[yvonne]

While we’re getting rid of Bay Area coaches let’s toss that Steve Kerr guy.  Three year downward trend, poor game mgmt, don’t give me injuries as an excuse and only won with the previous coaches core.

What a bum!

Exactly!  While we're at it, why not include that Tara VanDerveer?  Hasn't won a title since 1992!  Sticking to that outdated triangle offense for years when everyone knew beyond all possible doubt that you could never succeed with it but Tara was just too stubborn to change.  She also keeps her inside Tara program coaches for way too long.  She clearly needed an outside brilliant offensive mind to fix the team.  And her recruiting for many years just wasn't up to the quality we expect and even the players we were getting weren't being coached up enough.  We went four years in a row where we lost in the first and second rounds of the tournament in the late 90s.  Tara probably wasn't working hard enough at recruiting because she had become so complacent and smug after winning the 96 Olympics.  Also, the fans who supported her were complicit in the team's decline because we left it to her to take care of business.  There have been several 4-5 year periods where the downward trajectory was clear and obvious to all who were not suffering from blind loyalty.  I mean, her team hasn't even won the Pac-12 regular season title for over 5 years!  And all those knee injuries were definitely her responsibility if not her fault.  She is definitely at fault for the attendance at women's basketball being down.  Yet somehow, by being allowed the time to work through both the highs and the lows, that stubborn fool is getting some of the best recruits of her career; has revamped the offense a few times to suit her players; and is again bringing the team back to an elite level.  But just think of how much better the team would have been if she had only listened to angry criticisms of the brilliant fans.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

So I guess you're fine Stanford football's coaching staff and would like to see no changes for the foreseeable future in either personnel or strategy.

1992 to now is a long time to go without a national championship. Clearly, she's resting on her laurels. She's satisfied with mediocrity and her AD isn't forcing her to get better.

[yvonne]

While we’re getting rid of Bay Area coaches let’s toss that Steve Kerr guy.  Three year downward trend, poor game mgmt, don’t give me injuries as an excuse and only won with the previous coaches core.

What a bum!

Exactly!  While we're at it, why not include that Tara VanDerveer?  Hasn't won a title since 1992!  Sticking to that outdated triangle offense for years when everyone knew beyond all possible doubt that you could never succeed with it but Tara was just too stubborn to change.  She also keeps her inside Tara program coaches for way too long.  She clearly needed an outside brilliant offensive mind to fix the team.  And her recruiting for many years just wasn't up to the quality we expect and even the players we were getting weren't being coached up enough.  We went four years in a row where we lost in the first and second rounds of the tournament in the late 90s.  Tara probably wasn't working hard enough at recruiting because she had become so complacent and smug after winning the 96 Olympics.  Also, the fans who supported her were complicit in the team's decline because we left it to her to take care of business.  There have been several 4-5 year periods where the downward trajectory was clear and obvious to all who were not suffering from blind loyalty.  I mean, her team hasn't even won the Pac-12 regular season title for over 5 years!  And all those knee injuries were definitely her responsibility if not her fault.  She is definitely at fault for the attendance at women's basketball being down.  Yet somehow, by being allowed the time to work through both the highs and the lows, that stubborn fool is getting some of the best recruits of her career; has revamped the offense a few times to suit her players; and is again bringing the team back to an elite level.  But just think of how much better the team would have been if she had only listened to angry criticisms of the brilliant fans.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

So I guess you're fine Stanford football's coaching staff and would like to see no changes for the foreseeable future in either personnel or strategy.

1992 to now is a long time to go without a national championship. Clearly, she's resting on her laurels. She's satisfied with mediocrity and her AD isn't forcing her to get better.

[81alum]

I've stayed out of the carping over this football season since I see some pretty extreme views being voiced--which I guess is what fan"atics" are expected to do when their team has a disappointing year.

On the one hand, I continue to believe that David Shaw is the best football coach we could reasonably expect to have here--given the unique opportunities and restrictions of football at Stanford University, which is a vastly different beast to coach than other universities.

At the same time, I do believe that there are many ways in which this team could be improved, and I hope that Shaw will show the flexibility to make the necessary changes.  There is a fine line to be drawn between loyalty and stubbornness, and he needs to negotiate that line with his assistant coaches.

And as for the title of this thread--while I have always been a fan of David Shaw, I have always been willing to question some of his playcalling.  As much as Shaw thinks of himself as a Walsh disciple, I have never felt that his playcalling was anything like Walsh's.  In this particular case, I do wish he had used that third down opportunity to attempt a short pass that might have continued the drive rather than running into the teeth of the Cal running defense.  (If we had shown evidence of a strong running game as of yesteryear then maybe I would feel otherwise.)  I was a bit surprised to see that Nick Aliotti in post-game comments expressed the same view, so I wasn't alone in my opinion.

On the (third) hand, is it possible that there was a pass play called as one of the multiple options, and that Mills simply made the wrong read at the line?  With Shaw I always wonder how many of his "bad" playcalls are actually due to the QB making a mistake in choosing the right play from the package of calls.  Of course, other coaches don't give their QBs that kind of power, so it all indirectly points back to him, I suppose.

[81alum]

I've stayed out of the carping over this football season since I see some pretty extreme views being voiced--which I guess is what fan"atics" are expected to do when their team has a disappointing year.

On the one hand, I continue to believe that David Shaw is the best football coach we could reasonably expect to have here--given the unique opportunities and restrictions of football at Stanford University, which is a vastly different beast to coach than other universities.

At the same time, I do believe that there are many ways in which this team could be improved, and I hope that Shaw will show the flexibility to make the necessary changes.  There is a fine line to be drawn between loyalty and stubbornness, and he needs to negotiate that line with his assistant coaches.

And as for the title of this thread--while I have always been a fan of David Shaw, I have always been willing to question some of his playcalling.  As much as Shaw thinks of himself as a Walsh disciple, I have never felt that his playcalling was anything like Walsh's.  In this particular case, I do wish he had used that third down opportunity to attempt a short pass that might have continued the drive rather than running into the teeth of the Cal running defense.  (If we had shown evidence of a strong running game as of yesteryear then maybe I would feel otherwise.)  I was a bit surprised to see that Nick Aliotti in post-game comments expressed the same view, so I wasn't alone in my opinion.

On the (third) hand, is it possible that there was a pass play called as one of the multiple options, and that Mills simply made the wrong read at the line?  With Shaw I always wonder how many of his "bad" playcalls are actually due to the QB making a mistake in choosing the right play from the package of calls.  Of course, other coaches don't give their QBs that kind of power, so it all indirectly points back to him, I suppose.

[pefloresjr]

While we’re getting rid of Bay Area coaches let’s toss that Steve Kerr guy.  Three year downward trend, poor game mgmt, don’t give me injuries as an excuse and only won with the previous coaches core.

What a bum!

Exactly!  While we're at it, why not include that Tara VanDerveer?  Hasn't won a title since 1992!  Sticking to that outdated triangle offense for years when everyone knew beyond all possible doubt that you could never succeed with it but Tara was just too stubborn to change.  She also keeps her inside Tara program coaches for way too long.  She clearly needed an outside brilliant offensive mind to fix the team.  And her recruiting for many years just wasn't up to the quality we expect and even the players we were getting weren't being coached up enough.  We went four years in a row where we lost in the first and second rounds of the tournament in the late 90s.  Tara probably wasn't working hard enough at recruiting because she had become so complacent and smug after winning the 96 Olympics.  Also, the fans who supported her were complicit in the team's decline because we left it to her to take care of business.  There have been several 4-5 year periods where the downward trajectory was clear and obvious to all who were not suffering from blind loyalty.  I mean, her team hasn't even won the Pac-12 regular season title for over 5 years!  And all those knee injuries were definitely her responsibility if not her fault.  She is definitely at fault for the attendance at women's basketball being down.  Yet somehow, by being allowed the time to work through both the highs and the lows, that stubborn fool is getting some of the best recruits of her career; has revamped the offense a few times to suit her players; and is again bringing the team back to an elite level.  But just think of how much better the team would have been if she had only listened to angry criticisms of the brilliant fans.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

So I guess you're fine Stanford football's coaching staff and would like to see no changes for the foreseeable future in either personnel or strategy.

No, I would like to see some changes and improvements.  The primary change/improvement I think we need is a more aggressive recruiting strategy.  We have to fill our scholarship limits and have clearly made some changes to do so.  I think we should be stretching for more recruits who might not be locks to get admitted and stretching for aggressiveness as a favorable trait.  I get the feeling that we have been so focused on getting really wonderful, talented student athletes who fit the Stanford Man type of mold that we are missing some of those more aggressive, cocky players who can help to lead a team.  However, I am only a fan and that is only my perception based on my very limited exposure to them and the team.  As a result, I offer that opinion with no real assurance that it is correct.  

I'm really glad that people care enough to rant on a message board because it is a sign that they care about the team.  I was questioning some play calls and time outs yesterday at the game but I also know that I don't have the same information that the coaches do regarding a play or what they see in the matchup.  If I did, I suspect that in most cases, I would have done the same thing.  

My problem with so much of the criticism of Shaw on this board is that it assumes that the error or fault is the cause of the team not playing well.  A new offensive mind and scheme might make no difference in our performance and, in fact, might make it worse.  Having more scholarship players would probably fill some of the holes we have from injuries but still might not end up changing our performance in any measurable way.  This doesn't meant that I don't think we should post our ideas or that the coaches don't need to continually self-critique and work to improve.  I just think it is foolish for people to continually post their criticisms and ideas with such absurd and sometimes laughable assurance.  Sometimes teams and coaches go through down cycles but that does not mean they don't know what they are doing.  I want Shaw to keep making improvements but am willing to give him a lot more time to do so.  This supposedly horrible, obvious downward trend includes the last two years where we won 9 games each year and played in a conference championship game!  

The Cardboard has mostly been a place where you could vent your frustrations and criticize a coach but it has also been a place where you would be slammed if you didn't have some evidence and legitimacy to your criticism.  More signal, less noise is the quality that still makes the Cardboard my first stop on the internet.  The increase in ranting and raving seems to have resulted in many of the usual posters deciding to stay out of the shouting match, including me.  I hope everyone stays engaged and keeps posting but I am going to try to just ignore those posts and move on the the more thoughtful threads that characterize this site.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

While we’re getting rid of Bay Area coaches let’s toss that Steve Kerr guy.  Three year downward trend, poor game mgmt, don’t give me injuries as an excuse and only won with the previous coaches core.

What a bum!

Exactly!  While we're at it, why not include that Tara VanDerveer?  Hasn't won a title since 1992!  Sticking to that outdated triangle offense for years when everyone knew beyond all possible doubt that you could never succeed with it but Tara was just too stubborn to change.  She also keeps her inside Tara program coaches for way too long.  She clearly needed an outside brilliant offensive mind to fix the team.  And her recruiting for many years just wasn't up to the quality we expect and even the players we were getting weren't being coached up enough.  We went four years in a row where we lost in the first and second rounds of the tournament in the late 90s.  Tara probably wasn't working hard enough at recruiting because she had become so complacent and smug after winning the 96 Olympics.  Also, the fans who supported her were complicit in the team's decline because we left it to her to take care of business.  There have been several 4-5 year periods where the downward trajectory was clear and obvious to all who were not suffering from blind loyalty.  I mean, her team hasn't even won the Pac-12 regular season title for over 5 years!  And all those knee injuries were definitely her responsibility if not her fault.  She is definitely at fault for the attendance at women's basketball being down.  Yet somehow, by being allowed the time to work through both the highs and the lows, that stubborn fool is getting some of the best recruits of her career; has revamped the offense a few times to suit her players; and is again bringing the team back to an elite level.  But just think of how much better the team would have been if she had only listened to angry criticisms of the brilliant fans.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

So I guess you're fine Stanford football's coaching staff and would like to see no changes for the foreseeable future in either personnel or strategy.

No, I would like to see some changes and improvements.  The primary change/improvement I think we need is a more aggressive recruiting strategy.  We have to fill our scholarship limits and have clearly made some changes to do so.  I think we should be stretching for more recruits who might not be locks to get admitted and stretching for aggressiveness as a favorable trait.  I get the feeling that we have been so focused on getting really wonderful, talented student athletes who fit the Stanford Man type of mold that we are missing some of those more aggressive, cocky players who can help to lead a team.  However, I am only a fan and that is only my perception based on my very limited exposure to them and the team.  As a result, I offer that opinion with no real assurance that it is correct.  

I'm really glad that people care enough to rant on a message board because it is a sign that they care about the team.  I was questioning some play calls and time outs yesterday at the game but I also know that I don't have the same information that the coaches do regarding a play or what they see in the matchup.  If I did, I suspect that in most cases, I would have done the same thing.  

My problem with so much of the criticism of Shaw on this board is that it assumes that the error or fault is the cause of the team not playing well.  A new offensive mind and scheme might make no difference in our performance and, in fact, might make it worse.  Having more scholarship players would probably fill some of the holes we have from injuries but still might not end up changing our performance in any measurable way.  This doesn't meant that I don't think we should post our ideas or that the coaches don't need to continually self-critique and work to improve.  I just think it is foolish for people to continually post their criticisms and ideas with such absurd and sometimes laughable assurance.  Sometimes teams and coaches go through down cycles but that does not mean they don't know what they are doing.  I want Shaw to keep making improvements but am willing to give him a lot more time to do so.  This supposedly horrible, obvious downward trend includes the last two years where we won 9 games each year and played in a conference championship game!  

The Cardboard has mostly been a place where you could vent your frustrations and criticize a coach but it has also been a place where you would be slammed if you didn't have some evidence and legitimacy to your criticism.  More signal, less noise is the quality that still makes the Cardboard my first stop on the internet.  The increase in ranting and raving seems to have resulted in many of the usual posters deciding to stay out of the shouting match, including me.  I hope everyone stays engaged and keeps posting but I am going to try to just ignore those posts and move on the the more thoughtful threads that characterize this site.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

David Shaw pulled another "David Shaw." With about two and a half minutes left to go in the game, it's third and four in Cal's territory. We're already in field goal range. However, I think we all knew even if Stanford had to settle for a field goal and made it, Cal would still have plenty of time to come back and score the winning touchdown. Cal had all its time outs and its offense had moved through our "defense" like a sharp knife through butter. So, understanding this dynamic, it was clear to me - and probably many of you - that we HAD to throw the ball in an attempt to get the first down. There was no way we were going to pick up four yards on the ground. If Mills throws incomplete, we'd still have an opportunity to kick the field goal. Moreover, you tell Mills before the snap to get rid of the ball quickly to avoid any chance at a sack. 

So, what does Shaw do? He takes the ball out of Mills' hands and runs it up the middle for a gain of two. We know what ensued from there. His thinking was eerily similar to his infamous call at the end of regulation in the Fiasco....er...Fiesta Bowl when, in his infinite wisdom, he took the ball out of Luck's hands and lets his field goal kicker take a shot. One I think we all knew was far short of automatic. 

It should also be noted that Shaw and his staff called two time outs in the second half, leaving us with only one on the final drive. 

Sure, we came into the game with a lot of injuries and there are a lot of other things that went wrong for Stanford. But, Shawvita's handling of the offense continues to kill us.

I agree that 3rd and 4 call of a running play was questionable. If Stanford wanted to run maybe it would have been better to run at 2nd and 4, then again on 3rd down (if needed).

---

Please, eight years, and somehow, this is the first year that's "All Shaw." 86-33 and 5-3 in bowl games, yet somehow, he's effete.

Maybe you'll get your wish, but I guarantee that if you do, it will be the same cycle of two awful years followed by two good years and a departure that we had had for decades.

My guess is that Shaw's head coaching job is secure for years to come.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

David Shaw pulled another "David Shaw." With about two and a half minutes left to go in the game, it's third and four in Cal's territory. We're already in field goal range. However, I think we all knew even if Stanford had to settle for a field goal and made it, Cal would still have plenty of time to come back and score the winning touchdown. Cal had all its time outs and its offense had moved through our "defense" like a sharp knife through butter. So, understanding this dynamic, it was clear to me - and probably many of you - that we HAD to throw the ball in an attempt to get the first down. There was no way we were going to pick up four yards on the ground. If Mills throws incomplete, we'd still have an opportunity to kick the field goal. Moreover, you tell Mills before the snap to get rid of the ball quickly to avoid any chance at a sack. 

So, what does Shaw do? He takes the ball out of Mills' hands and runs it up the middle for a gain of two. We know what ensued from there. His thinking was eerily similar to his infamous call at the end of regulation in the Fiasco....er...Fiesta Bowl when, in his infinite wisdom, he took the ball out of Luck's hands and lets his field goal kicker take a shot. One I think we all knew was far short of automatic. 

It should also be noted that Shaw and his staff called two time outs in the second half, leaving us with only one on the final drive. 

Sure, we came into the game with a lot of injuries and there are a lot of other things that went wrong for Stanford. But, Shawvita's handling of the offense continues to kill us.

I agree that 3rd and 4 call of a running play was questionable. If Stanford wanted to run maybe it would have been better to run at 2nd and 4, then again on 3rd down (if needed).

---

Please, eight years, and somehow, this is the first year that's "All Shaw." 86-33 and 5-3 in bowl games, yet somehow, he's effete.

Maybe you'll get your wish, but I guarantee that if you do, it will be the same cycle of two awful years followed by two good years and a departure that we had had for decades.

My guess is that Shaw's head coaching job is secure for years to come.

[yvonne]

Hey remember the Foster Farms Bowl year when we all complained about the wheels falling off only to discover late in the season that Hogan's dad was dying and the QB's mind was elsewhere? That was an object lesson for me. There are things going on in the football program that we just don't know and aren't supposed to know. We just show up and enjoy the game.

The easy thing for fans to do is scream "Fire the coach!" But that doesn't always fix things. Remember when we had Teevens followed by Harris? 

Has Shaw made mistakes? Absolutely. Is the season entirely Shaw's fault? No.

Whatever happened after that Foster Farms Bowl year, anyway?

[yvonne]

Hey remember the Foster Farms Bowl year when we all complained about the wheels falling off only to discover late in the season that Hogan's dad was dying and the QB's mind was elsewhere? That was an object lesson for me. There are things going on in the football program that we just don't know and aren't supposed to know. We just show up and enjoy the game.

The easy thing for fans to do is scream "Fire the coach!" But that doesn't always fix things. Remember when we had Teevens followed by Harris? 

Has Shaw made mistakes? Absolutely. Is the season entirely Shaw's fault? No.

Whatever happened after that Foster Farms Bowl year, anyway?

[Treebound]

I just want Shaw to own it!  He's my coach and I'll support him, but as TJ and others have pointed out, his hard-headed resistance to bringing in an experienced OC, one that can coach, recruit and more importantly, challenge him to be a better head coach is now weighing on our program.   Tavita, who is a great, young coach, but who is Shaw's protege, is NOT going to challenge Shaw when it counts.

I did not see the presser last week, but I heard Shaw was asked about why he didn't call any timeouts on the last drive of the first half vs WSU.   He took the two timeouts into the locker room, when we might have scored and generated momentum.  Why??  He clearly made a mistake, it happens.   BUT from what I heard, he didn't own that mistake.  He didn't admit it and dodged the question.   To me that speaks volumes and really concerns me.    If he can't admit he's capable of making a mistake and learn from it, then we have a bigger issue.     This is his worst performance at Stanford, for a myriad of reasons that are not all on him, but how he reacts to it will show me much about Coach Shaw.

[Treebound]

I just want Shaw to own it!  He's my coach and I'll support him, but as TJ and others have pointed out, his hard-headed resistance to bringing in an experienced OC, one that can coach, recruit and more importantly, challenge him to be a better head coach is now weighing on our program.   Tavita, who is a great, young coach, but who is Shaw's protege, is NOT going to challenge Shaw when it counts.

I did not see the presser last week, but I heard Shaw was asked about why he didn't call any timeouts on the last drive of the first half vs WSU.   He took the two timeouts into the locker room, when we might have scored and generated momentum.  Why??  He clearly made a mistake, it happens.   BUT from what I heard, he didn't own that mistake.  He didn't admit it and dodged the question.   To me that speaks volumes and really concerns me.    If he can't admit he's capable of making a mistake and learn from it, then we have a bigger issue.     This is his worst performance at Stanford, for a myriad of reasons that are not all on him, but how he reacts to it will show me much about Coach Shaw.

[cardcrimson]

Wasn't there a "Fire the Coach" thread a few weeks back? Though meant sarcastically after the win over the Huskies, I think we've lost four of five since then, besting only the lowly Wildcats.

Hey remember the Foster Farms Bowl year when we all complained about the wheels falling off only to discover late in the season that Hogan's dad was dying and the QB's mind was elsewhere? That was an object lesson for me. There are things going on in the football program that we just don't know and aren't supposed to know. We just show up and enjoy the game.

The easy thing for fans to do is scream "Fire the coach!" But that doesn't always fix things. Remember when we had Teevens followed by Harris? 

Has Shaw made mistakes? Absolutely. Is the season entirely Shaw's fault? No.

Whatever happened after that Foster Farms Bowl year, anyway?

[cardcrimson]

Wasn't there a "Fire the Coach" thread a few weeks back? Though meant sarcastically after the win over the Huskies, I think we've lost four of five since then, besting only the lowly Wildcats.

Hey remember the Foster Farms Bowl year when we all complained about the wheels falling off only to discover late in the season that Hogan's dad was dying and the QB's mind was elsewhere? That was an object lesson for me. There are things going on in the football program that we just don't know and aren't supposed to know. We just show up and enjoy the game.

The easy thing for fans to do is scream "Fire the coach!" But that doesn't always fix things. Remember when we had Teevens followed by Harris? 

Has Shaw made mistakes? Absolutely. Is the season entirely Shaw's fault? No.

Whatever happened after that Foster Farms Bowl year, anyway?