[Treebound]

Call it rationalization, but I continue to think that KJ said or did something either last week in practice or during the game that placed him in Shaw's doghouse.  I'm a big fan of Shaw's, but the lack of using KJ when it was brutally obvious that Chryst was having very bad game, was infuriating.  If it was a discipline - then I'm fine with it, but why would he tell the sideline reporter at half time that we would see KJ? 

OSU outplayed us and hat's off to their challenged interim staff for getting that team up and focused for the game.    I expect Shaw to say that he'll start the QB that shows the best in practice this week and I fully expect him to go with Chryst given his conservative approach, but if we see more of the same vs WSU, then I really hope we see KJ early.  That was very bad, very ugly football on Thursday night.  It reminded me of the no fault Walt years and I don't wish to ever see it from Stanford again.  We are better than that.  This team has the talent to win the Pac12 championship, I hope they got the wake up call and are hungry to come roaring back one game at a time over the next four weeks. 

Sending good thoughts Bryce's direction as we need him and I think the east coast bias award is wide open now.  Barkley had -3 yards rushing in the second half and didn't get the ball in their last series.  He should be done.

[Treebound]

Call it rationalization, but I continue to think that KJ said or did something either last week in practice or during the game that placed him in Shaw's doghouse.  I'm a big fan of Shaw's, but the lack of using KJ when it was brutally obvious that Chryst was having very bad game, was infuriating.  If it was a discipline - then I'm fine with it, but why would he tell the sideline reporter at half time that we would see KJ? 

OSU outplayed us and hat's off to their challenged interim staff for getting that team up and focused for the game.    I expect Shaw to say that he'll start the QB that shows the best in practice this week and I fully expect him to go with Chryst given his conservative approach, but if we see more of the same vs WSU, then I really hope we see KJ early.  That was very bad, very ugly football on Thursday night.  It reminded me of the no fault Walt years and I don't wish to ever see it from Stanford again.  We are better than that.  This team has the talent to win the Pac12 championship, I hope they got the wake up call and are hungry to come roaring back one game at a time over the next four weeks. 

Sending good thoughts Bryce's direction as we need him and I think the east coast bias award is wide open now.  Barkley had -3 yards rushing in the second half and didn't get the ball in their last series.  He should be done.

[DC 86]

If it was a discipline - then I'm fine with it, but why would he tell the sideline reporter at half time that we would see KJ? 

Shaw's entire quote re Costello was "we'll see how it goes". I also don't see any smirk (as others have claimed) but that is subject to interpretation.

http://kwese.espn.com/video/clip?id=21175144

[DC 86]

If it was a discipline - then I'm fine with it, but why would he tell the sideline reporter at half time that we would see KJ? 

Shaw's entire quote re Costello was "we'll see how it goes". I also don't see any smirk (as others have claimed) but that is subject to interpretation.

http://kwese.espn.com/video/clip?id=21175144

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17794.msg209058#msg209058 date=1509288063]
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?
[/quote]

Preeeety sure I was using the general and not the specific as well. No matter, on to more important things like analyzing fingerprints.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17794.msg209058#msg209058 date=1509288063]
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?
[/quote]

Preeeety sure I was using the general and not the specific as well. No matter, on to more important things like analyzing fingerprints.

[CornFed]

"He should be done."

Reminds me of a line from "The Greatest Game Ever Played"

"He's done now.  He's spent his powder.  Finish him!"

Of course, in that case, it proved to be misguided hubris.  You may be right.  By all reasonable lights, Barkley should drop back in the race for the un-Stanford Trophy.  But, really, when have the lights been on for those voters?

[CornFed]

"He should be done."

Reminds me of a line from "The Greatest Game Ever Played"

"He's done now.  He's spent his powder.  Finish him!"

Of course, in that case, it proved to be misguided hubris.  You may be right.  By all reasonable lights, Barkley should drop back in the race for the un-Stanford Trophy.  But, really, when have the lights been on for those voters?

[Goose]

Of course, in that case, it proved to be misguided hubris.  You may be right.  By all reasonable lights, Barkley should drop back in the race for the un-Stanford Trophy.  But, really, when have the lights been on for those voters?

Exactly so. I almost think it would be better if the players boycotted the ceremony in protest of the total incompetence of the selection "committee". An award from that group should actually mean little or nothing. And no, this isn't about who has been selected in the past years (although there may be much to question there), but rather that a lot of the voters have no real qualifications to vote, and don't actually do much homework on who they vote for. The fact ballots are turned in early shows, ipso facto,  that some of the decisions are based on less than all the facts.

[Goose]

Of course, in that case, it proved to be misguided hubris.  You may be right.  By all reasonable lights, Barkley should drop back in the race for the un-Stanford Trophy.  But, really, when have the lights been on for those voters?

Exactly so. I almost think it would be better if the players boycotted the ceremony in protest of the total incompetence of the selection "committee". An award from that group should actually mean little or nothing. And no, this isn't about who has been selected in the past years (although there may be much to question there), but rather that a lot of the voters have no real qualifications to vote, and don't actually do much homework on who they vote for. The fact ballots are turned in early shows, ipso facto,  that some of the decisions are based on less than all the facts.

[BostonCard]

I reacted to your post suggesting that it was ok to be a jerk about Shaw because he doesn’t read the boards.  (Specifically this quote)

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...

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

I disagree with this.  I firmly believe that one always ought to show respect regardless of whether you think the person is reading or listening.  Maybe I’m in the minority on this.

BC

[BostonCard]

I reacted to your post suggesting that it was ok to be a jerk about Shaw because he doesn’t read the boards.  (Specifically this quote)

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...

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

I disagree with this.  I firmly believe that one always ought to show respect regardless of whether you think the person is reading or listening.  Maybe I’m in the minority on this.

BC

[cardcrimson]

I reacted to your post suggesting that it was ok to be a jerk about Shaw because he doesn’t read the boards.  (Specifically this quote)

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...

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

I disagree with this.  I firmly believe that one always ought to show respect regardless of whether you think the person is reading or listening.  Maybe I’m in the minority on this.

BC

I didn't suggest any such thing. Just stating what I thought obvious, that in general, people are quicker to condemn and criticize, with sharper tones, behind the shield of anonymity the internet provides. In person, those with the sharpest jabs would temper their comments. Those that slobber, would slobber even more.

[cardcrimson]

I reacted to your post suggesting that it was ok to be a jerk about Shaw because he doesn’t read the boards.  (Specifically this quote)

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...

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

I disagree with this.  I firmly believe that one always ought to show respect regardless of whether you think the person is reading or listening.  Maybe I’m in the minority on this.

BC

I didn't suggest any such thing. Just stating what I thought obvious, that in general, people are quicker to condemn and criticize, with sharper tones, behind the shield of anonymity the internet provides. In person, those with the sharpest jabs would temper their comments. Those that slobber, would slobber even more.

[BostonCard]

Sorry, I misinterpreted your references to “we”, “all of us” and the community” to be the second person usage of “we” and not a more polite way of saying “some people”.  That being said, i still believe that sort of behavior shouldn’t be normalized, and whether it is a truism or not doesn’t’t make it ok.  I’d prefer to see this board talk about third persons as if they read it.  Frank, to be sure, but respectful.  But I’m just another poster, and I’m sure I’ve deviated from my own principles.

BC

[BostonCard]

Sorry, I misinterpreted your references to “we”, “all of us” and the community” to be the second person usage of “we” and not a more polite way of saying “some people”.  That being said, i still believe that sort of behavior shouldn’t be normalized, and whether it is a truism or not doesn’t’t make it ok.  I’d prefer to see this board talk about third persons as if they read it.  Frank, to be sure, but respectful.  But I’m just another poster, and I’m sure I’ve deviated from my own principles.

BC

[Treebound]

"One shouldn't assume..."
I know more than a few people within the AD that have read this board and at least one other.  Some of them have even gone so far as to try to figure out who people are from their "nom de plum."    As to how often they read the board(s) and to what level of detail, only they know.  As we all can attest, there are some very good contributors here and most everyone wants the best for this program.    A level of respect is always welcome and appreciated imho.

[Treebound]

"One shouldn't assume..."
I know more than a few people within the AD that have read this board and at least one other.  Some of them have even gone so far as to try to figure out who people are from their "nom de plum."    As to how often they read the board(s) and to what level of detail, only they know.  As we all can attest, there are some very good contributors here and most everyone wants the best for this program.    A level of respect is always welcome and appreciated imho.

[stupac2]

Some of them have even gone so far as to try to figure out who people are from their "nom de plum."

Hah, I find that hilarious. To what end? Correlating what people say on here to their ticket purchasing behavior or something?

Anywho, I hope one of them was me because it would be trivial. This was my SUID, it's probably my alumni email account (I don't use it so I'm not sure) and it's my ticket account email address. Yo admins, if you want to chat, holla at me!

[stupac2]

Some of them have even gone so far as to try to figure out who people are from their "nom de plum."

Hah, I find that hilarious. To what end? Correlating what people say on here to their ticket purchasing behavior or something?

Anywho, I hope one of them was me because it would be trivial. This was my SUID, it's probably my alumni email account (I don't use it so I'm not sure) and it's my ticket account email address. Yo admins, if you want to chat, holla at me!

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17794.msg208612#msg208612 date=1509110790]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=17794.msg208596#msg208596 date=1509100559]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17794.msg208432#msg208432 date=1509078517]
Good defense.  Bad everything else.

A defense that gave Oregon St three first downs by penalty in the second half plus a roughing the punter penalty on Reid which I also count. Another targeting call that will cost Alfieri the first half in Pullman.

Other than Phillips who is an absolute monster I will not give this defense a lot of credit for last night.
[/quote]

Really?  They caused three turnovers, two fumbles and an interception.  Held OSU's running game to a 3.4 average and their QB had a 45.5 QBR.  OSU scored 14 points, amid some pretty questionable calls and non-calls.

I'd say our defense did damn good.
[/quote]

IIRC neither of those fumble recoveries were particularly good defensive plays, just being in the right spot after ORST screwed up.

But regardless, you can't give them credit for a few turnovers when they were also responsible for boneheaded penalties that directly lead to all of ORST's points.

One of the things I find odd about the general population of this board is how quick everyone is to criticize the offense, given how reluctant they seem to be to criticize the defense. Both sides of the ball stunk it up last night, it just happened that our best player was on defense. That doesn't excuse the other 10 guys who were busy flailing around on tackles and committing idiotic penalties.

Both sides of the ball did just enough to win. Neither played well.
[/quote]

We criticize the offense because they don't score.  We admire the defense because they give up very few points.  So let me put it another way.  The offense scored 15 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 126th of 130 FBS teams.  The defense gave up 14 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 8th out of 130 FBS teams.

#126 vs. #8.  Offense bad, defense good.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17794.msg208612#msg208612 date=1509110790]
[quote author=winflop link=topic=17794.msg208596#msg208596 date=1509100559]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17794.msg208432#msg208432 date=1509078517]
Good defense.  Bad everything else.

A defense that gave Oregon St three first downs by penalty in the second half plus a roughing the punter penalty on Reid which I also count. Another targeting call that will cost Alfieri the first half in Pullman.

Other than Phillips who is an absolute monster I will not give this defense a lot of credit for last night.
[/quote]

Really?  They caused three turnovers, two fumbles and an interception.  Held OSU's running game to a 3.4 average and their QB had a 45.5 QBR.  OSU scored 14 points, amid some pretty questionable calls and non-calls.

I'd say our defense did damn good.
[/quote]

IIRC neither of those fumble recoveries were particularly good defensive plays, just being in the right spot after ORST screwed up.

But regardless, you can't give them credit for a few turnovers when they were also responsible for boneheaded penalties that directly lead to all of ORST's points.

One of the things I find odd about the general population of this board is how quick everyone is to criticize the offense, given how reluctant they seem to be to criticize the defense. Both sides of the ball stunk it up last night, it just happened that our best player was on defense. That doesn't excuse the other 10 guys who were busy flailing around on tackles and committing idiotic penalties.

Both sides of the ball did just enough to win. Neither played well.
[/quote]

We criticize the offense because they don't score.  We admire the defense because they give up very few points.  So let me put it another way.  The offense scored 15 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 126th of 130 FBS teams.  The defense gave up 14 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 8th out of 130 FBS teams.

#126 vs. #8.  Offense bad, defense good.

[washingtonismoney]

We criticize the offense because they don't score.  We admire the defense because they give up very few points.  So let me put it another way.  The offense scored 15 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 126th of 130 FBS teams.  The defense gave up 14 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 8th out of 130 FBS teams.

#126 vs. #8.  Offense bad, defense good.

Well, while I agree the offense deserves more criticism proportionally than the defense, I do think Stanford fans' expectations for the offense are somewhat more rigorously deployed than their expectations for the defense. That is, when things go wrong defensively fans tend to say, "Enh, Lance Anderson is a good coach" and give him deference. When things go badly for the offense it's time for Shaw to hire a good offensive coordinator etc. etc.

To go deeper, the arguments against Shaw's tenure on offense tend to look like this:
1) Shaw inherited a great deal of talent, therefore his 2011 season isn't really reflective of his skill;
2) His offense is too complicated and inconsistent, it only tends to produce results when the players are experienced, which means there's too much of an ebb-and-flow cycle;
3) Relatedly, talented players on offense take too long to get up to speed.

Being a devil's advocate, I think you could use the same set of arguments against Lance Anderson. Anderson inherited a great deal of talent for his loaded 2014 defense. Shaw tends to alternate good/great offenses with so-so or worse ones (2011, 2013, 2015 and now 2017 are all good offenses; 2012, 14, and 2016 not so much). Anderson, too, has followed the same pattern (2014 and 2016 are good defenses; 2015 and 2017 are...not.) Note that the 2017 offense is the young side of the ball this year; by contrast, the 2017 defense is in fact quite experienced. And, finally, with respect to talented players on defense ... well, I'll just say the Aziz Shittu and Curtis Robinson redshirt burns look misguided. (Whereas the Walker Little redshirt burn looks...smart.)

Of course I don't really believe either Shaw or Anderson is precisely a bad coach. Instead I'd point to the vagaries of talent and recruiting as a good explanation for why Stanford can put out both elite, playoff-quality offenses and defenses on the field...but never at the same time. (At least not since 2013.) Some of that is just, hey, recruiting is tough and especially so for Stanford. Some of that is that Shaw's staff could do better at recruiting, by making sure they don't allow holes in the talent pipeline to develop. (For example, it seems quite possible the '18 class will bring in anywhere between 0 and 3 offensive linemen, which would be somewhere between a grievous blunder and an unforced error.)

[washingtonismoney]

We criticize the offense because they don't score.  We admire the defense because they give up very few points.  So let me put it another way.  The offense scored 15 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 126th of 130 FBS teams.  The defense gave up 14 points.  If they averaged that for a season, they would be ranked 8th out of 130 FBS teams.

#126 vs. #8.  Offense bad, defense good.

Well, while I agree the offense deserves more criticism proportionally than the defense, I do think Stanford fans' expectations for the offense are somewhat more rigorously deployed than their expectations for the defense. That is, when things go wrong defensively fans tend to say, "Enh, Lance Anderson is a good coach" and give him deference. When things go badly for the offense it's time for Shaw to hire a good offensive coordinator etc. etc.

To go deeper, the arguments against Shaw's tenure on offense tend to look like this:
1) Shaw inherited a great deal of talent, therefore his 2011 season isn't really reflective of his skill;
2) His offense is too complicated and inconsistent, it only tends to produce results when the players are experienced, which means there's too much of an ebb-and-flow cycle;
3) Relatedly, talented players on offense take too long to get up to speed.

Being a devil's advocate, I think you could use the same set of arguments against Lance Anderson. Anderson inherited a great deal of talent for his loaded 2014 defense. Shaw tends to alternate good/great offenses with so-so or worse ones (2011, 2013, 2015 and now 2017 are all good offenses; 2012, 14, and 2016 not so much). Anderson, too, has followed the same pattern (2014 and 2016 are good defenses; 2015 and 2017 are...not.) Note that the 2017 offense is the young side of the ball this year; by contrast, the 2017 defense is in fact quite experienced. And, finally, with respect to talented players on defense ... well, I'll just say the Aziz Shittu and Curtis Robinson redshirt burns look misguided. (Whereas the Walker Little redshirt burn looks...smart.)

Of course I don't really believe either Shaw or Anderson is precisely a bad coach. Instead I'd point to the vagaries of talent and recruiting as a good explanation for why Stanford can put out both elite, playoff-quality offenses and defenses on the field...but never at the same time. (At least not since 2013.) Some of that is just, hey, recruiting is tough and especially so for Stanford. Some of that is that Shaw's staff could do better at recruiting, by making sure they don't allow holes in the talent pipeline to develop. (For example, it seems quite possible the '18 class will bring in anywhere between 0 and 3 offensive linemen, which would be somewhere between a grievous blunder and an unforced error.)