[teejers1]

I happened to work with the wife of a young defensive assistant at Stanford until last year.  Her reports of the intensity of coaching under Shaw surprised me, because like you, I had assumed Shaw was running a kinder, gentler, “maintenance-mode” environment (despite my respect for him).  She told me about the heat and pressure that was being applied at mid-season after a couple losses. I even bounced off her the idea that Shaw seemed to be a calmer, lower-pressure leader, and she furrowed her brow and shook her head.  Of course, she was young enough not to have been around other coaching staffs, so she and her husband might have perceived “level 5” coaching intensity as “level 10”, but it still struck me how hard they were working and how intensely Shaw cared about winning. She also spoke of 100-hour work weeks and the fact that she barely ever saw her husband during the season (and even for much of the off-season). After those occasional conversations by the coffee machine, I gained a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had inferred from his calm and sometimes low-energy demeanor.

I happened to have dinner with an Assistant Coach at Stanford who worked on the same staff as David Shaw.  Suffice it to say he was not particularly effusive in his "praise" of Shaw.  This person also predicted (correctly, I believe) that Shaw would never hire strong-willed, opinionated, and outspoken assistant coaches because Shaw would feel threatened by them.  After that interaction, I had a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had previously, and I admit that it put me on heightened alert - and was one of the reasons I was so adamant in believing that Shaw should hire a real, proven OC, delegate, and get the heck out of the way.  I wanted Shaw to prove this guy wrong . . .

[teejers1]

I happened to work with the wife of a young defensive assistant at Stanford until last year.  Her reports of the intensity of coaching under Shaw surprised me, because like you, I had assumed Shaw was running a kinder, gentler, “maintenance-mode” environment (despite my respect for him).  She told me about the heat and pressure that was being applied at mid-season after a couple losses. I even bounced off her the idea that Shaw seemed to be a calmer, lower-pressure leader, and she furrowed her brow and shook her head.  Of course, she was young enough not to have been around other coaching staffs, so she and her husband might have perceived “level 5” coaching intensity as “level 10”, but it still struck me how hard they were working and how intensely Shaw cared about winning. She also spoke of 100-hour work weeks and the fact that she barely ever saw her husband during the season (and even for much of the off-season). After those occasional conversations by the coffee machine, I gained a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had inferred from his calm and sometimes low-energy demeanor.

I happened to have dinner with an Assistant Coach at Stanford who worked on the same staff as David Shaw.  Suffice it to say he was not particularly effusive in his "praise" of Shaw.  This person also predicted (correctly, I believe) that Shaw would never hire strong-willed, opinionated, and outspoken assistant coaches because Shaw would feel threatened by them.  After that interaction, I had a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had previously, and I admit that it put me on heightened alert - and was one of the reasons I was so adamant in believing that Shaw should hire a real, proven OC, delegate, and get the heck out of the way.  I wanted Shaw to prove this guy wrong . . .

[akiddoc]

I have a hard time envisioning what kind of person would be a JoCo football player who transfers to Stanford.
If a potential transfer was at a junior college because they were D1 caliber at football, but couldn't qualify academically for a D1 school (E.g. had a < 1.0 GPA), there is probably zero chance that admissions would let them through. 
If its the reverse (solid academically but not a D1 caliber recruit out of high school), then that person probably would have had plenty of opportunities at lower division four-year schools with solid academics. Yet they chose to go to a junior college, most likely for football reasons. If that's how they weigh football and academics against each other, why would they transfer to Stanford, as opposed to just about any other D1 program?

Perhaps once every ten years the right case could come along, but I don't see a specific policy forbidding JuCo football transfers having any significant effect on the program one way or the other.

You must have a 2.0 GPA in high school to get into a D1 school. Not 1.0. You must have a 2.3 to play freshman year.

[akiddoc]

I have a hard time envisioning what kind of person would be a JoCo football player who transfers to Stanford.
If a potential transfer was at a junior college because they were D1 caliber at football, but couldn't qualify academically for a D1 school (E.g. had a < 1.0 GPA), there is probably zero chance that admissions would let them through. 
If its the reverse (solid academically but not a D1 caliber recruit out of high school), then that person probably would have had plenty of opportunities at lower division four-year schools with solid academics. Yet they chose to go to a junior college, most likely for football reasons. If that's how they weigh football and academics against each other, why would they transfer to Stanford, as opposed to just about any other D1 program?

Perhaps once every ten years the right case could come along, but I don't see a specific policy forbidding JuCo football transfers having any significant effect on the program one way or the other.

You must have a 2.0 GPA in high school to get into a D1 school. Not 1.0. You must have a 2.3 to play freshman year.

[CardinalSagehen]

I happened to work with the wife of a young defensive assistant at Stanford until last year.  Her reports of the intensity of coaching under Shaw surprised me, because like you, I had assumed Shaw was running a kinder, gentler, “maintenance-mode” environment (despite my respect for him).  She told me about the heat and pressure that was being applied at mid-season after a couple losses. I even bounced off her the idea that Shaw seemed to be a calmer, lower-pressure leader, and she furrowed her brow and shook her head.  Of course, she was young enough not to have been around other coaching staffs, so she and her husband might have perceived “level 5” coaching intensity as “level 10”, but it still struck me how hard they were working and how intensely Shaw cared about winning. She also spoke of 100-hour work weeks and the fact that she barely ever saw her husband during the season (and even for much of the off-season). After those occasional conversations by the coffee machine, I gained a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had inferred from his calm and sometimes low-energy demeanor.

I happened to have dinner with an Assistant Coach at Stanford who worked on the same staff as David Shaw.  Suffice it to say he was not particularly effusive in his "praise" of Shaw.  This person also predicted (correctly, I believe) that Shaw would never hire strong-willed, opinionated, and outspoken assistant coaches because Shaw would feel threatened by them.  After that interaction, I had a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had previously, and I admit that it put me on heightened alert - and was one of the reasons I was so adamant in believing that Shaw should hire a real, proven OC, delegate, and get the heck out of the way.  I wanted Shaw to prove this guy wrong . . .

Two different issues.  I was speaking to the perception that he is lazy or comfortable with losing, which some people tend to infer from nothing more than his demeanor or the fact that nobody can spew EUTM for nine years.  

I also received more positive reviews of him as a coach and a person than you did, but obviously there are different perspectives on any leader.

[CardinalSagehen]

I happened to work with the wife of a young defensive assistant at Stanford until last year.  Her reports of the intensity of coaching under Shaw surprised me, because like you, I had assumed Shaw was running a kinder, gentler, “maintenance-mode” environment (despite my respect for him).  She told me about the heat and pressure that was being applied at mid-season after a couple losses. I even bounced off her the idea that Shaw seemed to be a calmer, lower-pressure leader, and she furrowed her brow and shook her head.  Of course, she was young enough not to have been around other coaching staffs, so she and her husband might have perceived “level 5” coaching intensity as “level 10”, but it still struck me how hard they were working and how intensely Shaw cared about winning. She also spoke of 100-hour work weeks and the fact that she barely ever saw her husband during the season (and even for much of the off-season). After those occasional conversations by the coffee machine, I gained a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had inferred from his calm and sometimes low-energy demeanor.

I happened to have dinner with an Assistant Coach at Stanford who worked on the same staff as David Shaw.  Suffice it to say he was not particularly effusive in his "praise" of Shaw.  This person also predicted (correctly, I believe) that Shaw would never hire strong-willed, opinionated, and outspoken assistant coaches because Shaw would feel threatened by them.  After that interaction, I had a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had previously, and I admit that it put me on heightened alert - and was one of the reasons I was so adamant in believing that Shaw should hire a real, proven OC, delegate, and get the heck out of the way.  I wanted Shaw to prove this guy wrong . . .

Two different issues.  I was speaking to the perception that he is lazy or comfortable with losing, which some people tend to infer from nothing more than his demeanor or the fact that nobody can spew EUTM for nine years.  

I also received more positive reviews of him as a coach and a person than you did, but obviously there are different perspectives on any leader.

[gailtate]

Anyone know how much Petersen used junior college transfers at UW?  I don't recall any prominent Huskies in recent years that weren't recruited as freshmen.  I wonder if being at a power 5 university has meant that he doesn't need them as much.  The other thing, of course, is the graduate transfer rule, which to some extent allows schools to plug immediate holes the way they might have with with junior college transfers of old.  Of course the grand total of graduate transfers that we have taken in football is 1.

Curious, are there any inside linebackers or safeties who would want to do a year of grad school at Stanford?


BC

I have no data to back this up but my gut tells me that the stuff that rings the chimes for a hot-shot LB or S aren't what motivates him to go to grad school at Stanford...or anywhere else. These are the horses Shaw desperately needs right now. The same breed that we used to go out and GET.

[gailtate]

Anyone know how much Petersen used junior college transfers at UW?  I don't recall any prominent Huskies in recent years that weren't recruited as freshmen.  I wonder if being at a power 5 university has meant that he doesn't need them as much.  The other thing, of course, is the graduate transfer rule, which to some extent allows schools to plug immediate holes the way they might have with with junior college transfers of old.  Of course the grand total of graduate transfers that we have taken in football is 1.

Curious, are there any inside linebackers or safeties who would want to do a year of grad school at Stanford?


BC

I have no data to back this up but my gut tells me that the stuff that rings the chimes for a hot-shot LB or S aren't what motivates him to go to grad school at Stanford...or anywhere else. These are the horses Shaw desperately needs right now. The same breed that we used to go out and GET.

[winflop]

I don't think David Shaw is stressing about winning like Petersen is. I don't know if that's good or bad. Depends on your perspective. Whatever the case, it seems reasonable to assume Stanford doesn't create stress for a coach like Washington and other places do.

I happened to work with the wife of a young defensive assistant at Stanford until last year.  Her reports of the intensity of coaching under Shaw surprised me, because like you, I had assumed Shaw was running a kinder, gentler, “maintenance-mode” environment (despite my respect for him).  She told me about the heat and pressure that was being applied at mid-season after a couple losses. I even bounced off her the idea that Shaw seemed to be a calmer, lower-pressure leader, and she furrowed her brow and shook her head.  Of course, she was young enough not to have been around other coaching staffs, so she and her husband might have perceived “level 5” coaching intensity as “level 10”, but it still struck me how hard they were working and how intensely Shaw cared about winning. She also spoke of 100-hour work weeks and the fact that she barely ever saw her husband during the season (and even for much of the off-season). After those occasional conversations by the coffee machine, I gained a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had inferred from his calm and sometimes low-energy demeanor.

Interesting insights. OK so Shaw's obsessed with winning. I want a football head coach who is. My big questions are beyond that:
1. when he's not winning, is he sufficiently introspective to figure out why, including critically evaluating himself and his staff? His press conferences do not indicate that he is, but I'm not convinced he puts his cards on the table there
2. When he figures out why and what the path forward is, is he willing to execute on it?

[winflop]

I don't think David Shaw is stressing about winning like Petersen is. I don't know if that's good or bad. Depends on your perspective. Whatever the case, it seems reasonable to assume Stanford doesn't create stress for a coach like Washington and other places do.

I happened to work with the wife of a young defensive assistant at Stanford until last year.  Her reports of the intensity of coaching under Shaw surprised me, because like you, I had assumed Shaw was running a kinder, gentler, “maintenance-mode” environment (despite my respect for him).  She told me about the heat and pressure that was being applied at mid-season after a couple losses. I even bounced off her the idea that Shaw seemed to be a calmer, lower-pressure leader, and she furrowed her brow and shook her head.  Of course, she was young enough not to have been around other coaching staffs, so she and her husband might have perceived “level 5” coaching intensity as “level 10”, but it still struck me how hard they were working and how intensely Shaw cared about winning. She also spoke of 100-hour work weeks and the fact that she barely ever saw her husband during the season (and even for much of the off-season). After those occasional conversations by the coffee machine, I gained a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had inferred from his calm and sometimes low-energy demeanor.

Interesting insights. OK so Shaw's obsessed with winning. I want a football head coach who is. My big questions are beyond that:
1. when he's not winning, is he sufficiently introspective to figure out why, including critically evaluating himself and his staff? His press conferences do not indicate that he is, but I'm not convinced he puts his cards on the table there
2. When he figures out why and what the path forward is, is he willing to execute on it?

[CardinalSagehen]

I don't think David Shaw is stressing about winning like Petersen is. I don't know if that's good or bad. Depends on your perspective. Whatever the case, it seems reasonable to assume Stanford doesn't create stress for a coach like Washington and other places do.

I happened to work with the wife of a young defensive assistant at Stanford until last year.  Her reports of the intensity of coaching under Shaw surprised me, because like you, I had assumed Shaw was running a kinder, gentler, “maintenance-mode” environment (despite my respect for him).  She told me about the heat and pressure that was being applied at mid-season after a couple losses. I even bounced off her the idea that Shaw seemed to be a calmer, lower-pressure leader, and she furrowed her brow and shook her head.  Of course, she was young enough not to have been around other coaching staffs, so she and her husband might have perceived “level 5” coaching intensity as “level 10”, but it still struck me how hard they were working and how intensely Shaw cared about winning. She also spoke of 100-hour work weeks and the fact that she barely ever saw her husband during the season (and even for much of the off-season). After those occasional conversations by the coffee machine, I gained a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had inferred from his calm and sometimes low-energy demeanor.

Interesting insights. OK so Shaw's obsessed with winning. I want a football head coach who is. My big questions are beyond that:
1. when he's not winning, is he sufficiently introspective to figure out why, including critically evaluating himself and his staff? His press conferences do not indicate that he is, but I'm not convinced he puts his cards on the table there
2. When he figures out why and what the path forward is, is he willing to execute on it?

Fair questions. Unfortunately, I have only my own opinions and no particular insight on the answers. 

My contact had imperfect data more often than I assumed an insider would, and she was careful not to share anything truly confidential. She seemed to think that "change was in the air" on the defensive side during our last bowl/off-season, which turned out to be true for her husband (who was relatively junior and moved on after several years with the program), but not for the man at the very top of the defense. Of course, it could very well be that he was open to a move, but not able to land a good opportunity. There was no sense (or at least nothing shared) that there was any rift or discontent among DS and his coordinators, but of course that would be consistent with your theory that DS prefers and chooses "yes" men.  

I consider my own data and knowledge to be insufficient to evaluate the details of how DS operates. I'd be unhappy with his performance if he has another really bad season or a couple mediocre ones over the next couple years. Otherwise, I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. But that's just me.

[CardinalSagehen]

I don't think David Shaw is stressing about winning like Petersen is. I don't know if that's good or bad. Depends on your perspective. Whatever the case, it seems reasonable to assume Stanford doesn't create stress for a coach like Washington and other places do.

I happened to work with the wife of a young defensive assistant at Stanford until last year.  Her reports of the intensity of coaching under Shaw surprised me, because like you, I had assumed Shaw was running a kinder, gentler, “maintenance-mode” environment (despite my respect for him).  She told me about the heat and pressure that was being applied at mid-season after a couple losses. I even bounced off her the idea that Shaw seemed to be a calmer, lower-pressure leader, and she furrowed her brow and shook her head.  Of course, she was young enough not to have been around other coaching staffs, so she and her husband might have perceived “level 5” coaching intensity as “level 10”, but it still struck me how hard they were working and how intensely Shaw cared about winning. She also spoke of 100-hour work weeks and the fact that she barely ever saw her husband during the season (and even for much of the off-season). After those occasional conversations by the coffee machine, I gained a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had inferred from his calm and sometimes low-energy demeanor.

Interesting insights. OK so Shaw's obsessed with winning. I want a football head coach who is. My big questions are beyond that:
1. when he's not winning, is he sufficiently introspective to figure out why, including critically evaluating himself and his staff? His press conferences do not indicate that he is, but I'm not convinced he puts his cards on the table there
2. When he figures out why and what the path forward is, is he willing to execute on it?

Fair questions. Unfortunately, I have only my own opinions and no particular insight on the answers. 

My contact had imperfect data more often than I assumed an insider would, and she was careful not to share anything truly confidential. She seemed to think that "change was in the air" on the defensive side during our last bowl/off-season, which turned out to be true for her husband (who was relatively junior and moved on after several years with the program), but not for the man at the very top of the defense. Of course, it could very well be that he was open to a move, but not able to land a good opportunity. There was no sense (or at least nothing shared) that there was any rift or discontent among DS and his coordinators, but of course that would be consistent with your theory that DS prefers and chooses "yes" men.  

I consider my own data and knowledge to be insufficient to evaluate the details of how DS operates. I'd be unhappy with his performance if he has another really bad season or a couple mediocre ones over the next couple years. Otherwise, I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. But that's just me.

[BostonCard]

Your daily reminder that if any insight is divulged in a press conference it is probably by accident. Whether Shaw is planning for major changes or not, I would not expect him to say it in a press conference.

BC

[BostonCard]

Your daily reminder that if any insight is divulged in a press conference it is probably by accident. Whether Shaw is planning for major changes or not, I would not expect him to say it in a press conference.

BC

[winflop]

Your daily reminder that if any insight is divulged in a press conference it is probably by accident. Whether Shaw is planning for major changes or not, I would not expect him to say it in a press conference.

BC

In part because the media members who cover Stanford don't seem to have the guts to ask him.

[winflop]

Your daily reminder that if any insight is divulged in a press conference it is probably by accident. Whether Shaw is planning for major changes or not, I would not expect him to say it in a press conference.

BC

In part because the media members who cover Stanford don't seem to have the guts to ask him.

[BostonCard]

Meh. Even a more confrontational approach would be unlikely to elicit anything of value from Shaw.  I think he’s pretty skilled at answering questions with platitudes and dodging questions.

BC

[BostonCard]

Meh. Even a more confrontational approach would be unlikely to elicit anything of value from Shaw.  I think he’s pretty skilled at answering questions with platitudes and dodging questions.

BC

[cardcrimson]

I think he’s pretty skilled at answering questions with platitudes and dodging questions.

BC

So honesty and openness are not a forte?

[cardcrimson]

I think he’s pretty skilled at answering questions with platitudes and dodging questions.

BC

So honesty and openness are not a forte?

[CTcard]

Meh. Even a more confrontational approach would be unlikely to elicit anything of value from Shaw.  I think he’s pretty skilled at answering questions with platitudes and dodging questions.

BC

It's not really a Shaw thing. 
In general, football coaches don't go into press conferences with an idea that they want to explain what is really going on to anybody.
Sometimes they have a message they want to send to somebody, sometimes they mouth platitudes, sometimes they're just grumpy. But rarely is explication, soul searching, or deep strategy session on their agenda.

[CTcard]

Meh. Even a more confrontational approach would be unlikely to elicit anything of value from Shaw.  I think he’s pretty skilled at answering questions with platitudes and dodging questions.

BC

It's not really a Shaw thing. 
In general, football coaches don't go into press conferences with an idea that they want to explain what is really going on to anybody.
Sometimes they have a message they want to send to somebody, sometimes they mouth platitudes, sometimes they're just grumpy. But rarely is explication, soul searching, or deep strategy session on their agenda.

[BobK]

Winflop my very good friend is a reporter who covers Stanford and He does ask hard questions of coaches. $100 a year to read the questions and answers. Tom Fitzgerald was famous among reporters for the hard questions. True didn’t get answers always :).

[BobK]

Winflop my very good friend is a reporter who covers Stanford and He does ask hard questions of coaches. $100 a year to read the questions and answers. Tom Fitzgerald was famous among reporters for the hard questions. True didn’t get answers always :).