[yvonne]

Overall winning percentages among Stanford coaches who have coached more than one season:
1. Clark Shaughnessy .842
2. David Shaw .790
3. Pop Warner .781

Overall wins among Stanford coaches
1. Pop Warner 71-17-8
2. David Shaw 64-17-0
3. John Ralston 55-36-3

Post season wins
1. David Shaw 4
2. Bill Walsh 3
3. John Ralston 2
4. Pop Warner 1 (Willingham, Thornhill, Harbaugh and Shaughnessy also had one win, but Warner, like Walsh and Ralston was 1.000)

He's not perfect, but as Stanford coaches go, he's pretty darn good.

[yvonne]

Overall winning percentages among Stanford coaches who have coached more than one season:
1. Clark Shaughnessy .842
2. David Shaw .790
3. Pop Warner .781

Overall wins among Stanford coaches
1. Pop Warner 71-17-8
2. David Shaw 64-17-0
3. John Ralston 55-36-3

Post season wins
1. David Shaw 4
2. Bill Walsh 3
3. John Ralston 2
4. Pop Warner 1 (Willingham, Thornhill, Harbaugh and Shaughnessy also had one win, but Warner, like Walsh and Ralston was 1.000)

He's not perfect, but as Stanford coaches go, he's pretty darn good.

[BostonCard]

Thanks for editing the subject.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks for editing the subject.

BC

[yvonne]

Yeah, sarcasm doesn't always work online.

[yvonne]

Yeah, sarcasm doesn't always work online.

[JohnR34231]

Yes, but his record could be so much better if he would stop being so conservative, hire a decent OC, and stop making those bonehead play calls.

Just kidding, of course. Thanks for posting and the reminder that as Stanford fans, sometimes we forget how good we have it.

[JohnR34231]

Yes, but his record could be so much better if he would stop being so conservative, hire a decent OC, and stop making those bonehead play calls.

Just kidding, of course. Thanks for posting and the reminder that as Stanford fans, sometimes we forget how good we have it.

[ChicagoCard]

Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

[ChicagoCard]

Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

[BobK]

Stanford has had 8-- 10 win seasons.  Shaw has been involved in 7 of them. 

He missed 1940.  😳

[BobK]

Stanford has had 8-- 10 win seasons.  Shaw has been involved in 7 of them. 

He missed 1940.  😳

[82lsju]

Stanford has had 8-- 10 win seasons.  Shaw has been involved in 7 of them. 

He missed 1940.  😳

of course it was more challenging to win 10 games in a season when you only played 10 games in a season......  :)

[82lsju]

Stanford has had 8-- 10 win seasons.  Shaw has been involved in 7 of them. 

He missed 1940.  😳

of course it was more challenging to win 10 games in a season when you only played 10 games in a season......  :)

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

This is exactly what I thought when news of Kelly soon to be axed came out.  One of the great offensive minds in football is in Shaw's neighborhood now, soon to be unemployed, and owed a truckload of money by past employers.  It would be fascinating to see some Kelly influence in Stanford's offense. 

[OutsiderFan]

Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

This is exactly what I thought when news of Kelly soon to be axed came out.  One of the great offensive minds in football is in Shaw's neighborhood now, soon to be unemployed, and owed a truckload of money by past employers.  It would be fascinating to see some Kelly influence in Stanford's offense. 

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=16362.msg184644#msg184644 date=1483278878]
Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

This is exactly what I thought when news of Kelly soon to be axed came out.  One of the great offensive minds in football is in Shaw's neighborhood now, soon to be unemployed, and owed a truckload of money by past employers.  It would be fascinating to see some Kelly influence in Stanford's offense.
[/quote]

I'm no so sure about that. Great mind, but quite different from what is our bread and butter. Power. On both sides of the ball. What his offense does to his defense would be very troubling for us.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=16362.msg184644#msg184644 date=1483278878]
Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

This is exactly what I thought when news of Kelly soon to be axed came out.  One of the great offensive minds in football is in Shaw's neighborhood now, soon to be unemployed, and owed a truckload of money by past employers.  It would be fascinating to see some Kelly influence in Stanford's offense.
[/quote]

I'm no so sure about that. Great mind, but quite different from what is our bread and butter. Power. On both sides of the ball. What his offense does to his defense would be very troubling for us.

[Durty Nelly]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16362.msg184659#msg184659 date=1483287963]
[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=16362.msg184644#msg184644 date=1483278878]
Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

This is exactly what I thought when news of Kelly soon to be axed came out.  One of the great offensive minds in football is in Shaw's neighborhood now, soon to be unemployed, and owed a truckload of money by past employers.  It would be fascinating to see some Kelly influence in Stanford's offense.
[/quote]

I'm no so sure about that. Great mind, but quite different from what is our bread and butter. Power. On both sides of the ball. What his offense does to his defense would be very troubling for us.
[/quote]

Kelly is an offensive innovator.  Having him as a consultant does not mean we have to run the spread.  I am sure he would see ways to be more creative within our scheme.  A new, strong voice in the room would be a positive given the stability on the offensive staff of late.  His presence could push others to think outside the box.

[Durty Nelly]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16362.msg184659#msg184659 date=1483287963]
[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=16362.msg184644#msg184644 date=1483278878]
Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

This is exactly what I thought when news of Kelly soon to be axed came out.  One of the great offensive minds in football is in Shaw's neighborhood now, soon to be unemployed, and owed a truckload of money by past employers.  It would be fascinating to see some Kelly influence in Stanford's offense.
[/quote]

I'm no so sure about that. Great mind, but quite different from what is our bread and butter. Power. On both sides of the ball. What his offense does to his defense would be very troubling for us.
[/quote]

Kelly is an offensive innovator.  Having him as a consultant does not mean we have to run the spread.  I am sure he would see ways to be more creative within our scheme.  A new, strong voice in the room would be a positive given the stability on the offensive staff of late.  His presence could push others to think outside the box.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=16362.msg184660#msg184660 date=1483288755]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16362.msg184659#msg184659 date=1483287963]
[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=16362.msg184644#msg184644 date=1483278878]
Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

This is exactly what I thought when news of Kelly soon to be axed came out.  One of the great offensive minds in football is in Shaw's neighborhood now, soon to be unemployed, and owed a truckload of money by past employers.  It would be fascinating to see some Kelly influence in Stanford's offense.
[/quote]

I'm no so sure about that. Great mind, but quite different from what is our bread and butter. Power. On both sides of the ball. What his offense does to his defense would be very troubling for us.
[/quote]

Kelly is an offensive innovator.  Having him as a consultant does not mean we have to run the spread.  I am sure he would see ways to be more creative within our scheme.  A new, strong voice in the room would be a positive given the stability on the offensive staff of late.  His presence could push others to think outside the box.
[/quote]

And this is exactly the point of bringing in Kelly as a consultant.  Shaw has already said he admires Kelly and has borrowed from him what he's seen on video.  Imagine if he could also understand the theory and thinking going into Kelly's concepts.  Perhaps Kelly can find a way to simplify the offense too, and add to its potency by subtracting from it a bit.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=16362.msg184660#msg184660 date=1483288755]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16362.msg184659#msg184659 date=1483287963]
[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=16362.msg184644#msg184644 date=1483278878]
Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

This is exactly what I thought when news of Kelly soon to be axed came out.  One of the great offensive minds in football is in Shaw's neighborhood now, soon to be unemployed, and owed a truckload of money by past employers.  It would be fascinating to see some Kelly influence in Stanford's offense.
[/quote]

I'm no so sure about that. Great mind, but quite different from what is our bread and butter. Power. On both sides of the ball. What his offense does to his defense would be very troubling for us.
[/quote]

Kelly is an offensive innovator.  Having him as a consultant does not mean we have to run the spread.  I am sure he would see ways to be more creative within our scheme.  A new, strong voice in the room would be a positive given the stability on the offensive staff of late.  His presence could push others to think outside the box.
[/quote]

And this is exactly the point of bringing in Kelly as a consultant.  Shaw has already said he admires Kelly and has borrowed from him what he's seen on video.  Imagine if he could also understand the theory and thinking going into Kelly's concepts.  Perhaps Kelly can find a way to simplify the offense too, and add to its potency by subtracting from it a bit.

[BobK]

Kelley has been so awesome the past 5 years 😩

[BobK]

Kelley has been so awesome the past 5 years 😩

[Durty Nelly]

Kelley has been so awesome the past 5 years 😩

Buy at the bottom.

[Durty Nelly]

Kelley has been so awesome the past 5 years 😩

Buy at the bottom.

[Red State]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16362.msg184659#msg184659 date=1483287963]
[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=16362.msg184644#msg184644 date=1483278878]
Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

This is exactly what I thought when news of Kelly soon to be axed came out.  One of the great offensive minds in football is in Shaw's neighborhood now, soon to be unemployed, and owed a truckload of money by past employers.  It would be fascinating to see some Kelly influence in Stanford's offense.
[/quote]

I'm no so sure about that. Great mind, but quite different from what is our bread and butter. Power. On both sides of the ball. What his offense does to his defense would be very troubling for us.
[/quote]

+1 A brobdingnagian part of Stanford's success over the past several seasons has been with shortening the game and playing keep-away with the football. Not always crowd pleasing, but usually very efficient. Kelly's up tempo system would require the defense to play a lot more football than they currently play.

[Red State]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16362.msg184659#msg184659 date=1483287963]
[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=16362.msg184644#msg184644 date=1483278878]
Maybe in '17 Chip Kelly can fill the role for Stanford that Jeff Tedford did for UW. Offensive consultant, something like that.

This is exactly what I thought when news of Kelly soon to be axed came out.  One of the great offensive minds in football is in Shaw's neighborhood now, soon to be unemployed, and owed a truckload of money by past employers.  It would be fascinating to see some Kelly influence in Stanford's offense.
[/quote]

I'm no so sure about that. Great mind, but quite different from what is our bread and butter. Power. On both sides of the ball. What his offense does to his defense would be very troubling for us.
[/quote]

+1 A brobdingnagian part of Stanford's success over the past several seasons has been with shortening the game and playing keep-away with the football. Not always crowd pleasing, but usually very efficient. Kelly's up tempo system would require the defense to play a lot more football than they currently play.

[cardcrimson]

I've lamented the lack of creativity in our offense over the years, especially with the play calling. Michigan State, Northwestern, and more recently UNC are great examples. That said, just because there's a shiny penny on the floor, doesn't mean we need to pick it up.

Stick to our game, throw in a little Chip here and there and maybe it would be beneficial. But big nasty linemen, jumbo packages, running then throwing has gotten us 10 win seasons a plenty.

[cardcrimson]

I've lamented the lack of creativity in our offense over the years, especially with the play calling. Michigan State, Northwestern, and more recently UNC are great examples. That said, just because there's a shiny penny on the floor, doesn't mean we need to pick it up.

Stick to our game, throw in a little Chip here and there and maybe it would be beneficial. But big nasty linemen, jumbo packages, running then throwing has gotten us 10 win seasons a plenty.

[OutsiderFan]

If you don't think Chip Kelly could help add some wrinkles and make Stanford's offense more effective, I don't know what to tell you.

First of all, Kelly may prefer to run an up tempo, spread offense, but that doesn't mean he has no understanding of or appreciation for other styles.  He's a coach who develops schemes to fit the available personnel.  If you've ever heard him talk about his philosophy, you know he believes in running the ball first.  He understands there is more than one way to do it.

Second, it is common for coaches to visit other coaches, go to conferences, etc., to learn from others.  Stanford has had the same offensive braintrust for several years.  There is no way Stanford's offense couldn't benefit from someone with Kelly's perspective.  Based on his background, he's going to see opportunities to do different things, and perhaps even come up with countermeasures for what defenses have done to stop Stanford, particularly in the Red Zone and in short yardage situations.

I'm bolding this because it's pretty important.

Stanford was #123 in the country in TD% in the Red Zone this season and #4 in FG%.  That is unforgivably awful for a team with Stanford's personnel.  The 49ers are a terrible team, particularly on defense, but they also have some of the worst WR talent in the NFL.  Despite this Kelly has the 49ers #4 in NFL Red Zone TD efficiency.  If Kelly could get Stanford in the Top 25 in Red Zone TD efficiency, his involvement would be worth it.

[OutsiderFan]

If you don't think Chip Kelly could help add some wrinkles and make Stanford's offense more effective, I don't know what to tell you.

First of all, Kelly may prefer to run an up tempo, spread offense, but that doesn't mean he has no understanding of or appreciation for other styles.  He's a coach who develops schemes to fit the available personnel.  If you've ever heard him talk about his philosophy, you know he believes in running the ball first.  He understands there is more than one way to do it.

Second, it is common for coaches to visit other coaches, go to conferences, etc., to learn from others.  Stanford has had the same offensive braintrust for several years.  There is no way Stanford's offense couldn't benefit from someone with Kelly's perspective.  Based on his background, he's going to see opportunities to do different things, and perhaps even come up with countermeasures for what defenses have done to stop Stanford, particularly in the Red Zone and in short yardage situations.

I'm bolding this because it's pretty important.

Stanford was #123 in the country in TD% in the Red Zone this season and #4 in FG%.  That is unforgivably awful for a team with Stanford's personnel.  The 49ers are a terrible team, particularly on defense, but they also have some of the worst WR talent in the NFL.  Despite this Kelly has the 49ers #4 in NFL Red Zone TD efficiency.  If Kelly could get Stanford in the Top 25 in Red Zone TD efficiency, his involvement would be worth it.

[BostonCard]

Kelley has been so awesome the past 5 years 😩

Success in the NFL and success in college are two different things.  Moreover no one is asking for him to be hired as head coach, and Kelly's chops as an Offensive mind are well established.

As others have pointed out, Shaw is on record as saying he admires CK and that he has already borrowed some concepts from the Duck offense and folded them into the Stanford offense.  Plus Kelly is a run first guy, so tempo aside, many of the plays can be fit into our offensive philosophy.

BC

[BostonCard]

Kelley has been so awesome the past 5 years 😩

Success in the NFL and success in college are two different things.  Moreover no one is asking for him to be hired as head coach, and Kelly's chops as an Offensive mind are well established.

As others have pointed out, Shaw is on record as saying he admires CK and that he has already borrowed some concepts from the Duck offense and folded them into the Stanford offense.  Plus Kelly is a run first guy, so tempo aside, many of the plays can be fit into our offensive philosophy.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Think it's an exaggeration to say Kelly has been uniformly a failure at the NFL. his first two years were solid. His third, awful.

I'm not sure to what degree you can blame the apocalypse in Santa Clara on Kelly. While he clearly didn't help much I don't think he was a vast negative influence.

Finally, of course, we can't judge NFL coaches on one or even two failures. Bill Belichick and Pete Carroll are arguably the two best NFL coaches active right now -- and before their current jobs, most considered them bad NFL coaches.

[washingtonismoney]

Think it's an exaggeration to say Kelly has been uniformly a failure at the NFL. his first two years were solid. His third, awful.

I'm not sure to what degree you can blame the apocalypse in Santa Clara on Kelly. While he clearly didn't help much I don't think he was a vast negative influence.

Finally, of course, we can't judge NFL coaches on one or even two failures. Bill Belichick and Pete Carroll are arguably the two best NFL coaches active right now -- and before their current jobs, most considered them bad NFL coaches.

[Mick]

Chip Kelly was hired as Oregon's OC in 2007, and was promoted to their HC in 2009, through  2012.  Here's Oregon's offensive performance in total offense:

2007 #16, 491.7
2008 #7, 484.8
2009 #8, 412.0
2010 #1, 530.7
2011 #3, 522.8
2012 #2, 537.4

David Shaw was hired as OC in 2007, like Chip Kelly.  He was promoted to HC two years after Chip in 2011.  Here's Stanford's offensive performance in that time frame:

2007 #107, 322.5
2008 #54, 351.8
2009 #12, 427.6
2010 #9, 472.5
2011 #7, 489.3
2012 #71, 374.4
2013 #24, 405.4
2014 #80, 388.6
2015 #18, 435.4
2016 #85, 367.1

I don't really care about his 49er performance.  That was just strange.  He killed it in Philly the first two years and turned his QB into an All-Pro.

I care about his Oregon offensive performance which was stellar, absolutely stellar.  I would try to get as much of his time as humanly possible.  I would ask him to review everything, game films, practice films, QB, WRs, RBs, etc.

[Mick]

Chip Kelly was hired as Oregon's OC in 2007, and was promoted to their HC in 2009, through  2012.  Here's Oregon's offensive performance in total offense:

2007 #16, 491.7
2008 #7, 484.8
2009 #8, 412.0
2010 #1, 530.7
2011 #3, 522.8
2012 #2, 537.4

David Shaw was hired as OC in 2007, like Chip Kelly.  He was promoted to HC two years after Chip in 2011.  Here's Stanford's offensive performance in that time frame:

2007 #107, 322.5
2008 #54, 351.8
2009 #12, 427.6
2010 #9, 472.5
2011 #7, 489.3
2012 #71, 374.4
2013 #24, 405.4
2014 #80, 388.6
2015 #18, 435.4
2016 #85, 367.1

I don't really care about his 49er performance.  That was just strange.  He killed it in Philly the first two years and turned his QB into an All-Pro.

I care about his Oregon offensive performance which was stellar, absolutely stellar.  I would try to get as much of his time as humanly possible.  I would ask him to review everything, game films, practice films, QB, WRs, RBs, etc.

[GoodGrief]

Chip Kelly for offensive coordinator, consultant, commissioner, commander--whatever. I don't care what his title is--if we can get him to Stanford, that would be so insanely awesome. I've always liked and respected that guy. I wouldn't mind if we start holding up pictures of sandwiches, otters, and random stuff to call in plays from the sidelines. I find that amusing.

[GoodGrief]

Chip Kelly for offensive coordinator, consultant, commissioner, commander--whatever. I don't care what his title is--if we can get him to Stanford, that would be so insanely awesome. I've always liked and respected that guy. I wouldn't mind if we start holding up pictures of sandwiches, otters, and random stuff to call in plays from the sidelines. I find that amusing.