[Goose]

It's easy to harp on bad outcomes without considering whether the methods that lead to the outcome were good or bad. It's possible to do things the right way and have it turn out badly. It's possible to do things badly and get lucky (though generally not consistently). At this point Shaw has had enough success that, while you can certainly find areas where he can improve*, he is very, very clearly doing more right than wrong.

*My personal biggest problem is his 4th-down decision making. Though I think he's better than average, especially for someone with an NFL pedigree, the analysis that leads to the conclusion that you should almost always go for it on short yardage is incredibly straightforward and accessible. There's really no excuse for getting that wrong.

It is also possible, even likely, that there is no "right" call in a given situation. Football isn't an analytic science. Even if the aggregate percentages across all games indicate that a certain play is the "best choice", that doesn't prove it is the best choice for your team vs. a particular opponent on a given day. You may choose a different play because your team can't execute the best choice very well, or because you know that they know that you know, etc. It is therefore kind of meaningless to say "that was a bad call" in a given situation. It all comes down to "do you win more than other coaching choices", and Shaw certainly does that. So, while contra-factual  speculation may be fun, it is really meaningless. It is an opinion that can't be tested. The fans just need to keep that in mind when criticizing the coach.

[Goose]

It's easy to harp on bad outcomes without considering whether the methods that lead to the outcome were good or bad. It's possible to do things the right way and have it turn out badly. It's possible to do things badly and get lucky (though generally not consistently). At this point Shaw has had enough success that, while you can certainly find areas where he can improve*, he is very, very clearly doing more right than wrong.

*My personal biggest problem is his 4th-down decision making. Though I think he's better than average, especially for someone with an NFL pedigree, the analysis that leads to the conclusion that you should almost always go for it on short yardage is incredibly straightforward and accessible. There's really no excuse for getting that wrong.

It is also possible, even likely, that there is no "right" call in a given situation. Football isn't an analytic science. Even if the aggregate percentages across all games indicate that a certain play is the "best choice", that doesn't prove it is the best choice for your team vs. a particular opponent on a given day. You may choose a different play because your team can't execute the best choice very well, or because you know that they know that you know, etc. It is therefore kind of meaningless to say "that was a bad call" in a given situation. It all comes down to "do you win more than other coaching choices", and Shaw certainly does that. So, while contra-factual  speculation may be fun, it is really meaningless. It is an opinion that can't be tested. The fans just need to keep that in mind when criticizing the coach.

[CompSci87]

Also of note: have we seen the wildcat at all this year?

We saw it with Scarlett as the back a couple of times. It was executed really poorly, and so it looks like Shaw adjusted by not using it again.

[CompSci87]

Also of note: have we seen the wildcat at all this year?

We saw it with Scarlett as the back a couple of times. It was executed really poorly, and so it looks like Shaw adjusted by not using it again.

[Hurlburt88]

I don't like the Wildcat much, but if used seems like best led by someone who can both throw and run.  Wouldn't both Burns and Jay Tyler be options? 

[Hurlburt88]

I don't like the Wildcat much, but if used seems like best led by someone who can both throw and run.  Wouldn't both Burns and Jay Tyler be options? 

[oldalum]

We have run some plays that I think are in essence a disguised wildcat, which I like much better than the plain vanilla version. I'm talking about when the quarterback takes the ball from center, quickly turns 180 degrees and pitches it straight back to the RB, who then runs wherever he sees fit. The advantage is that the defense doesn't know it's coming so can't sell out for the run.

[oldalum]

We have run some plays that I think are in essence a disguised wildcat, which I like much better than the plain vanilla version. I'm talking about when the quarterback takes the ball from center, quickly turns 180 degrees and pitches it straight back to the RB, who then runs wherever he sees fit. The advantage is that the defense doesn't know it's coming so can't sell out for the run.

[swagman]

I love David Shaw, it is just frustrating to see him stick with Chryst without having any indication as to why. I know he does not "owe" an explanation to the fans, but the frustration in watching our team play so badly, with what appears to be an obvious solution (Costello>Burns) standing on the sideline, begs for reactive responses from fans on a board such as this.

If I knew his rationale was because he wants Chryst to succeed; as someone who has put more time into the team, and/or someone who he has (hopefully) been trying to train NOT to telegraph his pass intentions, then I could at least kneel prayerfully and beg for divine wisdom and talent to fall upon Keller.

Without knowing his reasons, I can still clasp my hands in prayer, but how can I keep myself from saying "What are you doing, Shaw!? Don't you see that Chryst is about to throw an interception?"

Bottom line: I would never campaign for trading David Shaw for another coach, and I am sure he has his reasons... I just wish he would text them to me. I would promise never to tell, and it might prevent me from suffering through a combination of heartburn and various cardiac arrhythmias when we play Washington!

[swagman]

I love David Shaw, it is just frustrating to see him stick with Chryst without having any indication as to why. I know he does not "owe" an explanation to the fans, but the frustration in watching our team play so badly, with what appears to be an obvious solution (Costello>Burns) standing on the sideline, begs for reactive responses from fans on a board such as this.

If I knew his rationale was because he wants Chryst to succeed; as someone who has put more time into the team, and/or someone who he has (hopefully) been trying to train NOT to telegraph his pass intentions, then I could at least kneel prayerfully and beg for divine wisdom and talent to fall upon Keller.

Without knowing his reasons, I can still clasp my hands in prayer, but how can I keep myself from saying "What are you doing, Shaw!? Don't you see that Chryst is about to throw an interception?"

Bottom line: I would never campaign for trading David Shaw for another coach, and I am sure he has his reasons... I just wish he would text them to me. I would promise never to tell, and it might prevent me from suffering through a combination of heartburn and various cardiac arrhythmias when we play Washington!

[Goose]

I love David Shaw, it is just frustrating to see him stick with Chryst without having any indication as to why. I know he does not "owe" an explanation to the fans, but the frustration in watching our team lose so badly, with what appears to be an obvious solution (Costello>Burns) standing on the sideline, begs for reactive responses from fans on a board such as this.

How would you, and how would the players reach if Shaw said " All three guys have major problems. Chryst is really the lesser of three evils. Costello has no judgement. He thinks he can throw the ball through a brick wall. Burns has the yips. We pretty much wrecked him last year. Chryst is a slow thinker, but at least kind of gets it". Now, I don't think that is what Shaw thinks, but the point is, anything he would say compromises his players in some way. It is publicly airing dirty laundry and expressing negativity about his potential QBs. Shaw won't and shouldn't do that, no matter how much we would like to know what he is really thinking.

[Goose]

I love David Shaw, it is just frustrating to see him stick with Chryst without having any indication as to why. I know he does not "owe" an explanation to the fans, but the frustration in watching our team lose so badly, with what appears to be an obvious solution (Costello>Burns) standing on the sideline, begs for reactive responses from fans on a board such as this.

How would you, and how would the players reach if Shaw said " All three guys have major problems. Chryst is really the lesser of three evils. Costello has no judgement. He thinks he can throw the ball through a brick wall. Burns has the yips. We pretty much wrecked him last year. Chryst is a slow thinker, but at least kind of gets it". Now, I don't think that is what Shaw thinks, but the point is, anything he would say compromises his players in some way. It is publicly airing dirty laundry and expressing negativity about his potential QBs. Shaw won't and shouldn't do that, no matter how much we would like to know what he is really thinking.

[ChicagoCard]

Yeah but he was smug when the sideline reporter asked him about it.

[ChicagoCard]

Yeah but he was smug when the sideline reporter asked him about it.

[washingtonismoney]

I think I've mentioned this elsewhere, but not seeing Costello was doubly strange. For the obvious reasons, of course. But then because fans had seen Costello the past two games -- even when Chryst was playing relatively well, and arguably outplaying Costello -- and Shaw had indicated that, for a variety of reasons, we'd continue to see Costello. Then a sudden, unforeshadowed reversal, at the precise moment you'd think some sort of QB rotation would be justified.* Just pretty odd, which is why I find my theory of ... holding something back for the stretch run ... to be oddly plausible.

*(I know there's been derision of the idea of a QB rotation. But you'd think "we have a really streaky QB who's sometimes very good and sometimes unspeakably awful" would be just the situation for him.)

[washingtonismoney]

I think I've mentioned this elsewhere, but not seeing Costello was doubly strange. For the obvious reasons, of course. But then because fans had seen Costello the past two games -- even when Chryst was playing relatively well, and arguably outplaying Costello -- and Shaw had indicated that, for a variety of reasons, we'd continue to see Costello. Then a sudden, unforeshadowed reversal, at the precise moment you'd think some sort of QB rotation would be justified.* Just pretty odd, which is why I find my theory of ... holding something back for the stretch run ... to be oddly plausible.

*(I know there's been derision of the idea of a QB rotation. But you'd think "we have a really streaky QB who's sometimes very good and sometimes unspeakably awful" would be just the situation for him.)

[Hurlburt88]

I heard an interview with purple-face yesterday.  Talked about how much he learned from last year and making adjustments. 

[Hurlburt88]

I heard an interview with purple-face yesterday.  Talked about how much he learned from last year and making adjustments. 

[washingtonismoney]

I heard an interview with purple-face yesterday.  Talked about how much he learned from last year and making adjustments.

Right, though the "learning" was, ah, imposed by his boss.

[washingtonismoney]

I heard an interview with purple-face yesterday.  Talked about how much he learned from last year and making adjustments.

Right, though the "learning" was, ah, imposed by his boss.

[Hurlburt88]

I suppose.    Still, if pirpleface can adjust certainly Shaw can.  6 days to the next check point

[Hurlburt88]

I suppose.    Still, if pirpleface can adjust certainly Shaw can.  6 days to the next check point

[cardcrimson]

Also if I talked to (or about) my wife the way some people he talk about Shaw, she would have left me long ago.  What bothers me is not the criticism, but the lack of respect.  And I think Shaw has earned our respect.

BC

Good grief. We're talking about college football. A game. With fanatics. By definition, we're suppose to be raving lunatics. Lack of respect for David Shaw. No. I don't think so. Lack of tact, absolutely. Unrestrained ranting, certainly. But this is a chatroom, full of other fanatics. One that all of us assume David Shaw pays no attention to. It's not as if we're expecting him to read this crap, let alone change his actions by it. It's simply a place to vent and commiserate, and more often than not, rejoice.

If this were a real room, with the Czar among us, I'm sure the commentary would be quite different, and the respect immense.

[cardcrimson]

Also if I talked to (or about) my wife the way some people he talk about Shaw, she would have left me long ago.  What bothers me is not the criticism, but the lack of respect.  And I think Shaw has earned our respect.

BC

Good grief. We're talking about college football. A game. With fanatics. By definition, we're suppose to be raving lunatics. Lack of respect for David Shaw. No. I don't think so. Lack of tact, absolutely. Unrestrained ranting, certainly. But this is a chatroom, full of other fanatics. One that all of us assume David Shaw pays no attention to. It's not as if we're expecting him to read this crap, let alone change his actions by it. It's simply a place to vent and commiserate, and more often than not, rejoice.

If this were a real room, with the Czar among us, I'm sure the commentary would be quite different, and the respect immense.

[BostonCard]

I don’t know why it would be acceptable to run your mouth when you don’t think the target is listening than any more than when you think he would be reading your posts.  If I wanted raving lunatics, I would go to a Notre Dame board.  I’d like to think Stanford fans are better than that, and would show a modicum of respect and class when talking about the soon to be winningest coach in Stanford history.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don’t know why it would be acceptable to run your mouth when you don’t think the target is listening than any more than when you think he would be reading your posts.  If I wanted raving lunatics, I would go to a Notre Dame board.  I’d like to think Stanford fans are better than that, and would show a modicum of respect and class when talking about the soon to be winningest coach in Stanford history.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Why are people on this board so damn sensitive?  Nobody is attacking anyone personally, just criticizing decisions and making suggestions. It's freaking sports discussion.  It's suppose to be fun and it's better when people express their passion and let themselves go, even if we come off a bit unhinged at times.

[OutsiderFan]

Why are people on this board so damn sensitive?  Nobody is attacking anyone personally, just criticizing decisions and making suggestions. It's freaking sports discussion.  It's suppose to be fun and it's better when people express their passion and let themselves go, even if we come off a bit unhinged at times.

[stupac2]

It's suppose to be fun and it's better when people express their passion and let themselves go, even if we come off a bit unhinged at times.

Disagree. It's better when people make good, sound, justified arguments.

It's also not a matter of being "sensitive". The subtitle of this board is "more signal and less noise". The problem with brobdingnagian swathes of the criticism is that it's just noise. Like, that "this team will never a win a natty" thread, what was the signal in that OP? I could probably keep going. I get that after a game like Thursday's people are frustrated, but go punch a pillow. Shouting obviously wrong or ill-conceived things is just noise. Pointless, useless noise.

If you want to be on a board that's all poop-flinging monkeys, well, there are thousands of them out there. I'm here because the poop is minimal, and if I had my druthers it would be at zero.

[stupac2]

It's suppose to be fun and it's better when people express their passion and let themselves go, even if we come off a bit unhinged at times.

Disagree. It's better when people make good, sound, justified arguments.

It's also not a matter of being "sensitive". The subtitle of this board is "more signal and less noise". The problem with brobdingnagian swathes of the criticism is that it's just noise. Like, that "this team will never a win a natty" thread, what was the signal in that OP? I could probably keep going. I get that after a game like Thursday's people are frustrated, but go punch a pillow. Shouting obviously wrong or ill-conceived things is just noise. Pointless, useless noise.

If you want to be on a board that's all poop-flinging monkeys, well, there are thousands of them out there. I'm here because the poop is minimal, and if I had my druthers it would be at zero.

[Card Fan in OR]

Why are people on this board so damn sensitive?  Nobody is attacking anyone personally, just criticizing decisions and making suggestions. It's freaking sports discussion.  It's suppose to be fun and it's better when people express their passion and let themselves go, even if we come off a bit unhinged at times.

Agree.

Damn, OF, did you get dinged for that post? Not sure. Anyway, based on my limited knowledge of sports fans overall and sports boards, I would argue that this board is the absolute epitome of civility.

We very nearly lost a game a couple days ago that we supposedly had a 96% chance of winning. Though we did, the closeness and, in my opinion, awfulness of that game certainly merits some spirited discussion. That's what we're here for, isn't it?

[Card Fan in OR]

Why are people on this board so damn sensitive?  Nobody is attacking anyone personally, just criticizing decisions and making suggestions. It's freaking sports discussion.  It's suppose to be fun and it's better when people express their passion and let themselves go, even if we come off a bit unhinged at times.

Agree.

Damn, OF, did you get dinged for that post? Not sure. Anyway, based on my limited knowledge of sports fans overall and sports boards, I would argue that this board is the absolute epitome of civility.

We very nearly lost a game a couple days ago that we supposedly had a 96% chance of winning. Though we did, the closeness and, in my opinion, awfulness of that game certainly merits some spirited discussion. That's what we're here for, isn't it?

[cardcrimson]

I don’t know why it would be acceptable to run your mouth when you don’t think the target is listening than any more than when you think he would be reading your posts.  If I wanted raving lunatics, I would go to a Votre Dame board.  I’d like to think Stanford fans are better than that, and would show a modicum of respect and class when talking about the soon to be winningest coach in Stanford history.

BC

Yeah, and here we sit. Smarter than all, cause we're better than the unwashed masses. Our class dictates that, right? But then we stoop to calling opposing coaches front butt, purple face, etc. and proudly stick with those cute little auto corrects to 59ers, literature's most famous losers, votre dame and the like. God, I hate condescension. I much prefer lunacy.

[cardcrimson]

I don’t know why it would be acceptable to run your mouth when you don’t think the target is listening than any more than when you think he would be reading your posts.  If I wanted raving lunatics, I would go to a Votre Dame board.  I’d like to think Stanford fans are better than that, and would show a modicum of respect and class when talking about the soon to be winningest coach in Stanford history.

BC

Yeah, and here we sit. Smarter than all, cause we're better than the unwashed masses. Our class dictates that, right? But then we stoop to calling opposing coaches front butt, purple face, etc. and proudly stick with those cute little auto corrects to 59ers, literature's most famous losers, votre dame and the like. God, I hate condescension. I much prefer lunacy.

[stupac2]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17794.msg208990#msg208990 date=1509244355]
I don’t know why it would be acceptable to run your mouth when you don’t think the target is listening than any more than when you think he would be reading your posts.  If I wanted raving lunatics, I would go to a Notre Dame board.  I’d like to think Stanford fans are better than that, and would show a modicum of respect and class when talking about the soon to be winningest coach in Stanford history.

BC

Yeah, and here we sit. Smarter than all, cause we're better than the unwashed masses. Our class dictates that, right? But then we stoop to calling opposing coaches front butt, purple face, etc. and proudly stick with those cute little auto corrects to bears, literature's most famous losers, Notre Dame and the like. God, I hate condescension. I much prefer lunacy.
[/quote]

Well that's a silly argument, BC doesn't use those names and (IIRC) isn't a fan of the auto-correct.

[stupac2]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17794.msg208990#msg208990 date=1509244355]
I don’t know why it would be acceptable to run your mouth when you don’t think the target is listening than any more than when you think he would be reading your posts.  If I wanted raving lunatics, I would go to a Notre Dame board.  I’d like to think Stanford fans are better than that, and would show a modicum of respect and class when talking about the soon to be winningest coach in Stanford history.

BC

Yeah, and here we sit. Smarter than all, cause we're better than the unwashed masses. Our class dictates that, right? But then we stoop to calling opposing coaches front butt, purple face, etc. and proudly stick with those cute little auto corrects to bears, literature's most famous losers, Notre Dame and the like. God, I hate condescension. I much prefer lunacy.
[/quote]

Well that's a silly argument, BC doesn't use those names and (IIRC) isn't a fan of the auto-correct.

[cardcrimson]

I guess it goes both ways then. I haven't "run my mouth" either. I've complained about the play calling and keeping Chryst in the game. Disrespect of Shaw. I don't think so.

[cardcrimson]

I guess it goes both ways then. I haven't "run my mouth" either. I've complained about the play calling and keeping Chryst in the game. Disrespect of Shaw. I don't think so.

[stupac2]

I guess it goes both ways then. I haven't "run my mouth" either. I've complained about the play calling and keeping Chryst in the game. Disrespect of Shaw. I don't think so.

Preeeeeetty sure BC was using the general, not specific, "you" there. If you change it to "one" do you still take issue with it?

[stupac2]

I guess it goes both ways then. I haven't "run my mouth" either. I've complained about the play calling and keeping Chryst in the game. Disrespect of Shaw. I don't think so.

Preeeeeetty sure BC was using the general, not specific, "you" there. If you change it to "one" do you still take issue with it?