09-22-2017, 07:40 AM
With Wedington and Irwin--two much better receivers than Love (and bigger targets)--there's not a good reason for us to run Love in the slot. We deployed Mac there because he was our best slot receiver.
Coach Shaw Needs an Intervention
09-22-2017, 07:57 AM
(09-22-2017, 07:40 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:With Wedington and Irwin--two much better receivers than Love (and bigger targets)--there's not a good reason for us to run Love in the slot. We deployed Mac there because he was our best slot receiver.Makes sense.
09-22-2017, 09:02 AM
All the more reason to use Love as a slot receiver for jet sweep run fakes. Why would they have Love on the field unless to take an end around sweep?
All the more reason to use Love as a slot receiver for jet sweep run fakes. Why would they have Love on the field unless to take an end around sweep?
09-22-2017, 10:07 AM
(09-22-2017, 06:21 AM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=17451.msg201851#msg201851 date=1506082364]
[quote author=Phogge link=topic=17451.msg201844#msg201844 date=1506061425]
The three great periods of Stanford football were the Warner/Vow Boys years, the short '68-71 Ralston run and the Harballs/Shaw tag team 2009-2016. This isn't Alabama nor is it Ohio State under Woody nor the U of ND under the Rock.
Perhaps this year is a hiccup. I just don't want them to be boring and last week bored the **** out of me.
I note that you didn't include 1977 (Ceresino/Benjamin/Lofton/Nelson/King/Kellar/NCAA passing champion/Bill Walsh/#15 ranking) or 1978, Steve Dils passing champ.
[/quote]
Maybe it is because 1977 was when I was converted to become a Stanford football fan, but I agree that those two years were "bliss." Part of what made it so wonderful was the nature of the offense--in an era when substitutions were rare, Walsh used them liberally. In an era when few teams passed on first down, Walsh mixed it up. In an era in which passes were invariably bombs, Walsh used intricate patterns. And it did not hurt one bit to have the young Darrin Nelson juking defenders out of their skin. Just a delightful team to watch--especially for the thinking, more cerebral fan. And that fit Stanford perfectly.
[/quote]
Swing pass to Phil Francis, good for about 7 yds almost every time. Has anyone ever used a fullback that way?
(09-22-2017, 06:21 AM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=17451.msg201851#msg201851 date=1506082364]
[quote author=Phogge link=topic=17451.msg201844#msg201844 date=1506061425]
The three great periods of Stanford football were the Warner/Vow Boys years, the short '68-71 Ralston run and the Harballs/Shaw tag team 2009-2016. This isn't Alabama nor is it Ohio State under Woody nor the U of ND under the Rock.
Perhaps this year is a hiccup. I just don't want them to be boring and last week bored the **** out of me.
I note that you didn't include 1977 (Ceresino/Benjamin/Lofton/Nelson/King/Kellar/NCAA passing champion/Bill Walsh/#15 ranking) or 1978, Steve Dils passing champ.
[/quote]
Maybe it is because 1977 was when I was converted to become a Stanford football fan, but I agree that those two years were "bliss." Part of what made it so wonderful was the nature of the offense--in an era when substitutions were rare, Walsh used them liberally. In an era when few teams passed on first down, Walsh mixed it up. In an era in which passes were invariably bombs, Walsh used intricate patterns. And it did not hurt one bit to have the young Darrin Nelson juking defenders out of their skin. Just a delightful team to watch--especially for the thinking, more cerebral fan. And that fit Stanford perfectly.
[/quote]
Swing pass to Phil Francis, good for about 7 yds almost every time. Has anyone ever used a fullback that way?
09-22-2017, 09:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2017, 10:55 PM by pefloresjr.)
(09-22-2017, 05:04 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=vataha link=topic=17451.msg201846#msg201846 date=1506071843]
Did anyone watch the 9ers game tonight? Yes a loss but the overall feeling was that it was exciting and entertaining. You could feel it and hear it from the stands. It was buzzing. Granted the 9ers have been snooze inducing for a few years but the mojo is there. Stanford has been one of the better teams in college football for several years now, but the last two years (Mc-5 aside) the O has been a snooze. Gawd! our offense is loathsome to watch. Unimaginative, slow, can barely get the snap off in time. No creativity,no sense of urgency, plodding, predictable. Pure goat stuff. (and I love goats) But once you've seen a goat do it's business it's quite predictable and I would not pay to see it a second time....Well, for sure not a third time!
Imagine this as how Stanford football was marketed to fans to buy tickets...
Yes, the Niners are anything but boring anymore. They still stink, but were it not for that outrageous OPI call on Trent Taylor, they more than likely take the lead 42-41 in the last minute of the game. It's definitely an exciting brand of football that Shanahan is developing. Love the use of the RBs, the moving the QB around, commitment to taking deep shots, and the fire the team plays with now. And they have gotten better in every game, at least measured by their losing margin shrinking each game.
[/quote]
Sorry, but this is baloney. In the prior two games the Niners had scored a total of 12 points (4 field goals and 0 touchdowns). We can all imagine the fire that would be raining down on Shaw if we hadn't scored a touchdown over the prior two games. I'm a fan of Shanahan and hope he makes the Niners competitive again but it is ludicrous to compare the one good offensive game by the Niners to Stanford's early season struggles this year.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2017, 10:55 PM by pefloresjr.)
(09-22-2017, 05:04 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=vataha link=topic=17451.msg201846#msg201846 date=1506071843]
Did anyone watch the 9ers game tonight? Yes a loss but the overall feeling was that it was exciting and entertaining. You could feel it and hear it from the stands. It was buzzing. Granted the 9ers have been snooze inducing for a few years but the mojo is there. Stanford has been one of the better teams in college football for several years now, but the last two years (Mc-5 aside) the O has been a snooze. Gawd! our offense is loathsome to watch. Unimaginative, slow, can barely get the snap off in time. No creativity,no sense of urgency, plodding, predictable. Pure goat stuff. (and I love goats) But once you've seen a goat do it's business it's quite predictable and I would not pay to see it a second time....Well, for sure not a third time!
Imagine this as how Stanford football was marketed to fans to buy tickets...
Yes, the Niners are anything but boring anymore. They still stink, but were it not for that outrageous OPI call on Trent Taylor, they more than likely take the lead 42-41 in the last minute of the game. It's definitely an exciting brand of football that Shanahan is developing. Love the use of the RBs, the moving the QB around, commitment to taking deep shots, and the fire the team plays with now. And they have gotten better in every game, at least measured by their losing margin shrinking each game.
[/quote]
Sorry, but this is baloney. In the prior two games the Niners had scored a total of 12 points (4 field goals and 0 touchdowns). We can all imagine the fire that would be raining down on Shaw if we hadn't scored a touchdown over the prior two games. I'm a fan of Shanahan and hope he makes the Niners competitive again but it is ludicrous to compare the one good offensive game by the Niners to Stanford's early season struggles this year.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
09-23-2017, 06:37 AM
The use of jet sweeps seemed to peak in 2013. Defenses caught up with them--but not before Melvin Gordon had finished a Bryce Love-like season of 20+ runs--and the play requires some practice time to perfect it timing.Â
As a defender, I'd much rather see Bryce Love coming on jet sweep motion than hidden behind three big linemen and watching for his crease.Â
As a defender, I'd much rather see Bryce Love coming on jet sweep motion than hidden behind three big linemen and watching for his crease.Â
The use of jet sweeps seemed to peak in 2013. Defenses caught up with them--but not before Melvin Gordon had finished a Bryce Love-like season of 20+ runs--and the play requires some practice time to perfect it timing.Â
As a defender, I'd much rather see Bryce Love coming on jet sweep motion than hidden behind three big linemen and watching for his crease.Â
As a defender, I'd much rather see Bryce Love coming on jet sweep motion than hidden behind three big linemen and watching for his crease.Â
09-23-2017, 09:43 AM
(09-22-2017, 09:20 PM)pefloresjr link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17451.msg201850#msg201850 date=1506081865]
[quote author=vataha link=topic=17451.msg201846#msg201846 date=1506071843]
Did anyone watch the 9ers game tonight? Yes a loss but the overall feeling was that it was exciting and entertaining. You could feel it and hear it from the stands. It was buzzing. Granted the 9ers have been snooze inducing for a few years but the mojo is there. Stanford has been one of the better teams in college football for several years now, but the last two years (Mc-5 aside) the O has been a snooze. Gawd! our offense is loathsome to watch. Unimaginative, slow, can barely get the snap off in time. No creativity,no sense of urgency, plodding, predictable. Pure goat stuff. (and I love goats) But once you've seen a goat do it's business it's quite predictable and I would not pay to see it a second time....Well, for sure not a third time!
Imagine this as how Stanford football was marketed to fans to buy tickets...
Yes, the Niners are anything but boring anymore. They still stink, but were it not for that outrageous OPI call on Trent Taylor, they more than likely take the lead 42-41 in the last minute of the game. It's definitely an exciting brand of football that Shanahan is developing. Love the use of the RBs, the moving the QB around, commitment to taking deep shots, and the fire the team plays with now. And they have gotten better in every game, at least measured by their losing margin shrinking each game.
[/quote]
Sorry, but this is baloney. In the prior two games the Niners had scored a total of 12 points (4 field goals and 0 touchdowns). We can all imagine the fire that would be raining down on Shaw if we hadn't scored a touchdown over the prior two games. I'm a fan of Shanahan and hope he makes the Niners competitive again but it is ludicrous to compare the one good offensive game by the Niners to Stanford's early season struggles this year.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]
The Niners played two very good defenses in Carolina and Seattle, arguably the best in the NFL. And the Rams aren't bad on defense either. You can tell, even when they are missing blocks, throwing picks and dropping passes that the offensive concepts are sound. Not predictable, threaten all areas of the field, spread the ball around, move the QB around, etc.
(09-22-2017, 09:20 PM)pefloresjr link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17451.msg201850#msg201850 date=1506081865]
[quote author=vataha link=topic=17451.msg201846#msg201846 date=1506071843]
Did anyone watch the 9ers game tonight? Yes a loss but the overall feeling was that it was exciting and entertaining. You could feel it and hear it from the stands. It was buzzing. Granted the 9ers have been snooze inducing for a few years but the mojo is there. Stanford has been one of the better teams in college football for several years now, but the last two years (Mc-5 aside) the O has been a snooze. Gawd! our offense is loathsome to watch. Unimaginative, slow, can barely get the snap off in time. No creativity,no sense of urgency, plodding, predictable. Pure goat stuff. (and I love goats) But once you've seen a goat do it's business it's quite predictable and I would not pay to see it a second time....Well, for sure not a third time!
Imagine this as how Stanford football was marketed to fans to buy tickets...
Yes, the Niners are anything but boring anymore. They still stink, but were it not for that outrageous OPI call on Trent Taylor, they more than likely take the lead 42-41 in the last minute of the game. It's definitely an exciting brand of football that Shanahan is developing. Love the use of the RBs, the moving the QB around, commitment to taking deep shots, and the fire the team plays with now. And they have gotten better in every game, at least measured by their losing margin shrinking each game.
[/quote]
Sorry, but this is baloney. In the prior two games the Niners had scored a total of 12 points (4 field goals and 0 touchdowns). We can all imagine the fire that would be raining down on Shaw if we hadn't scored a touchdown over the prior two games. I'm a fan of Shanahan and hope he makes the Niners competitive again but it is ludicrous to compare the one good offensive game by the Niners to Stanford's early season struggles this year.Â
Cheers,
Pete F.
[/quote]
The Niners played two very good defenses in Carolina and Seattle, arguably the best in the NFL. And the Rams aren't bad on defense either. You can tell, even when they are missing blocks, throwing picks and dropping passes that the offensive concepts are sound. Not predictable, threaten all areas of the field, spread the ball around, move the QB around, etc.
09-23-2017, 08:45 PM
This thread needs to be a pinned post.
It's time to hire a real OC and a real QB coach. This is utterly awful. Remember, this UCLA team gave up 44 to Texas A&M and 48 to Memphis.
It's time to hire a real OC and a real QB coach. This is utterly awful. Remember, this UCLA team gave up 44 to Texas A&M and 48 to Memphis.
This thread needs to be a pinned post.
It's time to hire a real OC and a real QB coach. This is utterly awful. Remember, this UCLA team gave up 44 to Texas A&M and 48 to Memphis.
It's time to hire a real OC and a real QB coach. This is utterly awful. Remember, this UCLA team gave up 44 to Texas A&M and 48 to Memphis.
AncientCityIndian
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-23-2017, 09:07 PM
My posts have not been well received on this board so I will find better things to do since I have posted the best observations and predictions I can offer but apparently if someone disagrees, they retaliate instead of offer an opposing argument. I`ll join Doc.
Costello just led us to a TD. He will make mistakes and we may lose this game, but he needs to be thrown into the fire. He has the highest ceiling.
My last statement here is that I predict Tavita will be replaced next season because we need an OC and a QB coach.
All the best. Hope we end up with a better season`s end than beginning.
Costello just led us to a TD. He will make mistakes and we may lose this game, but he needs to be thrown into the fire. He has the highest ceiling.
My last statement here is that I predict Tavita will be replaced next season because we need an OC and a QB coach.
All the best. Hope we end up with a better season`s end than beginning.
My posts have not been well received on this board so I will find better things to do since I have posted the best observations and predictions I can offer but apparently if someone disagrees, they retaliate instead of offer an opposing argument. I`ll join Doc.
Costello just led us to a TD. He will make mistakes and we may lose this game, but he needs to be thrown into the fire. He has the highest ceiling.
My last statement here is that I predict Tavita will be replaced next season because we need an OC and a QB coach.
All the best. Hope we end up with a better season`s end than beginning.
Costello just led us to a TD. He will make mistakes and we may lose this game, but he needs to be thrown into the fire. He has the highest ceiling.
My last statement here is that I predict Tavita will be replaced next season because we need an OC and a QB coach.
All the best. Hope we end up with a better season`s end than beginning.
09-23-2017, 09:16 PM
Don't go! We need more people to diversify the opinions on this board!
To be fair, part of the criticism was not playing Costello. Now that he was put in, Stanford is playing with some fire.
To be fair, part of the criticism was not playing Costello. Now that he was put in, Stanford is playing with some fire.
Don't go! We need more people to diversify the opinions on this board!
To be fair, part of the criticism was not playing Costello. Now that he was put in, Stanford is playing with some fire.
To be fair, part of the criticism was not playing Costello. Now that he was put in, Stanford is playing with some fire.
09-23-2017, 09:31 PM
My post was regarding your desire to have your thread pinned, not about your feelings about the team and coaches. The comments are welcome.
09-24-2017, 04:24 AM
I will add my comment:  Don't go. You are welcome!
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
I will add my comment:  Don't go. You are welcome!
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
09-24-2017, 09:14 AM
Stick around, Rock. And convince the long-snapping guru to come back. Echo chambers are no fun.
09-24-2017, 09:41 AM
A year or two ago somebody did an analysis comparing each teams finish in the national rankings to its cumulative recruiting ranking. Stanford had the highest differential in the study. What I don't recall if it was Pac 12 or the country or just ranked teams. But yo me it belies the myth - and it is a myth- that they don't coach the players up.
As for boom or bust:
2011. 12-1
2012. 11-2
2013. 11-3
2014. 8-5
2015Â 12-2
2016. 10-3
Where is the bust? Shaw has his flaws. But I don't see what evidence you have for your post which breaks down to they have done this despite the coaching.
They may still struggle this year. Heck midway through the second last night I posted that the "rout is on."Â I was right. Just had the wrong team doing the routing!
As for boom or bust:
2011. 12-1
2012. 11-2
2013. 11-3
2014. 8-5
2015Â 12-2
2016. 10-3
Where is the bust? Shaw has his flaws. But I don't see what evidence you have for your post which breaks down to they have done this despite the coaching.
They may still struggle this year. Heck midway through the second last night I posted that the "rout is on."Â I was right. Just had the wrong team doing the routing!
(09-21-2017, 11:57 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:Nothing AncientCity is saying should be news--I still harbor fears that our recent successes post-Luck and post-eminent linemen have been more due to Stanford men stepping up despite coaching rather than coaching developing great athletes. That post on athlete development from a few months ago has yet to be published on this board, but I'm still thinking on it.
A truly great coaching will coach up any and all athletes. A competent coaching staff will not hinder a good athlete from becoming great on his own. A bad coaching staff (actively or passively) prevents athletes from achieving their potential.
If the key to having a great Stanford offense post-Harbaugh is individuals (Hogan, CMac, Solly), then get ready for boom-or-bust cycles. But if you want sustained excellence, make sure your coaching staff creates that environment for athletes to succeed.
Note: Is any program looking to hire Bloomgren/Pritchard? If not, we might not be getting very good production out of them.
A year or two ago somebody did an analysis comparing each teams finish in the national rankings to its cumulative recruiting ranking. Stanford had the highest differential in the study. What I don't recall if it was Pac 12 or the country or just ranked teams. But yo me it belies the myth - and it is a myth- that they don't coach the players up.
As for boom or bust:
2011. 12-1
2012. 11-2
2013. 11-3
2014. 8-5
2015Â 12-2
2016. 10-3
Where is the bust? Shaw has his flaws. But I don't see what evidence you have for your post which breaks down to they have done this despite the coaching.
They may still struggle this year. Heck midway through the second last night I posted that the "rout is on."Â I was right. Just had the wrong team doing the routing!
As for boom or bust:
2011. 12-1
2012. 11-2
2013. 11-3
2014. 8-5
2015Â 12-2
2016. 10-3
Where is the bust? Shaw has his flaws. But I don't see what evidence you have for your post which breaks down to they have done this despite the coaching.
They may still struggle this year. Heck midway through the second last night I posted that the "rout is on."Â I was right. Just had the wrong team doing the routing!
(09-21-2017, 11:57 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:Nothing AncientCity is saying should be news--I still harbor fears that our recent successes post-Luck and post-eminent linemen have been more due to Stanford men stepping up despite coaching rather than coaching developing great athletes. That post on athlete development from a few months ago has yet to be published on this board, but I'm still thinking on it.
A truly great coaching will coach up any and all athletes. A competent coaching staff will not hinder a good athlete from becoming great on his own. A bad coaching staff (actively or passively) prevents athletes from achieving their potential.
If the key to having a great Stanford offense post-Harbaugh is individuals (Hogan, CMac, Solly), then get ready for boom-or-bust cycles. But if you want sustained excellence, make sure your coaching staff creates that environment for athletes to succeed.
Note: Is any program looking to hire Bloomgren/Pritchard? If not, we might not be getting very good production out of them.
I think stressful, disappointing outcomes like we've had the previous two weeks put our resolve as fans to the test. Some of us are analytically oriented and try to read the tea leaves with misleadingly exact reasoning and dispassionate assessment. Others of us are more impulsive and react emotionally to what unfolds before us. Either way our reactions reflect the frustrating reality that we are helpless observers; separated from the true inner workings of the competition at hand. This is true regardless of whether we are discussing play-to-play dynamics or season-to-season fluctuations. Ultimately, none of us really know the final truth, maybe even after all the results are posted.
I try to stay focused on a hopeful vision in things like this, but I have learned a lot from my experiences when I fall into despair. The goal of balance suggests that I don't want to be stupidly optimistic, but neither do I want to weigh myself down with unnecessary negativity. The never-ending tensions searching for balance create an ebb and flow that helps me get through games like last night.
Is there anyone here who would trade our experience rooting for Stanford under Shaw for the experience of Alabama fans rooting for Saban (A side note: a.utocorrect changed that to Satan. ::)]? We'd have a few National championships, which I may never have as a Stanford fan. But then again, I may. And if we ever do, it will be far more satisfying for me than doing it the Alabama way; putting academics as a far less important priority, abusing recruits and shunting players aside for other more desirable players and gaming their schedule with cupcakes. I embrace Shaw's foibles and am grateful for his continuous growth as a coach. He has demonstrated how college football should be conducted. As lex24 pointed out somewhere, this is like the third time he has found a way to keep the team united and motivated in fairly dire circumstances. If Wilcox can get to a point where he deserves to even carry Shaw's jock, I will be pleased for C.al fans and for college football as a whole.
I try to stay focused on a hopeful vision in things like this, but I have learned a lot from my experiences when I fall into despair. The goal of balance suggests that I don't want to be stupidly optimistic, but neither do I want to weigh myself down with unnecessary negativity. The never-ending tensions searching for balance create an ebb and flow that helps me get through games like last night.
Is there anyone here who would trade our experience rooting for Stanford under Shaw for the experience of Alabama fans rooting for Saban (A side note: a.utocorrect changed that to Satan. ::)]? We'd have a few National championships, which I may never have as a Stanford fan. But then again, I may. And if we ever do, it will be far more satisfying for me than doing it the Alabama way; putting academics as a far less important priority, abusing recruits and shunting players aside for other more desirable players and gaming their schedule with cupcakes. I embrace Shaw's foibles and am grateful for his continuous growth as a coach. He has demonstrated how college football should be conducted. As lex24 pointed out somewhere, this is like the third time he has found a way to keep the team united and motivated in fairly dire circumstances. If Wilcox can get to a point where he deserves to even carry Shaw's jock, I will be pleased for C.al fans and for college football as a whole.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
I think stressful, disappointing outcomes like we've had the previous two weeks put our resolve as fans to the test. Some of us are analytically oriented and try to read the tea leaves with misleadingly exact reasoning and dispassionate assessment. Others of us are more impulsive and react emotionally to what unfolds before us. Either way our reactions reflect the frustrating reality that we are helpless observers; separated from the true inner workings of the competition at hand. This is true regardless of whether we are discussing play-to-play dynamics or season-to-season fluctuations. Ultimately, none of us really know the final truth, maybe even after all the results are posted.
I try to stay focused on a hopeful vision in things like this, but I have learned a lot from my experiences when I fall into despair. The goal of balance suggests that I don't want to be stupidly optimistic, but neither do I want to weigh myself down with unnecessary negativity. The never-ending tensions searching for balance create an ebb and flow that helps me get through games like last night.
Is there anyone here who would trade our experience rooting for Stanford under Shaw for the experience of Alabama fans rooting for Saban (A side note: a.utocorrect changed that to Satan. ::)]? We'd have a few National championships, which I may never have as a Stanford fan. But then again, I may. And if we ever do, it will be far more satisfying for me than doing it the Alabama way; putting academics as a far less important priority, abusing recruits and shunting players aside for other more desirable players and gaming their schedule with cupcakes. I embrace Shaw's foibles and am grateful for his continuous growth as a coach. He has demonstrated how college football should be conducted. As lex24 pointed out somewhere, this is like the third time he has found a way to keep the team united and motivated in fairly dire circumstances. If Wilcox can get to a point where he deserves to even carry Shaw's jock, I will be pleased for C.al fans and for college football as a whole.
I try to stay focused on a hopeful vision in things like this, but I have learned a lot from my experiences when I fall into despair. The goal of balance suggests that I don't want to be stupidly optimistic, but neither do I want to weigh myself down with unnecessary negativity. The never-ending tensions searching for balance create an ebb and flow that helps me get through games like last night.
Is there anyone here who would trade our experience rooting for Stanford under Shaw for the experience of Alabama fans rooting for Saban (A side note: a.utocorrect changed that to Satan. ::)]? We'd have a few National championships, which I may never have as a Stanford fan. But then again, I may. And if we ever do, it will be far more satisfying for me than doing it the Alabama way; putting academics as a far less important priority, abusing recruits and shunting players aside for other more desirable players and gaming their schedule with cupcakes. I embrace Shaw's foibles and am grateful for his continuous growth as a coach. He has demonstrated how college football should be conducted. As lex24 pointed out somewhere, this is like the third time he has found a way to keep the team united and motivated in fairly dire circumstances. If Wilcox can get to a point where he deserves to even carry Shaw's jock, I will be pleased for C.al fans and for college football as a whole.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
09-24-2017, 11:12 AM
Cornfed, if your reputation doesn't go up by at least 10 points after that post something is seriously wrong with this board. Well said.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-24-2017, 01:00 PM
(09-24-2017, 11:05 AM)CornFed link Wrote:I think stressful, disappointing outcomes like we've had the previous two weeks put our resolve as fans to the test. Some of us are analytically oriented and try to read the tea leaves with misleadingly exact reasoning and dispassionate assessment. Others of us are more impulsive and react emotionally to what unfolds before us. Either way our reactions reflect the frustrating reality that we are helpless observers; separated from the true inner workings of the competition at hand. This is true regardless of whether we are discussing play-to-play dynamics or season-to-season fluctuations. Ultimately, none of us really know the final truth, maybe even after all the results are posted.
I try to stay focused on a hopeful vision in things like this, but I have learned a lot from my experiences when I fall into despair. The goal of balance suggests that I don't want to be stupidly optimistic, but neither do I want to weigh myself down with unnecessary negativity. The never-ending tensions searching for balance create an ebb and flow that helps me get through games like last night.
Is there anyone here who would trade our experience rooting for Stanford under Shaw for the experience of Alabama fans rooting for Saban (A side note: a.utocorrect changed that to Satan. ::)]? We'd have a few National championships, which I may never have as a Stanford fan. But then again, I may. And if we ever do, it will be far more satisfying for me than doing it the Alabama way; putting academics as a far less important priority, abusing recruits and shunting players aside for other more desirable players and gaming their schedule with cupcakes. I embrace Shaw's foibles and am grateful for his continuous growth as a coach. He has demonstrated how college football should be conducted. As lex24 pointed out somewhere, this is like the third time he has found a way to keep the team united and motivated in fairly dire circumstances. If Wilcox can get to a point where he deserves to even carry Shaw's jock, I will be pleased for C.al fans and for college football as a whole.
Awesome post. One of the best Ive read in a long time.
BC
(09-24-2017, 11:05 AM)CornFed link Wrote:I think stressful, disappointing outcomes like we've had the previous two weeks put our resolve as fans to the test. Some of us are analytically oriented and try to read the tea leaves with misleadingly exact reasoning and dispassionate assessment. Others of us are more impulsive and react emotionally to what unfolds before us. Either way our reactions reflect the frustrating reality that we are helpless observers; separated from the true inner workings of the competition at hand. This is true regardless of whether we are discussing play-to-play dynamics or season-to-season fluctuations. Ultimately, none of us really know the final truth, maybe even after all the results are posted.
I try to stay focused on a hopeful vision in things like this, but I have learned a lot from my experiences when I fall into despair. The goal of balance suggests that I don't want to be stupidly optimistic, but neither do I want to weigh myself down with unnecessary negativity. The never-ending tensions searching for balance create an ebb and flow that helps me get through games like last night.
Is there anyone here who would trade our experience rooting for Stanford under Shaw for the experience of Alabama fans rooting for Saban (A side note: a.utocorrect changed that to Satan. ::)]? We'd have a few National championships, which I may never have as a Stanford fan. But then again, I may. And if we ever do, it will be far more satisfying for me than doing it the Alabama way; putting academics as a far less important priority, abusing recruits and shunting players aside for other more desirable players and gaming their schedule with cupcakes. I embrace Shaw's foibles and am grateful for his continuous growth as a coach. He has demonstrated how college football should be conducted. As lex24 pointed out somewhere, this is like the third time he has found a way to keep the team united and motivated in fairly dire circumstances. If Wilcox can get to a point where he deserves to even carry Shaw's jock, I will be pleased for C.al fans and for college football as a whole.
Awesome post. One of the best Ive read in a long time.
BC
09-24-2017, 02:09 PM
(09-24-2017, 09:41 AM)lex24 link Wrote:Where is the bust? Shaw has his flaws. But I don't see what evidence you have for your post which breaks down to they have done this despite the coaching.
Til yesterday's game, I would have pointed out (and this still may be the case) that Stanford's QB performance/depth vis-à-vis recruiting rankings has been poor. I will also point out that I've only ever been focused on QB recruiting and performance, so the whole-team stats are irrelevant.
(09-24-2017, 09:41 AM)lex24 link Wrote:Where is the bust? Shaw has his flaws. But I don't see what evidence you have for your post which breaks down to they have done this despite the coaching.
Til yesterday's game, I would have pointed out (and this still may be the case) that Stanford's QB performance/depth vis-à-vis recruiting rankings has been poor. I will also point out that I've only ever been focused on QB recruiting and performance, so the whole-team stats are irrelevant.
09-24-2017, 04:08 PM
(09-24-2017, 02:09 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Til yesterday's game, I would have pointed out (and this still may be the case) that Stanford's QB performance/depth vis-à-vis recruiting rankings has been poor.
It still is. 37 mins of one game of inspirational play by a guy who was #3 on the depth chart does not change this in a material way. But let's revisit this at the end of the season because there is potential for it to change substantially.
(09-24-2017, 02:09 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Til yesterday's game, I would have pointed out (and this still may be the case) that Stanford's QB performance/depth vis-à-vis recruiting rankings has been poor.
It still is. 37 mins of one game of inspirational play by a guy who was #3 on the depth chart does not change this in a material way. But let's revisit this at the end of the season because there is potential for it to change substantially.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »