[martyup]

Actually, I think this paradigm applies to life in general . . .  There are many examples of individuals who celebrated tremendous success in one phase of life, only to be horrible failures in another.  They probably didn't change much.  The context changed.  They were in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time.  While shit happens, lots of wonderful stuff happens, too, and it isn't always a direct result of the individual's skills or efforts . . . There is a lot of randomness in life; and it isn't true that the best always prevail.

[martyup]

Actually, I think this paradigm applies to life in general . . .  There are many examples of individuals who celebrated tremendous success in one phase of life, only to be horrible failures in another.  They probably didn't change much.  The context changed.  They were in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time.  While shit happens, lots of wonderful stuff happens, too, and it isn't always a direct result of the individual's skills or efforts . . . There is a lot of randomness in life; and it isn't true that the best always prevail.

[Goose]

I don't define Walsh by his face-plant at the end of Walsh II. I think of the little things like resuscitating Stanford football 77/78 and those three SB rings. Kinda like a lot of you don't define Shaw by his...uh...shortcomings.

I too don't define Walsh by his "face-plant" at the end of his second stint at Stanford. I do regard his success at the NFL level as a separate thing. It isn't part of Stanford's story. Many of us in our hearts look at is as a continuum, but in reality it wasn't. I think what it actually shows is that the head coach, no matter how good, doesn't control the narrative. He is subject to lots of forces beyond his control. He may make all the "correct" decisions and it just may not matter. That is one reason why a long run of success is difficult to accomplish. Shit happens.
It is almost always true is that a bad coach will not be successful. It is often true that a "good" coach will not always be successful.

Actually, I think this paradigm applies to life in general.  Business leaders, politicians, performers, etc. are often successful or unsuccessful only due to the context they are in.  There are many examples of individuals who celebrated tremendous success in one phase of life, only to be horrible failures in another.  They probably didn't change much.  The context changed.  They were in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time.  While shit happens, lots of wonderful stuff happens, too, and it isn't always a direct result of the individual's skills or efforts. Willingham was rather successful at Stanford, but failed miserably at Washington.  Chip Kelly soared to heights at Oregon, but belly-flopped at the Eagles.  Let's see whether Urban Meyer can write a successful chapter in the NFL or be just another failed college coach in the professional ranks.  There is a lot of randomness in life; and it isn't true that the best always prevail.

+1000. You are so, so right IMHO. I was going to attempt a post that demonstrates how many fortunate things happened to Harbaugh when he took the Stanford job. It was a case of EUTM arriving in a place that had exactly the ingredients to use it. It was a synergy that very easily could have come off the rails (and probably would have in a few year, if JH had not moved on). It is certainly clear that success is usually accompanied by taking advantage of a situation that exists at that moment. Recognizing and exploiting the situation takes either insight or blind chance. Often they cannot be distinguished. What if Toby Gerhart was not already at Stanford when JH showed up? What if Marinelli wasn't also already there and didn't found the TWU? Interesting conjectures IMHO.

[Goose]

I don't define Walsh by his face-plant at the end of Walsh II. I think of the little things like resuscitating Stanford football 77/78 and those three SB rings. Kinda like a lot of you don't define Shaw by his...uh...shortcomings.

I too don't define Walsh by his "face-plant" at the end of his second stint at Stanford. I do regard his success at the NFL level as a separate thing. It isn't part of Stanford's story. Many of us in our hearts look at is as a continuum, but in reality it wasn't. I think what it actually shows is that the head coach, no matter how good, doesn't control the narrative. He is subject to lots of forces beyond his control. He may make all the "correct" decisions and it just may not matter. That is one reason why a long run of success is difficult to accomplish. Shit happens.
It is almost always true is that a bad coach will not be successful. It is often true that a "good" coach will not always be successful.

Actually, I think this paradigm applies to life in general.  Business leaders, politicians, performers, etc. are often successful or unsuccessful only due to the context they are in.  There are many examples of individuals who celebrated tremendous success in one phase of life, only to be horrible failures in another.  They probably didn't change much.  The context changed.  They were in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time.  While shit happens, lots of wonderful stuff happens, too, and it isn't always a direct result of the individual's skills or efforts. Willingham was rather successful at Stanford, but failed miserably at Washington.  Chip Kelly soared to heights at Oregon, but belly-flopped at the Eagles.  Let's see whether Urban Meyer can write a successful chapter in the NFL or be just another failed college coach in the professional ranks.  There is a lot of randomness in life; and it isn't true that the best always prevail.

+1000. You are so, so right IMHO. I was going to attempt a post that demonstrates how many fortunate things happened to Harbaugh when he took the Stanford job. It was a case of EUTM arriving in a place that had exactly the ingredients to use it. It was a synergy that very easily could have come off the rails (and probably would have in a few year, if JH had not moved on). It is certainly clear that success is usually accompanied by taking advantage of a situation that exists at that moment. Recognizing and exploiting the situation takes either insight or blind chance. Often they cannot be distinguished. What if Toby Gerhart was not already at Stanford when JH showed up? What if Marinelli wasn't also already there and didn't found the TWU? Interesting conjectures IMHO.