[d4cohn]

No, seriously, can we give credit to the Stanford coaching staff for preparing their team to pull off this upset?  Clearly our game plans on both O and D were excellent.  We can always nit pick a few play calls, but we really shut down UW.  How about that 4th down call at mid-field?  Awesome game.

All credit in the world for preparing the team to finally play a complete game. But it was in ***WEEK SIX*** not week 2 or 3.

At this point, they need to play like that 2 or 3 games in a row for me to believe in any kind of upward trend.

I would also argue that at this point, Shaw would need to have 2 or 3 bad seasons in a row for me to believe in any kind of downward trend too.  And to be honest, while we have likely retreated from the heights we experienced between 2010 and 2015 (Orange, Fiesta, and three Rose Bowls), what we have experienced since then (three bowl games, and one Pac-12 North championship) could hardly be considered "bad seasons".

BC

Completely agree BC. To put a metric on your "bad season" definition, for me it would have to be 2-3 bowl-less losing seasons. 7-5 is maybe a mediocre season by definition, but not a bad season.

So since the last Rose Bowl, in my estimation we have had 1 great year (10 wins with Sun Bowl victory), 1 good to great year (division title + Alamo Bowl loss), and 1 good year (9 wins + Sun Bowl win).

[d4cohn]

No, seriously, can we give credit to the Stanford coaching staff for preparing their team to pull off this upset?  Clearly our game plans on both O and D were excellent.  We can always nit pick a few play calls, but we really shut down UW.  How about that 4th down call at mid-field?  Awesome game.

All credit in the world for preparing the team to finally play a complete game. But it was in ***WEEK SIX*** not week 2 or 3.

At this point, they need to play like that 2 or 3 games in a row for me to believe in any kind of upward trend.

I would also argue that at this point, Shaw would need to have 2 or 3 bad seasons in a row for me to believe in any kind of downward trend too.  And to be honest, while we have likely retreated from the heights we experienced between 2010 and 2015 (Orange, Fiesta, and three Rose Bowls), what we have experienced since then (three bowl games, and one Pac-12 North championship) could hardly be considered "bad seasons".

BC

Completely agree BC. To put a metric on your "bad season" definition, for me it would have to be 2-3 bowl-less losing seasons. 7-5 is maybe a mediocre season by definition, but not a bad season.

So since the last Rose Bowl, in my estimation we have had 1 great year (10 wins with Sun Bowl victory), 1 good to great year (division title + Alamo Bowl loss), and 1 good year (9 wins + Sun Bowl win).

[Spiny_Norman]

Completely agree BC. To put a metric on your "bad season" definition, for me it would have to be 2-3 bowl-less losing seasons. 7-5 is maybe a mediocre season by definition, but not a bad season.



So since the last Rose Bowl, in my estimation we have had 1 great year (10 wins with Sun Bowl victory), 1 good to great year (division title + Alamo Bowl loss), and 1 good year (9 wins + Sun Bowl win).

By that assessment, the trend line is great (2016), good to great (2017), good (2018), tbd (2019).  Not trending up right now.

[Spiny_Norman]

Completely agree BC. To put a metric on your "bad season" definition, for me it would have to be 2-3 bowl-less losing seasons. 7-5 is maybe a mediocre season by definition, but not a bad season.



So since the last Rose Bowl, in my estimation we have had 1 great year (10 wins with Sun Bowl victory), 1 good to great year (division title + Alamo Bowl loss), and 1 good year (9 wins + Sun Bowl win).

By that assessment, the trend line is great (2016), good to great (2017), good (2018), tbd (2019).  Not trending up right now.

[BostonCard]

Completely agree BC. To put a metric on your "bad season" definition, for me it would have to be 2-3 bowl-less losing seasons. 7-5 is maybe a mediocre season by definition, but not a bad season.



So since the last Rose Bowl, in my estimation we have had 1 great year (10 wins with Sun Bowl victory), 1 good to great year (division title + Alamo Bowl loss), and 1 good year (9 wins + Sun Bowl win).

By that assessment, the trend line is great (2016), good to great (2017), good (2018), tbd (2019).  Not trending up right now.

I'm not sure that a Pac-12 North championship and visit to the Alamo Bowl did not make for a better season than going to the Sun Bowl and winning.

BC

[BostonCard]

Completely agree BC. To put a metric on your "bad season" definition, for me it would have to be 2-3 bowl-less losing seasons. 7-5 is maybe a mediocre season by definition, but not a bad season.



So since the last Rose Bowl, in my estimation we have had 1 great year (10 wins with Sun Bowl victory), 1 good to great year (division title + Alamo Bowl loss), and 1 good year (9 wins + Sun Bowl win).

By that assessment, the trend line is great (2016), good to great (2017), good (2018), tbd (2019).  Not trending up right now.

I'm not sure that a Pac-12 North championship and visit to the Alamo Bowl did not make for a better season than going to the Sun Bowl and winning.

BC

[winflop]

No, seriously, can we give credit to the Stanford coaching staff for preparing their team to pull off this upset?  Clearly our game plans on both O and D were excellent.  We can always nit pick a few play calls, but we really shut down UW.  How about that 4th down call at mid-field?  Awesome game.

All credit in the world for preparing the team to finally play a complete game. But it was in ***WEEK SIX*** not week 2 or 3.

At this point, they need to play like that 2 or 3 games in a row for me to believe in any kind of upward trend.

I would also argue that at this point, Shaw would need to have 2 or 3 bad seasons in a row for me to believe in any kind of downward trend too.  And to be honest, while we have likely retreated from the heights we experienced between 2010 and 2015 (Orange, Fiesta, and three Rose Bowls), what we have experienced since then (three bowl games, and one Pac-12 North championship) could hardly be considered "bad seasons".

BC

Completely agree BC. To put a metric on your "bad season" definition, for me it would have to be 2-3 bowl-less losing seasons. 7-5 is maybe a mediocre season by definition, but not a bad season.

So since the last Rose Bowl, in my estimation we have had 1 great year (10 wins with Sun Bowl victory), 1 good to great year (division title + Alamo Bowl loss), and 1 good year (9 wins + Sun Bowl win).

I don't think there have been any great years since the Rose Bowl. I think a great year is at least a division title AND 10 regular-season wins. There have been 2 good years (2016, 2017) and one mediocre year (2018). Winning minor bowls is relatively meaningless.

My sense is the program wouldn't call any year a great year where they don't win the Pac-12.

[winflop]

No, seriously, can we give credit to the Stanford coaching staff for preparing their team to pull off this upset?  Clearly our game plans on both O and D were excellent.  We can always nit pick a few play calls, but we really shut down UW.  How about that 4th down call at mid-field?  Awesome game.

All credit in the world for preparing the team to finally play a complete game. But it was in ***WEEK SIX*** not week 2 or 3.

At this point, they need to play like that 2 or 3 games in a row for me to believe in any kind of upward trend.

I would also argue that at this point, Shaw would need to have 2 or 3 bad seasons in a row for me to believe in any kind of downward trend too.  And to be honest, while we have likely retreated from the heights we experienced between 2010 and 2015 (Orange, Fiesta, and three Rose Bowls), what we have experienced since then (three bowl games, and one Pac-12 North championship) could hardly be considered "bad seasons".

BC

Completely agree BC. To put a metric on your "bad season" definition, for me it would have to be 2-3 bowl-less losing seasons. 7-5 is maybe a mediocre season by definition, but not a bad season.

So since the last Rose Bowl, in my estimation we have had 1 great year (10 wins with Sun Bowl victory), 1 good to great year (division title + Alamo Bowl loss), and 1 good year (9 wins + Sun Bowl win).

I don't think there have been any great years since the Rose Bowl. I think a great year is at least a division title AND 10 regular-season wins. There have been 2 good years (2016, 2017) and one mediocre year (2018). Winning minor bowls is relatively meaningless.

My sense is the program wouldn't call any year a great year where they don't win the Pac-12.

[Goose]

My sense is the program wouldn't call any year a great year where they don't win the Pac-12.

Totally agree. Every year, especially when asked about the National Championship playoffs, Shaw points out that our goal(s) are to win the North and win the PAC-12 Championship, because that is what we can control. To be a great year, we need to reach those goals. However, I am not sure the boundary between "good" and "great" is that important. If we win 11 games but lose the North to another team that is undefeated in the conference, that is by definition not a "great" year. However it would be a disappointingly "good" year.

[Goose]

My sense is the program wouldn't call any year a great year where they don't win the Pac-12.

Totally agree. Every year, especially when asked about the National Championship playoffs, Shaw points out that our goal(s) are to win the North and win the PAC-12 Championship, because that is what we can control. To be a great year, we need to reach those goals. However, I am not sure the boundary between "good" and "great" is that important. If we win 11 games but lose the North to another team that is undefeated in the conference, that is by definition not a "great" year. However it would be a disappointingly "good" year.

[CowboyIndian]

My sense is the program wouldn't call any year a great year where they don't win the Pac-12.

Oh, I don't know. 2010-11 was a pretty good, even great, year by anyone's definition, except yours, perhaps.

[CowboyIndian]

My sense is the program wouldn't call any year a great year where they don't win the Pac-12.

Oh, I don't know. 2010-11 was a pretty good, even great, year by anyone's definition, except yours, perhaps.

[BostonCard]

My sense is the program wouldn't call any year a great year where they don't win the Pac-12.

Oh, I don't know. 2010-11 was a pretty good, even great, year by anyone's definition, except yours, perhaps.

I'd add that at the time, 2009 seemed like a great year, even though we went to some minor bowl game.

The carping about only going to minor bowl games strikes me a lot like the complaining that Mike Montgomery had trouble getting the team out of the first week end of the NCAA tournament.  I hope that when we're on the third coach after Shaw is gone, we aren't yearning for the times when we would go to a "minor Bowl game".

Never forget:
2002: 2-9
2003: 4-7
2004: 4-7
2005: 5-6
2006: 1-11

Those are bad years!

BC

[BostonCard]

My sense is the program wouldn't call any year a great year where they don't win the Pac-12.

Oh, I don't know. 2010-11 was a pretty good, even great, year by anyone's definition, except yours, perhaps.

I'd add that at the time, 2009 seemed like a great year, even though we went to some minor bowl game.

The carping about only going to minor bowl games strikes me a lot like the complaining that Mike Montgomery had trouble getting the team out of the first week end of the NCAA tournament.  I hope that when we're on the third coach after Shaw is gone, we aren't yearning for the times when we would go to a "minor Bowl game".

Never forget:
2002: 2-9
2003: 4-7
2004: 4-7
2005: 5-6
2006: 1-11

Those are bad years!

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

Never forget:

2002: 2-9

2003: 4-7

2004: 4-7

2005: 5-6

2006: 1-11



Those are bad years!



BC

Record vs. USC, UCLA, Cal and Notre Dame during those 5 years - 1-19.

Record vs. those 4 schools under David Shaw - 28-8. Stanford can do better than recent performance, but it could be a whole lot worse.

[Spiny_Norman]

Never forget:

2002: 2-9

2003: 4-7

2004: 4-7

2005: 5-6

2006: 1-11



Those are bad years!



BC

Record vs. USC, UCLA, Cal and Notre Dame during those 5 years - 1-19.

Record vs. those 4 schools under David Shaw - 28-8. Stanford can do better than recent performance, but it could be a whole lot worse.

[d4cohn]

Never forget:

2002: 2-9

2003: 4-7

2004: 4-7

2005: 5-6

2006: 1-11



Those are bad years!



BC

Record vs. USC, UCLA, Cal and Notre Dame during those 5 years - 1-19.

Record vs. those 4 schools under David Shaw - 28-8. Stanford can do better than recent performance, but it could be a whole lot worse.

I was honestly shocked the number of losses against those four teams is that high, given
Coach Shaw has still never lost to both UCLA and Cal. Some fantastic stuff.

[d4cohn]

Never forget:

2002: 2-9

2003: 4-7

2004: 4-7

2005: 5-6

2006: 1-11



Those are bad years!



BC

Record vs. USC, UCLA, Cal and Notre Dame during those 5 years - 1-19.

Record vs. those 4 schools under David Shaw - 28-8. Stanford can do better than recent performance, but it could be a whole lot worse.

I was honestly shocked the number of losses against those four teams is that high, given
Coach Shaw has still never lost to both UCLA and Cal. Some fantastic stuff.

[Spiny_Norman]

Never forget:

2002: 2-9

2003: 4-7

2004: 4-7

2005: 5-6

2006: 1-11



Those are bad years!



BC

Record vs. USC, UCLA, Cal and Notre Dame during those 5 years - 1-19.

Record vs. those 4 schools under David Shaw - 28-8. Stanford can do better than recent performance, but it could be a whole lot worse.

I was honestly shocked the number of losses against those four teams is that high, given
Coach Shaw has still never lost to both UCLA and Cal. Some fantastic stuff.

DShaw is now 6-5 vs. USC (which includes 2 conference championship games) and 5-3 vs. Notre Dame with 2019 result pending.

Shaw is also 6-3 vs. Washington, 5-4 vs. Oregon and 5-3 vs. Washington State. The only school which has a winning record against him is Utah which is 3-1.

[Spiny_Norman]

Never forget:

2002: 2-9

2003: 4-7

2004: 4-7

2005: 5-6

2006: 1-11



Those are bad years!



BC

Record vs. USC, UCLA, Cal and Notre Dame during those 5 years - 1-19.

Record vs. those 4 schools under David Shaw - 28-8. Stanford can do better than recent performance, but it could be a whole lot worse.

I was honestly shocked the number of losses against those four teams is that high, given
Coach Shaw has still never lost to both UCLA and Cal. Some fantastic stuff.

DShaw is now 6-5 vs. USC (which includes 2 conference championship games) and 5-3 vs. Notre Dame with 2019 result pending.

Shaw is also 6-3 vs. Washington, 5-4 vs. Oregon and 5-3 vs. Washington State. The only school which has a winning record against him is Utah which is 3-1.

[winflop]

DShaw is now 6-5 vs. USC (which includes 2 conference championship games) and 5-3 vs. Notre Dame with 2019 result pending.

Shaw is also 6-3 vs. Washington, 5-4 vs. Oregon and 5-3 vs. Washington State. The only school which has a winning record against him is Utah which is 3-1.

In the last three seasons:
1-3 vs. U$C
1-1 vs ND
2-1 vs UW
2-1 vs UO
0-2 vs WSU
1-1 vs Utah

Overall 7-9 vs those six teams

[winflop]

DShaw is now 6-5 vs. USC (which includes 2 conference championship games) and 5-3 vs. Notre Dame with 2019 result pending.

Shaw is also 6-3 vs. Washington, 5-4 vs. Oregon and 5-3 vs. Washington State. The only school which has a winning record against him is Utah which is 3-1.

In the last three seasons:
1-3 vs. U$C
1-1 vs ND
2-1 vs UW
2-1 vs UO
0-2 vs WSU
1-1 vs Utah

Overall 7-9 vs those six teams

[lex24]

Yes, they have not been as good since they lost their ability to control games with the running game. They built this thing on physical dominance at the LOS. They have lost that.  

DShaw is now 6-5 vs. USC (which includes 2 conference championship games) and 5-3 vs. Notre Dame with 2019 result pending.

Shaw is also 6-3 vs. Washington, 5-4 vs. Oregon and 5-3 vs. Washington State. The only school which has a winning record against him is Utah which is 3-1.

In the last three seasons:
1-3 vs. U$C
1-1 vs ND
2-1 vs UW
2-1 vs UO
0-2 vs WSU
1-1 vs Utah

Overall 7-9 vs those six teams

[lex24]

Yes, they have not been as good since they lost their ability to control games with the running game. They built this thing on physical dominance at the LOS. They have lost that.  

DShaw is now 6-5 vs. USC (which includes 2 conference championship games) and 5-3 vs. Notre Dame with 2019 result pending.

Shaw is also 6-3 vs. Washington, 5-4 vs. Oregon and 5-3 vs. Washington State. The only school which has a winning record against him is Utah which is 3-1.

In the last three seasons:
1-3 vs. U$C
1-1 vs ND
2-1 vs UW
2-1 vs UO
0-2 vs WSU
1-1 vs Utah

Overall 7-9 vs those six teams

[BostonCard]

A quick reminder that between 1958 and 1990, USC was 29-3-1 against us.  Being only 6-5 against the Trojans doesn’t look as bad in comparison.

BC

[BostonCard]

A quick reminder that between 1958 and 1990, USC was 29-3-1 against us.  Being only 6-5 against the Trojans doesn’t look as bad in comparison.

BC

[d4cohn]

DShaw is now 6-5 vs. USC (which includes 2 conference championship games) and 5-3 vs. Notre Dame with 2019 result pending.

Shaw is also 6-3 vs. Washington, 5-4 vs. Oregon and 5-3 vs. Washington State. The only school which has a winning record against him is Utah which is 3-1.

In the last three seasons:
1-3 vs. U$C
1-1 vs ND
2-1 vs UW
2-1 vs UO
0-2 vs WSU
1-1 vs Utah

Overall 7-9 vs those six teams

The 1-3 SC record includes 2 road games, 1 neutral site (yes, this was basically a home game), and 1 home game.

And isn't a winning record against our two biggest rivals for division titles good? The Wazzu record can be explained stylistically, as we have struggled against Big 12-like spread teams (see Fiesta Bowl loss to Oklahoma State, Alamo Bowl loss to TCU, and Wazzu games). Every style of football has its weaknesses and limitations, and as such, isn't fool-proof against every opponent.

[d4cohn]

DShaw is now 6-5 vs. USC (which includes 2 conference championship games) and 5-3 vs. Notre Dame with 2019 result pending.

Shaw is also 6-3 vs. Washington, 5-4 vs. Oregon and 5-3 vs. Washington State. The only school which has a winning record against him is Utah which is 3-1.

In the last three seasons:
1-3 vs. U$C
1-1 vs ND
2-1 vs UW
2-1 vs UO
0-2 vs WSU
1-1 vs Utah

Overall 7-9 vs those six teams

The 1-3 SC record includes 2 road games, 1 neutral site (yes, this was basically a home game), and 1 home game.

And isn't a winning record against our two biggest rivals for division titles good? The Wazzu record can be explained stylistically, as we have struggled against Big 12-like spread teams (see Fiesta Bowl loss to Oklahoma State, Alamo Bowl loss to TCU, and Wazzu games). Every style of football has its weaknesses and limitations, and as such, isn't fool-proof against every opponent.

[cardcrimson]

So, how ya loving him now?

Thanks for taunting the woofing gods. . . .

(after midnight here on the east coast, hope i wake with egg on my face)

[cardcrimson]

So, how ya loving him now?

Thanks for taunting the woofing gods. . . .

(after midnight here on the east coast, hope i wake with egg on my face)

[d4cohn]

So, how ya loving him now?

Thanks for taunting the woofing gods. . . .

(after midnight here on the east coast, hope i wake with egg on my face)

I am incredibly proud that Coach Shaw is our HC. And as far as the woofing gods, UCLA was going to beat us eventually, which they finally did after losing 11 times in a row. 

My only point has been I think we need to appreciate the run of Stanford football that we have had under Coach Harbaugh and Shaw, because if anything, Stanford men's basketball is a cautionary tale that the level of performance up until this year is easily lost and hard won.

[d4cohn]

So, how ya loving him now?

Thanks for taunting the woofing gods. . . .

(after midnight here on the east coast, hope i wake with egg on my face)

I am incredibly proud that Coach Shaw is our HC. And as far as the woofing gods, UCLA was going to beat us eventually, which they finally did after losing 11 times in a row. 

My only point has been I think we need to appreciate the run of Stanford football that we have had under Coach Harbaugh and Shaw, because if anything, Stanford men's basketball is a cautionary tale that the level of performance up until this year is easily lost and hard won.

[Austroturf]

So, how ya loving him now?

Thanks for taunting the woofing gods. . . .

(after midnight here on the east coast, hope i wake with egg on my face)

I am incredibly proud that Coach Shaw is our HC. And as far as the woofing gods, UCLA was going to beat us eventually, which they finally did after losing 11 times in a row. 

My only point has been I think we need to appreciate the run of Stanford football that we have had under Coach Harbaugh and Shaw, because if anything, Stanford men's basketball is a cautionary tale that the level of performance up until this year is easily lost and hard won.

Clearly no streak goes on forever, so, yes, UCLA was going to break it at some point.  But for this 1-5 UCLA team with the worst defense in the Pac-12 to end the streak speaks volumes to where the Stanford program is this year and how poorly the team played on Thursday evening.  I mean, it wasn't even close.  This wasn't a hard-fought contest in which the underdog Bruins simply had a few things go their way to upset Stanford at home: the visiting team dominated from start to finish.  If the streak had been broken against a top twenty UCLA down at the Rose Bowl in a match-up of teams vying for the Pac-12 championship, then no problem.  In 2014, we were supposed to lose to the top ten Bruins with Hundley under center, but Hogan and his receiving corps had other ideas that day.

Yesterday's performance was a complete systemic breakdown, from player development (i.e., as in none in the case of West) to game preparation to in-game coaching and execution.  Less than 200 yards of offense against the worst defense in the Pac-12.  Even the Beavers torched them for over 40 points.  And UCLA's one win on the season was a shoot-out in which the opposing QB threw for nine TDs.  But Stanford manages only one offensive TD in late 4th quarter garbage time.  

Yes, the injuries are there, but they also seem to be a systemic problem: have we just been unlucky the last two years, or has the strength and conditioning program declined?  In the post-game presser, Shaw said: "that's just football" and alluded to the pendulum of fortune swinging against the team after nearly a decade of good luck on the injury front.  That answer seems like a bit of a cop-out.    

Certainly, with Mills under center, it would have been a different game; but Shaw and his staff had the entire bye week to put together a winning game plan with Jack West at QB.  He wasn't ready; the offensive game plan wasn't prepared to deal with 10 defensive players continually cheating up; the defense (admittedly at a disadvantage due to the inept offense) couldn't seem to contain the Bruin attack.  And no in-game adjustments were made.  It was clear that West was ineffective.  Maybe Richardson should have been given a shot.  It couldn't have been any worse.

As Winflop has stated elsewhere, the game against the Huskies appears now to have been a blip and not the beginning of an upward trend to the 2019 season.  4-8 is now starting to look like a possibility, and that assumes we win one of our remaining home games.  UCLA was the weakest team we had remaining on our schedule.  Even Leach's fat, lazy and entitled players are likely to shred us in Pullman.

[Austroturf]

So, how ya loving him now?

Thanks for taunting the woofing gods. . . .

(after midnight here on the east coast, hope i wake with egg on my face)

I am incredibly proud that Coach Shaw is our HC. And as far as the woofing gods, UCLA was going to beat us eventually, which they finally did after losing 11 times in a row. 

My only point has been I think we need to appreciate the run of Stanford football that we have had under Coach Harbaugh and Shaw, because if anything, Stanford men's basketball is a cautionary tale that the level of performance up until this year is easily lost and hard won.

Clearly no streak goes on forever, so, yes, UCLA was going to break it at some point.  But for this 1-5 UCLA team with the worst defense in the Pac-12 to end the streak speaks volumes to where the Stanford program is this year and how poorly the team played on Thursday evening.  I mean, it wasn't even close.  This wasn't a hard-fought contest in which the underdog Bruins simply had a few things go their way to upset Stanford at home: the visiting team dominated from start to finish.  If the streak had been broken against a top twenty UCLA down at the Rose Bowl in a match-up of teams vying for the Pac-12 championship, then no problem.  In 2014, we were supposed to lose to the top ten Bruins with Hundley under center, but Hogan and his receiving corps had other ideas that day.

Yesterday's performance was a complete systemic breakdown, from player development (i.e., as in none in the case of West) to game preparation to in-game coaching and execution.  Less than 200 yards of offense against the worst defense in the Pac-12.  Even the Beavers torched them for over 40 points.  And UCLA's one win on the season was a shoot-out in which the opposing QB threw for nine TDs.  But Stanford manages only one offensive TD in late 4th quarter garbage time.  

Yes, the injuries are there, but they also seem to be a systemic problem: have we just been unlucky the last two years, or has the strength and conditioning program declined?  In the post-game presser, Shaw said: "that's just football" and alluded to the pendulum of fortune swinging against the team after nearly a decade of good luck on the injury front.  That answer seems like a bit of a cop-out.    

Certainly, with Mills under center, it would have been a different game; but Shaw and his staff had the entire bye week to put together a winning game plan with Jack West at QB.  He wasn't ready; the offensive game plan wasn't prepared to deal with 10 defensive players continually cheating up; the defense (admittedly at a disadvantage due to the inept offense) couldn't seem to contain the Bruin attack.  And no in-game adjustments were made.  It was clear that West was ineffective.  Maybe Richardson should have been given a shot.  It couldn't have been any worse.

As Winflop has stated elsewhere, the game against the Huskies appears now to have been a blip and not the beginning of an upward trend to the 2019 season.  4-8 is now starting to look like a possibility, and that assumes we win one of our remaining home games.  UCLA was the weakest team we had remaining on our schedule.  Even Leach's fat, lazy and entitled players are likely to shred us in Pullman.

[JohnR34231]

So, how ya loving him now?

Thanks for taunting the woofing gods. . . .

(after midnight here on the east coast, hope i wake with egg on my face)

I am incredibly proud that Coach Shaw is our HC. And as far as the woofing gods, UCLA was going to beat us eventually, which they finally did after losing 11 times in a row. 

My only point has been I think we need to appreciate the run of Stanford football that we have had under Coach Harbaugh and Shaw, because if anything, Stanford men's basketball is a cautionary tale that the level of performance up until this year is easily lost and hard won.

Clearly no streak goes on forever, so, yes, UCLA was going to break it at some point.  But for this 1-5 UCLA team with the worst defense in the Pac-12 to end the streak speaks volumes to where the Stanford program is this year and how poorly the team played on Thursday evening.  I mean, it wasn't even close.  This wasn't a hard-fought contest in which the underdog Bruins simply had a few things go their way to upset Stanford at home: the visiting team dominated from start to finish.  If the streak had been broken against a top twenty UCLA down at the Rose Bowl in a match-up of teams vying for the Pac-12 championship, then no problem.  In 2014, we were supposed to lose to the top ten Bruins with Hundley under center, but Hogan and his receiving corps had other ideas that day.

Yesterday's performance was a complete systemic breakdown, from player development (i.e., as in none in the case of West) to game preparation to in-game coaching and execution.  Less than 200 yards of offense against the worst defense in the Pac-12.  Even the Beavers torched them for over 40 points.  And UCLA's one win on the season was a shoot-out in which the opposing QB threw for nine TDs.  But Stanford manages only one offensive TD in late 4th quarter garbage time.  

Yes, the injuries are there, but they also seem to be a systemic problem: have we just been unlucky the last two years, or has the strength and conditioning program declined?  In the post-game presser, Shaw said: "that's just football" and alluded to the pendulum of fortune swinging against the team after nearly a decade of good luck on the injury front.  That answer seems like a bit of a cop-out.    

Certainly, with Mills under center, it would have been a different game; but Shaw and his staff had the entire bye week to put together a winning game plan with Jack West at QB.  He wasn't ready; the offensive game plan wasn't prepared to deal with 10 defensive players continually cheating up; the defense (admittedly at a disadvantage due to the inept offense) couldn't seem to contain the Bruin attack.  And no in-game adjustments were made.  It was clear that West was ineffective.  Maybe Richardson should have been given a shot.  It couldn't have been any worse.

As Winflop has stated elsewhere, the game against the Huskies appears now to have been a blip and not the beginning of an upward trend to the 2019 season.  4-8 is now starting to look like a possibility, and that assumes we win one of our remaining home games.  UCLA was the weakest team we had remaining on our schedule.  Even Leach's fat, lazy and entitled players are likely to shred us in Pullman.

Yeah, it was a pretty pathetic effort. I don't know when or if we get Mills (or Costello) back, but assuming we do hopefully we have a couple more Washingtons in us.

[JohnR34231]

So, how ya loving him now?

Thanks for taunting the woofing gods. . . .

(after midnight here on the east coast, hope i wake with egg on my face)

I am incredibly proud that Coach Shaw is our HC. And as far as the woofing gods, UCLA was going to beat us eventually, which they finally did after losing 11 times in a row. 

My only point has been I think we need to appreciate the run of Stanford football that we have had under Coach Harbaugh and Shaw, because if anything, Stanford men's basketball is a cautionary tale that the level of performance up until this year is easily lost and hard won.

Clearly no streak goes on forever, so, yes, UCLA was going to break it at some point.  But for this 1-5 UCLA team with the worst defense in the Pac-12 to end the streak speaks volumes to where the Stanford program is this year and how poorly the team played on Thursday evening.  I mean, it wasn't even close.  This wasn't a hard-fought contest in which the underdog Bruins simply had a few things go their way to upset Stanford at home: the visiting team dominated from start to finish.  If the streak had been broken against a top twenty UCLA down at the Rose Bowl in a match-up of teams vying for the Pac-12 championship, then no problem.  In 2014, we were supposed to lose to the top ten Bruins with Hundley under center, but Hogan and his receiving corps had other ideas that day.

Yesterday's performance was a complete systemic breakdown, from player development (i.e., as in none in the case of West) to game preparation to in-game coaching and execution.  Less than 200 yards of offense against the worst defense in the Pac-12.  Even the Beavers torched them for over 40 points.  And UCLA's one win on the season was a shoot-out in which the opposing QB threw for nine TDs.  But Stanford manages only one offensive TD in late 4th quarter garbage time.  

Yes, the injuries are there, but they also seem to be a systemic problem: have we just been unlucky the last two years, or has the strength and conditioning program declined?  In the post-game presser, Shaw said: "that's just football" and alluded to the pendulum of fortune swinging against the team after nearly a decade of good luck on the injury front.  That answer seems like a bit of a cop-out.    

Certainly, with Mills under center, it would have been a different game; but Shaw and his staff had the entire bye week to put together a winning game plan with Jack West at QB.  He wasn't ready; the offensive game plan wasn't prepared to deal with 10 defensive players continually cheating up; the defense (admittedly at a disadvantage due to the inept offense) couldn't seem to contain the Bruin attack.  And no in-game adjustments were made.  It was clear that West was ineffective.  Maybe Richardson should have been given a shot.  It couldn't have been any worse.

As Winflop has stated elsewhere, the game against the Huskies appears now to have been a blip and not the beginning of an upward trend to the 2019 season.  4-8 is now starting to look like a possibility, and that assumes we win one of our remaining home games.  UCLA was the weakest team we had remaining on our schedule.  Even Leach's fat, lazy and entitled players are likely to shred us in Pullman.

Yeah, it was a pretty pathetic effort. I don't know when or if we get Mills (or Costello) back, but assuming we do hopefully we have a couple more Washingtons in us.

[Cardinal96]

Just this decade, Shaw has taken us to 3 Rose Bowls and a Fiesta Bowl. We are 2-2 in those games. Shaw isn’t going anywhere unless he decides to leave. 

Our assistant coaching staff could use some revitalization.

[Cardinal96]

Just this decade, Shaw has taken us to 3 Rose Bowls and a Fiesta Bowl. We are 2-2 in those games. Shaw isn’t going anywhere unless he decides to leave. 

Our assistant coaching staff could use some revitalization.

[Austroturf]

Just this decade, Shaw has taken us to 3 Rose Bowls and a Fiesta Bowl. We are 2-2 in those games. Shaw isn’t going anywhere unless he decides to leave. 

Our assistant coaching staff could use some revitalization.

Agree on that.  Shaw isn't going anywhere, nor should he.  But he needs to retool the entire program, and part of that is bringing in talented coaches that will raise the performance bar.

[Austroturf]

Just this decade, Shaw has taken us to 3 Rose Bowls and a Fiesta Bowl. We are 2-2 in those games. Shaw isn’t going anywhere unless he decides to leave. 

Our assistant coaching staff could use some revitalization.

Agree on that.  Shaw isn't going anywhere, nor should he.  But he needs to retool the entire program, and part of that is bringing in talented coaches that will raise the performance bar.