a QB in 2015.)

In of itself I think the evidence shows that while OL and QB weren't strongly coached, it's hard to say they were weakly or awfully coached either. Given Bloomgren's record of turning out OL to the league, I think a mulligan is fair. Meanwhile the QB development record isn't bad either. Hogan did develop as a QB during his tenure. It is legitimate to question whether the coaches are the best at selecting QBs to develop: there are a number of good-to-very-good QBs who were passed over for Burns, Chryst and the big gaping void of 2015.

Anyway, viewed in the long run of Shaw's entire tenure, maybe I'm in denial, maybe I'm not. Like all denialists, I care about results -- particularly comparative results. In a classic denialist move, I've looked at several metrics to compare coaches and found that there aren't too many head coaches that have a similar profile as Shaw. To put some nuance into the judgment -- as denialists are wont to do -- I'll note he's not among the tippy-top head coaches in offense. Improvement is certainly possible on offense. (Though I wonder whether the identities of the coaches or the players is the most important variable.) So if Shaw's got any bright ideas to improve on offense, he should do it.

But I think is record on offense is pretty solid, no where near as bad as his detractors make it out to be. I have my speculation as to the motives/thinking of those detractors, but I wouldn't want to be called a denialist. Better to focus on facts.

[washingtonismoney]

Our OL is struggling right now despite having top recruiting talent in the pipeline.  Our QBs have struggled some despite having "top" recruiting talent. 

Did our OL have "top recruiting talent" in the pipeline this year? It started out the year with Tucker (four-star)/Caspers (three star)/Burkett (three-star)/Bright (three star)/Hall (three star). After injuries Tucker couldn't go, and got replaced by three-star Herbig.

The highly-ranked players Hamilton and Yarbrough were four-star, but were true freshman. Pretty generous to say they're "in the pipeline" -- in the back of it, I would say. 2017 is really the first year we can realistically expect contributions. (I know we've mentioned Sarell and Little before, but they're an entirely different category of recruit.)

The idea that we had "top returning talent" for QB is stronger. Chryst was a top-100 overall recruit, while Burns had extremely mixed ratings. (Some rated him as a three-star, some as a four-star.) It's not unusual for two recruits of their ratings to flame out, as a matter of fact. It happens all the time with power programs. (This is why it was a mistake to forego taking a QB in 2015.)

In of itself I think the evidence shows that while OL and QB weren't strongly coached, it's hard to say they were weakly or awfully coached either. Given Bloomgren's record of turning out OL to the league, I think a mulligan is fair. Meanwhile the QB development record isn't bad either. Hogan did develop as a QB during his tenure. It is legitimate to question whether the coaches are the best at selecting QBs to develop: there are a number of good-to-very-good QBs who were passed over for Burns, Chryst and the big gaping void of 2015.

Anyway, viewed in the long run of Shaw's entire tenure, maybe I'm in denial, maybe I'm not. Like all denialists, I care about results -- particularly comparative results. In a classic denialist move, I've looked at several metrics to compare coaches and found that there aren't too many head coaches that have a similar profile as Shaw. To put some nuance into the judgment -- as denialists are wont to do -- I'll note he's not among the tippy-top head coaches in offense. Improvement is certainly possible on offense. (Though I wonder whether the identities of the coaches or the players is the most important variable.) So if Shaw's got any bright ideas to improve on offense, he should do it.

But I think is record on offense is pretty solid, no where near as bad as his detractors make it out to be. I have my speculation as to the motives/thinking of those detractors, but I wouldn't want to be called a denialist. Better to focus on facts.