[BostonCard]

I just don’t interpret it that way, and I don’t think Shaw (or any coach that talks about execution) necessarily means it that way.  First off, Shaw almost invariably says “we did not execute”, not “they did not execute”. Secondly, pointing to execution problems is, as noted, a truism.  It avoids having to point to even more uncomfortable truths, like the guys we recruited being too slow, or getting pushed around, or being in the wrong place.  All of those were true on Saturday (and many were discussed here), but saying so would really be calling out the players.  Execution implies that the talent is there to take on a team like Oregon, if we can just perform better; in truth, due to a combination of factors, the talent level on this team is not such that we are likely to beat Oregon unless they beat themselves (it’s been known to happen under Christobal). And finally, again, it is the coach’s responsibility to get the team to execute, so implicit in his statement is an acknowledgement of failure.

Now, all of the things you said may or may not be true.  But assuming that there were better assistants to be hired, better play calls to be made, better talent to be utililized, etc., how would we know it?  You’d see better execution on the field.

BC

---

I suppose that is a fair criticism, but I think fundamentally, you are asking for something that virtually no coach thinks you are entitled to.  I keep going back to the fact that the coach is required to give a press conference, even though (especially after a loss), they almost certainly would rather not do.  Answering questions from the press is not why they went into coaching, doesn't help them win the next game, and after a loss will put even the most thoughtful and engaging coach into a defensive posture.  We're paying our coach $6 million, so he's going to do a press conference if he's asked to, but I don't think it is a reasonable expectation to expect him to enjoy it or to offer anything more than platitudes in response.  Believe me "I give good press conferences" did not factor into his contract negotiations.

I try to empathize a bit with coaches.  I try to imagine what I would say if I had to give a press conference every time something at work went wrong.

BC

For $6m per year I would be happy to give a press conference to explain what happens every time something goes wrong.

There is a difference between being happy to give a press conference and being happy that you are giving a press conference.  I highly doubt the latter would be true.

BC

[BostonCard]

I just don’t interpret it that way, and I don’t think Shaw (or any coach that talks about execution) necessarily means it that way.  First off, Shaw almost invariably says “we did not execute”, not “they did not execute”. Secondly, pointing to execution problems is, as noted, a truism.  It avoids having to point to even more uncomfortable truths, like the guys we recruited being too slow, or getting pushed around, or being in the wrong place.  All of those were true on Saturday (and many were discussed here), but saying so would really be calling out the players.  Execution implies that the talent is there to take on a team like Oregon, if we can just perform better; in truth, due to a combination of factors, the talent level on this team is not such that we are likely to beat Oregon unless they beat themselves (it’s been known to happen under Christobal). And finally, again, it is the coach’s responsibility to get the team to execute, so implicit in his statement is an acknowledgement of failure.

Now, all of the things you said may or may not be true.  But assuming that there were better assistants to be hired, better play calls to be made, better talent to be utililized, etc., how would we know it?  You’d see better execution on the field.

BC

---

I suppose that is a fair criticism, but I think fundamentally, you are asking for something that virtually no coach thinks you are entitled to.  I keep going back to the fact that the coach is required to give a press conference, even though (especially after a loss), they almost certainly would rather not do.  Answering questions from the press is not why they went into coaching, doesn't help them win the next game, and after a loss will put even the most thoughtful and engaging coach into a defensive posture.  We're paying our coach $6 million, so he's going to do a press conference if he's asked to, but I don't think it is a reasonable expectation to expect him to enjoy it or to offer anything more than platitudes in response.  Believe me "I give good press conferences" did not factor into his contract negotiations.

I try to empathize a bit with coaches.  I try to imagine what I would say if I had to give a press conference every time something at work went wrong.

BC

For $6m per year I would be happy to give a press conference to explain what happens every time something goes wrong.

There is a difference between being happy to give a press conference and being happy that you are giving a press conference.  I highly doubt the latter would be true.

BC

[Snorlax94]

I just don’t interpret it that way, and I don’t think Shaw (or any coach that talks about execution) necessarily means it that way.  First off, Shaw almost invariably says “we did not execute”, not “they did not execute”. Secondly, pointing to execution problems is, as noted, a truism.  It avoids having to point to even more uncomfortable truths, like the guys we recruited being too slow, or getting pushed around, or being in the wrong place.  All of those were true on Saturday (and many were discussed here), but saying so would really be calling out the players.  Execution implies that the talent is there to take on a team like Oregon, if we can just perform better; in truth, due to a combination of factors, the talent level on this team is not such that we are likely to beat Oregon unless they beat themselves (it’s been known to happen under Christobal). And finally, again, it is the coach’s responsibility to get the team to execute, so implicit in his statement is an acknowledgement of failure.

Now, all of the things you said may or may not be true.  But assuming that there were better assistants to be hired, better play calls to be made, better talent to be utililized, etc., how would we know it?  You’d see better execution on the field.

BC

---

Deja vu. After a loss, Shaw says the team needs to work on execution. Some people cry foul and claim Shaw is throwing the players under the bus. Cardboarders explain that no, it doesn't mean he's throwing anyone under the bus. That's not what "working on execution" or "throwing someone under the bus" mean.

What can and should a team work on for the next week, after a tough loss? A coach's job is to get players better each week. Execution. It's a totally reasonable, if boring and universal, answer.

Then, after the next loss, the cycle will begin anew.

[Snorlax94]

I just don’t interpret it that way, and I don’t think Shaw (or any coach that talks about execution) necessarily means it that way.  First off, Shaw almost invariably says “we did not execute”, not “they did not execute”. Secondly, pointing to execution problems is, as noted, a truism.  It avoids having to point to even more uncomfortable truths, like the guys we recruited being too slow, or getting pushed around, or being in the wrong place.  All of those were true on Saturday (and many were discussed here), but saying so would really be calling out the players.  Execution implies that the talent is there to take on a team like Oregon, if we can just perform better; in truth, due to a combination of factors, the talent level on this team is not such that we are likely to beat Oregon unless they beat themselves (it’s been known to happen under Christobal). And finally, again, it is the coach’s responsibility to get the team to execute, so implicit in his statement is an acknowledgement of failure.

Now, all of the things you said may or may not be true.  But assuming that there were better assistants to be hired, better play calls to be made, better talent to be utililized, etc., how would we know it?  You’d see better execution on the field.

BC

---

Deja vu. After a loss, Shaw says the team needs to work on execution. Some people cry foul and claim Shaw is throwing the players under the bus. Cardboarders explain that no, it doesn't mean he's throwing anyone under the bus. That's not what "working on execution" or "throwing someone under the bus" mean.

What can and should a team work on for the next week, after a tough loss? A coach's job is to get players better each week. Execution. It's a totally reasonable, if boring and universal, answer.

Then, after the next loss, the cycle will begin anew.

[CTcard]

 Shaw needs to ... revamp a philosophy/playbook that fails as often as succeeds;

More deja vu.

Outside of the fact that the team still huddles, the Stanford offensive philosophy is nothing like it was 10 years ago, and nothing like it the very different scheme of 5 years ago. Blocking schemes, types of run plays, route trees, pass-emphasis, run/pass mix - it's all changed often. In fact, I think a little more consistency might help the team fulfill that bugaboo about executing better.

[CTcard]

 Shaw needs to ... revamp a philosophy/playbook that fails as often as succeeds;

More deja vu.

Outside of the fact that the team still huddles, the Stanford offensive philosophy is nothing like it was 10 years ago, and nothing like it the very different scheme of 5 years ago. Blocking schemes, types of run plays, route trees, pass-emphasis, run/pass mix - it's all changed often. In fact, I think a little more consistency might help the team fulfill that bugaboo about executing better.

[lex24]

 Shaw needs to ... revamp a philosophy/playbook that fails as often as succeeds;

More deja vu.

Outside of the fact that the team still huddles, the Stanford offensive philosophy is nothing like it was 10 years ago, and nothing like it the very different scheme of 5 years ago. Blocking schemes, types of run plays, route trees, pass-emphasis, run/pass mix - it's all changed often. In fact, I think a little more consistency might help the team fulfill that bugaboo about executing better.

Agree completely.  Gone is the power running game that was at the forefront of their success.  Unfortunately.

[lex24]

 Shaw needs to ... revamp a philosophy/playbook that fails as often as succeeds;

More deja vu.

Outside of the fact that the team still huddles, the Stanford offensive philosophy is nothing like it was 10 years ago, and nothing like it the very different scheme of 5 years ago. Blocking schemes, types of run plays, route trees, pass-emphasis, run/pass mix - it's all changed often. In fact, I think a little more consistency might help the team fulfill that bugaboo about executing better.

Agree completely.  Gone is the power running game that was at the forefront of their success.  Unfortunately.

[Goose]

Agree completely.  Gone is the power running game that was at the forefront of their success.  Unfortunately.

It is gone and has been gone for a while. Why it is gone could be lots of things, but with the OL we have been fielding since about 2015 it wouldn't work anyway. CMac made lots of yards on his own. The line was OK, not great The OL deteriorated from there. Right now, opening a "hole" appears to be a foreign concept. It is probably true that the running backs we have recruited "recently" while talented are not power runners. However, with our OL that is probably a good thing.

[Goose]

Agree completely.  Gone is the power running game that was at the forefront of their success.  Unfortunately.

It is gone and has been gone for a while. Why it is gone could be lots of things, but with the OL we have been fielding since about 2015 it wouldn't work anyway. CMac made lots of yards on his own. The line was OK, not great The OL deteriorated from there. Right now, opening a "hole" appears to be a foreign concept. It is probably true that the running backs we have recruited "recently" while talented are not power runners. However, with our OL that is probably a good thing.

[gailtate]

I suppose that is a fair criticism, but I think fundamentally, you are asking for something that virtually no coach thinks you are entitled to.  I keep going back to the fact that the coach is required to give a press conference, even though (especially after a loss), they almost certainly would rather not do.  Answering questions from the press is not why they went into coaching, doesn't help them win the next game, and after a loss will put even the most thoughtful and engaging coach into a defensive posture.  We're paying our coach $6 million, so he's going to do a press conference if he's asked to, but I don't think it is a reasonable expectation to expect him to enjoy it or to offer anything more than platitudes in response.  Believe me "I give good press conferences" did not factor into his contract negotiations.

I try to empathize a bit with coaches.  I try to imagine what I would say if I had to give a press conference every time something at work went wrong.

BC

No, I'm not asking Shaw to do that.  I'm asking him to stop throwing shade at the student athletes, when is seem obvious from outer space that he is a big part of the issue.  Shaw needs to get more qualified/talented assistants; revamp a philosophy/playbook that fails as often as succeeds, yet squanders young talent; make better in-game and in-season decisions; stop telegraphing plays so obviously (gee, what's Sanders going to do this time, said no one ever....); and more generally wake up and smell the coffee.  He needs to adapt and grow, not blame the students because they didn't execute.  I actually like Shaw and want him to succeed, but the man is stubborn with a capital S.

Ah, the great imponderable: a guy so intensely competitive and yet voluntarily bound in a straight-jacket of his own making. A built-in competitive disadvantage.

[gailtate]

I suppose that is a fair criticism, but I think fundamentally, you are asking for something that virtually no coach thinks you are entitled to.  I keep going back to the fact that the coach is required to give a press conference, even though (especially after a loss), they almost certainly would rather not do.  Answering questions from the press is not why they went into coaching, doesn't help them win the next game, and after a loss will put even the most thoughtful and engaging coach into a defensive posture.  We're paying our coach $6 million, so he's going to do a press conference if he's asked to, but I don't think it is a reasonable expectation to expect him to enjoy it or to offer anything more than platitudes in response.  Believe me "I give good press conferences" did not factor into his contract negotiations.

I try to empathize a bit with coaches.  I try to imagine what I would say if I had to give a press conference every time something at work went wrong.

BC

No, I'm not asking Shaw to do that.  I'm asking him to stop throwing shade at the student athletes, when is seem obvious from outer space that he is a big part of the issue.  Shaw needs to get more qualified/talented assistants; revamp a philosophy/playbook that fails as often as succeeds, yet squanders young talent; make better in-game and in-season decisions; stop telegraphing plays so obviously (gee, what's Sanders going to do this time, said no one ever....); and more generally wake up and smell the coffee.  He needs to adapt and grow, not blame the students because they didn't execute.  I actually like Shaw and want him to succeed, but the man is stubborn with a capital S.

Ah, the great imponderable: a guy so intensely competitive and yet voluntarily bound in a straight-jacket of his own making. A built-in competitive disadvantage.

[Row80Critic]

[/quote]

Deja vu. After a loss, Shaw says the team needs to work on execution. Some people cry foul and claim Shaw is throwing the players under the bus. Cardboarders explain that no, it doesn't mean he's throwing anyone under the bus. That's not what "working on execution" or "throwing someone under the bus" mean.

What can and should a team work on for the next week, after a tough loss? A coach's job is to get players better each week. Execution. It's a totally reasonable, if boring and universal, answer.

Then, after the next loss, the cycle will begin anew.
[/quote]

Execution is "the carrying out or putting into effect of a plan, order, or course of action."   I would think Shaw's plenty smart enough to realize that word comes across as blaming the players to a lot of people, even if he doesn't 'mean it that way.   There are an infinite number of ways to deflect the question without doing that.  That's all I'm saying.   Regardless, for purposes of my vacuous arm-chair coaching, let's agree he doesn't mean it that way.  The other half of the point is that it's not always about execution (unless 'execution' subsumes everything involved in winning a game and becomes the ultimate truism -- i.e., we didn't win because we didn't win).  Sometimes it's way more about the plan and/or state of the program, not (or at times in addition to) how things are being executed.  If he told everyone to go out there and hop on their left foot, the inevitable loss would not be the result of poor execution, and no amount of buckling down, hopping drills, or more highly skilled hoppers would change the results next week.  

[Row80Critic]

[/quote]

Deja vu. After a loss, Shaw says the team needs to work on execution. Some people cry foul and claim Shaw is throwing the players under the bus. Cardboarders explain that no, it doesn't mean he's throwing anyone under the bus. That's not what "working on execution" or "throwing someone under the bus" mean.

What can and should a team work on for the next week, after a tough loss? A coach's job is to get players better each week. Execution. It's a totally reasonable, if boring and universal, answer.

Then, after the next loss, the cycle will begin anew.
[/quote]

Execution is "the carrying out or putting into effect of a plan, order, or course of action."   I would think Shaw's plenty smart enough to realize that word comes across as blaming the players to a lot of people, even if he doesn't 'mean it that way.   There are an infinite number of ways to deflect the question without doing that.  That's all I'm saying.   Regardless, for purposes of my vacuous arm-chair coaching, let's agree he doesn't mean it that way.  The other half of the point is that it's not always about execution (unless 'execution' subsumes everything involved in winning a game and becomes the ultimate truism -- i.e., we didn't win because we didn't win).  Sometimes it's way more about the plan and/or state of the program, not (or at times in addition to) how things are being executed.  If he told everyone to go out there and hop on their left foot, the inevitable loss would not be the result of poor execution, and no amount of buckling down, hopping drills, or more highly skilled hoppers would change the results next week.  

[CTcard]

Agree completely.  Gone is the power running game that was at the forefront of their success.  Unfortunately.

It is gone and has been gone for a while. Why it is gone could be lots of things, but with the OL we have been fielding since about 2015 it wouldn't work anyway. CMac made lots of yards on his own. The line was OK, not great The OL deteriorated from there. Right now, opening a "hole" appears to be a foreign concept. It is probably true that the running backs we have recruited "recently" while talented are not power runners. However, with our OL that is probably a good thing.

I am never sure when posters talk about our "power running game" if they are referring to running the play and blocking scheme called power, or merely referring to lots of run plays to the middle of the field with lots of big guys blocking.

By 2015 Stanford didn't run Power much. That year the roll over to zone blocking schemes was in full force. While it fit McCaffrey well, it's probably more important whether it fits the OL personnel well.

The 2015 OL was great. The starters consisted of C Shuler as a senior, LG Garnett as a senior, RG Caspers as a senior, LT Murphy as a senior, and RT Tucker as a sophomore. Frequent extra OLs included Bright as a junior and Fanaika as a sophomore.
Losing four starters off that OL was a blow that Stanford never really recovered from, though the 2016 OL was better at run blocking than popular memory seems to hold (pass blocking was a significant problem).

[CTcard]

Agree completely.  Gone is the power running game that was at the forefront of their success.  Unfortunately.

It is gone and has been gone for a while. Why it is gone could be lots of things, but with the OL we have been fielding since about 2015 it wouldn't work anyway. CMac made lots of yards on his own. The line was OK, not great The OL deteriorated from there. Right now, opening a "hole" appears to be a foreign concept. It is probably true that the running backs we have recruited "recently" while talented are not power runners. However, with our OL that is probably a good thing.

I am never sure when posters talk about our "power running game" if they are referring to running the play and blocking scheme called power, or merely referring to lots of run plays to the middle of the field with lots of big guys blocking.

By 2015 Stanford didn't run Power much. That year the roll over to zone blocking schemes was in full force. While it fit McCaffrey well, it's probably more important whether it fits the OL personnel well.

The 2015 OL was great. The starters consisted of C Shuler as a senior, LG Garnett as a senior, RG Caspers as a senior, LT Murphy as a senior, and RT Tucker as a sophomore. Frequent extra OLs included Bright as a junior and Fanaika as a sophomore.
Losing four starters off that OL was a blow that Stanford never really recovered from, though the 2016 OL was better at run blocking than popular memory seems to hold (pass blocking was a significant problem).

[Goose]

Losing four starters off that OL was a blow that Stanford never really recovered from, though the 2016 OL was better at run blocking than popular memory seems to hold (pass blocking was a significant problem).

You may be correct about popular memory, but my memory is greatly influenced by the Colorado game where Burns was wearing the offensive center on virtually every play, run or pass. Hard to hand off when you have that much company. CMac got 92 yards that day on the ground but virtually none of that was inside the tackles. He also got hurt. The trick was getting to the corner before the penetration tackled you. Once you did that, at least half the defense was two yards behind you. In that game none of the blocking was very good, run ot pass. I also remember watching the Arizona game, a game we won handily. Arizona wasn't good, to be generous. However, even in that game CMac got his yards outside either on designed stretch plays or improvising when nothing else was available. We weren't exactly pushing guys around that day either. It was "Get a stalemate and led CMac run around them".

[Goose]

Losing four starters off that OL was a blow that Stanford never really recovered from, though the 2016 OL was better at run blocking than popular memory seems to hold (pass blocking was a significant problem).

You may be correct about popular memory, but my memory is greatly influenced by the Colorado game where Burns was wearing the offensive center on virtually every play, run or pass. Hard to hand off when you have that much company. CMac got 92 yards that day on the ground but virtually none of that was inside the tackles. He also got hurt. The trick was getting to the corner before the penetration tackled you. Once you did that, at least half the defense was two yards behind you. In that game none of the blocking was very good, run ot pass. I also remember watching the Arizona game, a game we won handily. Arizona wasn't good, to be generous. However, even in that game CMac got his yards outside either on designed stretch plays or improvising when nothing else was available. We weren't exactly pushing guys around that day either. It was "Get a stalemate and led CMac run around them".