[81alum]

Troy,

I, for one (and I may be the only one--I am bracing for an onslaught) enjoyed listening to your interview and was somewhat heartened by it.  Perhaps Shaw should have been fired, perhaps not--but given that he was not fired and is going to coach next season I think his attitude was appropriate.  Here is what caught my attention:

1) He said he was going to start out as if he were a new head coach.  I think this is akin to saying an entirely new look at every aspect of the program is warranted--not sticking with old traditions that are no longer working. 

2) I liked his intellectual brutality comment.  He as much as said that he needs to build the "philosophy" around the strengths of whatever players he has, meaning that rather than fitting square pegs into round holes he needs to adjust the offense and defense to whatever the particular strengths of his players are.  That sounded like flexibility to me.  I also agree that too many people were complaining about our lack of a run game the year Costello had the 2nd best passing year in the history of Stanford football.  (My editorial comment: Shaw in some ways has been more flexible than the fans.  The program has to change depending on the particular type of players he has at any given moment, and given our academic standards we have to be flexible in recruiting.  Fans should not get attached to a particular philosophy.)

3) He did take responsibility for his inability to get the team back to the level of performance it had against Oregon, after the Arizona State loss.  He was analytical about it rather than profusely apologetic, but he put that on himself, and he said that was the turning point of the season.  In the big scheme of things that is what we wanted to hear.  The current players and recruits won't be impressed with an over-the-top mea culpa--that would simply shake faith in the coach and the program.  But a coach who dispassionately analyzed where the season went wrong and why and takes responsibility seems to me to set the right tone and the right example. 

4) He seemed completely aware that the two lines were the crux of the problem.  I thought his answer about the O-line was at least mildly plausible and the optimism not unreasonable.  His answer about the D-line seemed weak to me--probably because there is not a lot to say.

5) With regard to the transfer portal--he acknowledged the problem and acknowledged that we lost our first two non grad transfers.  He did not sugar coat that.  The story he told about Hogan's motivational speech a few years ago and the need for honesty in recruiting I think is in fact the answer.  We need to recruit players and be honest about competition for playing time, and we need to recruit players who will stay for the education.  People who would leave before graduating to seek more playing time are people who never appreciated the value of a Stanford education in the first place. 

6) I liked what he said about competition on the team.  This sounds a lot like Tara and like Bill Walsh.  He is very enthused about the incoming class not only because some of them will start for many years, but even more important that they will compete with and push the other players.  More competition within the position groups will improve performance overall.

Granted, Shaw did not say all the things that many here want him to say.  There is a personality gap between Shaw and the public that is pretty obvious.  Shaw is analytical, cool, and quite jaded about what the press and public think of him.  He is no PR guy.  He appears to believe that keeping this demeanor is important to set an example for his players to follow.  That is probably the biggest Walsh influence on him.

All in all I rather doubt that Shaw will pull off a major turnaround.  I think he is up against some pretty big structural problems.  Many of the criticisms expressed here may turn out to be correct.  But the decision to keep or fire Shaw did not belong to Shaw.  Given that he will be our coach, given that the morale of his coaches and players is more important than the disappointment of Cardboard fans, I think his answers were completely within character for him and not nearly as horrific as I feared they would be.

[81alum]

Troy,

I, for one (and I may be the only one--I am bracing for an onslaught) enjoyed listening to your interview and was somewhat heartened by it.  Perhaps Shaw should have been fired, perhaps not--but given that he was not fired and is going to coach next season I think his attitude was appropriate.  Here is what caught my attention:

1) He said he was going to start out as if he were a new head coach.  I think this is akin to saying an entirely new look at every aspect of the program is warranted--not sticking with old traditions that are no longer working. 

2) I liked his intellectual brutality comment.  He as much as said that he needs to build the "philosophy" around the strengths of whatever players he has, meaning that rather than fitting square pegs into round holes he needs to adjust the offense and defense to whatever the particular strengths of his players are.  That sounded like flexibility to me.  I also agree that too many people were complaining about our lack of a run game the year Costello had the 2nd best passing year in the history of Stanford football.  (My editorial comment: Shaw in some ways has been more flexible than the fans.  The program has to change depending on the particular type of players he has at any given moment, and given our academic standards we have to be flexible in recruiting.  Fans should not get attached to a particular philosophy.)

3) He did take responsibility for his inability to get the team back to the level of performance it had against Oregon, after the Arizona State loss.  He was analytical about it rather than profusely apologetic, but he put that on himself, and he said that was the turning point of the season.  In the big scheme of things that is what we wanted to hear.  The current players and recruits won't be impressed with an over-the-top mea culpa--that would simply shake faith in the coach and the program.  But a coach who dispassionately analyzed where the season went wrong and why and takes responsibility seems to me to set the right tone and the right example. 

4) He seemed completely aware that the two lines were the crux of the problem.  I thought his answer about the O-line was at least mildly plausible and the optimism not unreasonable.  His answer about the D-line seemed weak to me--probably because there is not a lot to say.

5) With regard to the transfer portal--he acknowledged the problem and acknowledged that we lost our first two non grad transfers.  He did not sugar coat that.  The story he told about Hogan's motivational speech a few years ago and the need for honesty in recruiting I think is in fact the answer.  We need to recruit players and be honest about competition for playing time, and we need to recruit players who will stay for the education.  People who would leave before graduating to seek more playing time are people who never appreciated the value of a Stanford education in the first place. 

6) I liked what he said about competition on the team.  This sounds a lot like Tara and like Bill Walsh.  He is very enthused about the incoming class not only because some of them will start for many years, but even more important that they will compete with and push the other players.  More competition within the position groups will improve performance overall.

Granted, Shaw did not say all the things that many here want him to say.  There is a personality gap between Shaw and the public that is pretty obvious.  Shaw is analytical, cool, and quite jaded about what the press and public think of him.  He is no PR guy.  He appears to believe that keeping this demeanor is important to set an example for his players to follow.  That is probably the biggest Walsh influence on him.

All in all I rather doubt that Shaw will pull off a major turnaround.  I think he is up against some pretty big structural problems.  Many of the criticisms expressed here may turn out to be correct.  But the decision to keep or fire Shaw did not belong to Shaw.  Given that he will be our coach, given that the morale of his coaches and players is more important than the disappointment of Cardboard fans, I think his answers were completely within character for him and not nearly as horrific as I feared they would be.

[george]

Wound tighter than a Dabney Coleman character. 

It's not every day you see an apt Dabney Coleman reference -- yet another reason I love this place even if our football team has fallen on hard times.

[george]

Wound tighter than a Dabney Coleman character. 

It's not every day you see an apt Dabney Coleman reference -- yet another reason I love this place even if our football team has fallen on hard times.

[BostonCard]

Granted, Shaw did not say all the things that many here want him to say.  There is a personality gap between Shaw and the public that is pretty obvious.  Shaw is analytical, cool, and quite jaded about what the press and public think of him.  He is no PR guy.  He appears to believe that keeping this demeanor is important to set an example for his players to follow.  That is probably the biggest Walsh influence on him.

I agree that he is jaded about the media, but I don’t think that the “he’s not a PR guy” is true, at least not in the figurative sense.  His response to the media shows someone who is well-schooled in talking to the media (or at least, a certain school of media relations) that basically says “don’t say anything controversial, don’t say anything that you or someone else might not want to see in print, and answer questions in the most non-revealing way possible”.  It’s not like he has a confrontational style with the press, but he’s not going to give an interview where he implies that a rival coach is about to bolt to the NFL to play psychological games.

As a fan, this can be somewhat frustrating, if you are looking for candid answers. You are not going to get a Denny Greene “The Bears are who we thought they were” or a Jon Tortorella special.  Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing I suppose is in the eye of the beholder.

The real reason to be frustrated is that we haven’t seen the changes that might be needed done; Shaw’s lack of comment on the matter is irrelevant.  If Shaw were to fire Anderson and Pritchard after next season (unlikely, but who knows), you aren’t going to hear about it first in an interview.

BC

[BostonCard]

Granted, Shaw did not say all the things that many here want him to say.  There is a personality gap between Shaw and the public that is pretty obvious.  Shaw is analytical, cool, and quite jaded about what the press and public think of him.  He is no PR guy.  He appears to believe that keeping this demeanor is important to set an example for his players to follow.  That is probably the biggest Walsh influence on him.

I agree that he is jaded about the media, but I don’t think that the “he’s not a PR guy” is true, at least not in the figurative sense.  His response to the media shows someone who is well-schooled in talking to the media (or at least, a certain school of media relations) that basically says “don’t say anything controversial, don’t say anything that you or someone else might not want to see in print, and answer questions in the most non-revealing way possible”.  It’s not like he has a confrontational style with the press, but he’s not going to give an interview where he implies that a rival coach is about to bolt to the NFL to play psychological games.

As a fan, this can be somewhat frustrating, if you are looking for candid answers. You are not going to get a Denny Greene “The Bears are who we thought they were” or a Jon Tortorella special.  Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing I suppose is in the eye of the beholder.

The real reason to be frustrated is that we haven’t seen the changes that might be needed done; Shaw’s lack of comment on the matter is irrelevant.  If Shaw were to fire Anderson and Pritchard after next season (unlikely, but who knows), you aren’t going to hear about it first in an interview.

BC

[teejers1]

The real reason to be frustrated is that we haven’t seen the changes that might be needed done; Shaw’s lack of comment on the matter is irrelevant.  If Shaw were to fire Anderson and Pritchard after next season (unlikely, but who knows), you aren’t going to hear about it first in an interview.
BC

No, the real reason to be frustrated is that Shaw thinks he is a good offensive mind and he absolutely SUCKS.  He is in denial and has been from the jump.  THAT is the frustrating thing.  Well, that, and the fact that if he had any self-awareness whatsoever - i.e., putting a premium on hiring great coordinators (instead of "guys who won't make waves") and getting the hell out of the way - Shaw could have kept the Harbaugh momentum going to this day, with a Top 10 program and the draw of Stanford University as the wind for the sails.

Instead, he squandered everything - has pile-driven the program to Wlat Harris depths - and STILL is in denial.

THAT IS WHAT IS FRUSTRATING!!

P.S.  I still have no clue how anyone can say that Tavita needs to be canned.  He has no responsibility for the O on game day, by all appearances.

[teejers1]

The real reason to be frustrated is that we haven’t seen the changes that might be needed done; Shaw’s lack of comment on the matter is irrelevant.  If Shaw were to fire Anderson and Pritchard after next season (unlikely, but who knows), you aren’t going to hear about it first in an interview.
BC

No, the real reason to be frustrated is that Shaw thinks he is a good offensive mind and he absolutely SUCKS.  He is in denial and has been from the jump.  THAT is the frustrating thing.  Well, that, and the fact that if he had any self-awareness whatsoever - i.e., putting a premium on hiring great coordinators (instead of "guys who won't make waves") and getting the hell out of the way - Shaw could have kept the Harbaugh momentum going to this day, with a Top 10 program and the draw of Stanford University as the wind for the sails.

Instead, he squandered everything - has pile-driven the program to Wlat Harris depths - and STILL is in denial.

THAT IS WHAT IS FRUSTRATING!!

P.S.  I still have no clue how anyone can say that Tavita needs to be canned.  He has no responsibility for the O on game day, by all appearances.

[gailtate]

The real reason to be frustrated is that we haven’t seen the changes that might be needed done; Shaw’s lack of comment on the matter is irrelevant.  If Shaw were to fire Anderson and Pritchard after next season (unlikely, but who knows), you aren’t going to hear about it first in an interview.
BC

No, the real reason to be frustrated is that Shaw thinks he is a good offensive mind and he absolutely SUCKS.  He is in denial and has been from the jump.  THAT is the frustrating thing.  Well, that, and the fact that if he had any self-awareness whatsoever - i.e., putting a premium on hiring great coordinators (instead of "guys who won't make waves") and got the hell out of the way - Shaw could have kept the Harbaugh momentum going to this day, with a Top 10 program and the draw of Stanford University as the wind for the sails.

Instead, he squandered everything - has pile-driven the program to Wlat Harris depths - and STILL is in denial.

THAT IS WHAT IS FRUSTRATING!!

P.S.  I still have no clue how anyone can say that Tavita needs to be canned.  He has no responsibility for the O on game day, by all appearances.

Yeah, I think that pretty much nails it. That and #MuirAndShawMustGo

---

JEEZUZ, can we PLEASE LOSE the preposterous, jack-ass comparisons of Shaw to Walsh?! The "comparison" begins and ends with the statement that both of them chose the same vocation. Period, end of story.

[gailtate]

The real reason to be frustrated is that we haven’t seen the changes that might be needed done; Shaw’s lack of comment on the matter is irrelevant.  If Shaw were to fire Anderson and Pritchard after next season (unlikely, but who knows), you aren’t going to hear about it first in an interview.
BC

No, the real reason to be frustrated is that Shaw thinks he is a good offensive mind and he absolutely SUCKS.  He is in denial and has been from the jump.  THAT is the frustrating thing.  Well, that, and the fact that if he had any self-awareness whatsoever - i.e., putting a premium on hiring great coordinators (instead of "guys who won't make waves") and got the hell out of the way - Shaw could have kept the Harbaugh momentum going to this day, with a Top 10 program and the draw of Stanford University as the wind for the sails.

Instead, he squandered everything - has pile-driven the program to Wlat Harris depths - and STILL is in denial.

THAT IS WHAT IS FRUSTRATING!!

P.S.  I still have no clue how anyone can say that Tavita needs to be canned.  He has no responsibility for the O on game day, by all appearances.

Yeah, I think that pretty much nails it. That and #MuirAndShawMustGo

---

JEEZUZ, can we PLEASE LOSE the preposterous, jack-ass comparisons of Shaw to Walsh?! The "comparison" begins and ends with the statement that both of them chose the same vocation. Period, end of story.

[Spiny_Norman]

JEEZUZ, can we PLEASE LOSE the preposterous, jack-ass comparisons of Shaw to Walsh?! The "comparison" begins and ends with the statement that both of them chose the same vocation. Period, end of story.

Well they do both have this one thing in common - both of them coached Stanford football to 2 last place finishes in the P10/P12.

It's always frustrating for me listening to Coach Shaw in these situations because I want the football coach to talk to me as a fan and help me to get excited about the team. Help build some buzz around the program. This is a tired program that needs a turnaround specialist at CEO and a big shot of energy. But that's not who David Shaw is.

[Spiny_Norman]

JEEZUZ, can we PLEASE LOSE the preposterous, jack-ass comparisons of Shaw to Walsh?! The "comparison" begins and ends with the statement that both of them chose the same vocation. Period, end of story.

Well they do both have this one thing in common - both of them coached Stanford football to 2 last place finishes in the P10/P12.

It's always frustrating for me listening to Coach Shaw in these situations because I want the football coach to talk to me as a fan and help me to get excited about the team. Help build some buzz around the program. This is a tired program that needs a turnaround specialist at CEO and a big shot of energy. But that's not who David Shaw is.

[McKenwood]

Listened to the podcast out of loyalty to Troy Clardy.

David Shaw is one smart man who claims last season prompted a reflection about what the team needs for the 2022 season. Based on his comments he didn't do much reflection at all. Instead he claims he will approach it like a first time head coach instaed of one who has been the head man for 12 years. Can Stanford get a first year coach discount?

It was clear from his comments that last year's team (and probably the 2019 one as well) was mentally weak. They couldn't come back from the ASU loss and injuries to key players early in the season. But no mention of what he is going to do about the the mental aspect of the game other than the fooball coach cliche of "competiton".

No mention of changes to schemes to take advantage of personnel strengths or more likely weaknesses. He acknowledges right away the weakness in both lines but no change in coaching or S&C to make a difference. He talks glowingly about the offensive skill position players but I had to laugh when he touted EJ Smith and Casey Filkins, both of whom spent much of last season injured. Seems like Austin Jones and Nathaniel Peat might be missed.

At Troy's behest he spent a lot of time on the 2022 recruiting class but this is a red herring. Sure there may be a few defensive players that might play this season but this Stanford team is still paying for recruiting shortfalls in the 2018 and 2020 classes. A more interesting question might have been what happened that you lack depth and talent on the lines.

Finally no mention of the injury bugaboo that has plagued Stanford for the past four years. Again I had to laugh when Coach Shaw was touting his ILB crew when these guys cannot stay on the field.

As others have noted Shaw really doesn't know how to generate any enthusiasm among the few of us that remain fans. I certainly hope he does a better job with his team. But I doubt it.

[McKenwood]

Listened to the podcast out of loyalty to Troy Clardy.

David Shaw is one smart man who claims last season prompted a reflection about what the team needs for the 2022 season. Based on his comments he didn't do much reflection at all. Instead he claims he will approach it like a first time head coach instaed of one who has been the head man for 12 years. Can Stanford get a first year coach discount?

It was clear from his comments that last year's team (and probably the 2019 one as well) was mentally weak. They couldn't come back from the ASU loss and injuries to key players early in the season. But no mention of what he is going to do about the the mental aspect of the game other than the fooball coach cliche of "competiton".

No mention of changes to schemes to take advantage of personnel strengths or more likely weaknesses. He acknowledges right away the weakness in both lines but no change in coaching or S&C to make a difference. He talks glowingly about the offensive skill position players but I had to laugh when he touted EJ Smith and Casey Filkins, both of whom spent much of last season injured. Seems like Austin Jones and Nathaniel Peat might be missed.

At Troy's behest he spent a lot of time on the 2022 recruiting class but this is a red herring. Sure there may be a few defensive players that might play this season but this Stanford team is still paying for recruiting shortfalls in the 2018 and 2020 classes. A more interesting question might have been what happened that you lack depth and talent on the lines.

Finally no mention of the injury bugaboo that has plagued Stanford for the past four years. Again I had to laugh when Coach Shaw was touting his ILB crew when these guys cannot stay on the field.

As others have noted Shaw really doesn't know how to generate any enthusiasm among the few of us that remain fans. I certainly hope he does a better job with his team. But I doubt it.

[fullmetal]

P.S.  I still have no clue how anyone can say that Tavita needs to be canned.  He has no responsibility for the O on game day, by all appearances.

You don't think we need an improvement at the QB coaching position?  Senior Jack West still looked lost under live fire after years of studying the playbook and QB coaching tutelage.  And West was a highly touted recruit coming in.  How do we continue to fail our smart, talented recruits?

Shaw needs to acknowledge the athletic trainer issues and get some staff who can rehab/prevent injuries.  Shaw needs better S&C so that our OL just physically blow defenders off the ball.  I really don't understand the attitude the all the issues lie with either the players or fate and never the adults tasked with making the players perform.

[fullmetal]

P.S.  I still have no clue how anyone can say that Tavita needs to be canned.  He has no responsibility for the O on game day, by all appearances.

You don't think we need an improvement at the QB coaching position?  Senior Jack West still looked lost under live fire after years of studying the playbook and QB coaching tutelage.  And West was a highly touted recruit coming in.  How do we continue to fail our smart, talented recruits?

Shaw needs to acknowledge the athletic trainer issues and get some staff who can rehab/prevent injuries.  Shaw needs better S&C so that our OL just physically blow defenders off the ball.  I really don't understand the attitude the all the issues lie with either the players or fate and never the adults tasked with making the players perform.

[gailtate]

Let's get down to it. You can take a year's worth what L'Oreal, Procter & Gamble and Johnson/Johnson manufactures in lipstick and cologne, slather it onto the pig that this program has become today and it would still oink, slop at the trough and grunt

---

P.S.  I still have no clue how anyone can say that Tavita needs to be canned.  He has no responsibility for the O on game day, by all appearances.

You don't think we need an improvement at the QB coaching position?  Senior Jack West still looked lost under live fire after years of studying the playbook and QB coaching tutelage.  And West was a highly touted recruit coming in.  How do we continue to fail our smart, talented recruits?

Shaw needs to acknowledge the athletic trainer issues and get some staff who can rehab/prevent injuries.  Shaw needs better S&C so that our OL just physically blow defenders off the ball.  I really don't understand the attitude the all the issues lie with either the players or fate and never the adults tasked with making the players perform.

The pile of dung rests at the doorway of the HC.  Not the OC, DC, S&C or WXYZ. With the biggest paycheck comes the biggest heat. Shaw, and no one else, is responsible for this cluster.

[gailtate]

Let's get down to it. You can take a year's worth what L'Oreal, Procter & Gamble and Johnson/Johnson manufactures in lipstick and cologne, slather it onto the pig that this program has become today and it would still oink, slop at the trough and grunt

---

P.S.  I still have no clue how anyone can say that Tavita needs to be canned.  He has no responsibility for the O on game day, by all appearances.

You don't think we need an improvement at the QB coaching position?  Senior Jack West still looked lost under live fire after years of studying the playbook and QB coaching tutelage.  And West was a highly touted recruit coming in.  How do we continue to fail our smart, talented recruits?

Shaw needs to acknowledge the athletic trainer issues and get some staff who can rehab/prevent injuries.  Shaw needs better S&C so that our OL just physically blow defenders off the ball.  I really don't understand the attitude the all the issues lie with either the players or fate and never the adults tasked with making the players perform.

The pile of dung rests at the doorway of the HC.  Not the OC, DC, S&C or WXYZ. With the biggest paycheck comes the biggest heat. Shaw, and no one else, is responsible for this cluster.

[SamuelMcF]

You don't think we need an improvement at the QB coaching position?  Senior Jack West still looked lost under live fire after years of studying the playbook and QB coaching tutelage.  And West was a highly touted recruit coming in.  How do we continue to fail our smart, talented recruits?

West was a bust walking in the door. We offered him and he committed way too early to know whether he would continue to be good (hint: he didn't) and didn't back the commitment off when everyone else made their offers non-committable. He was "highly touted" despite not deserving to be after his bad junior and senior HS seasons. There is a reason we have never offered another QB even close to as early since then.

[SamuelMcF]

You don't think we need an improvement at the QB coaching position?  Senior Jack West still looked lost under live fire after years of studying the playbook and QB coaching tutelage.  And West was a highly touted recruit coming in.  How do we continue to fail our smart, talented recruits?

West was a bust walking in the door. We offered him and he committed way too early to know whether he would continue to be good (hint: he didn't) and didn't back the commitment off when everyone else made their offers non-committable. He was "highly touted" despite not deserving to be after his bad junior and senior HS seasons. There is a reason we have never offered another QB even close to as early since then.

[Papa John]

Honestly, I think that Costello, Mills and McKee make a solid QB trio, better than most of our Pac-12 brethren. I am concerned, however, about who comes after McKee. But none of that matters given all of the other major problems at other positions. 

I remember with fondness the 2012 team that was able to win despite QB instability, until Hogan took over more than halfway into the season. Unfortunately the next couple of seasons feel like they will be more like 1983, which I remember, but not with fondness.

[Papa John]

Honestly, I think that Costello, Mills and McKee make a solid QB trio, better than most of our Pac-12 brethren. I am concerned, however, about who comes after McKee. But none of that matters given all of the other major problems at other positions. 

I remember with fondness the 2012 team that was able to win despite QB instability, until Hogan took over more than halfway into the season. Unfortunately the next couple of seasons feel like they will be more like 1983, which I remember, but not with fondness.

[MV72018]

I didn't pick up any initiatives for significant change in anything that Shaw said. 

That there were not any coaching changes is beyond belief after the fiasco of last season. 

I wonder if he has actually scrutinized Stanford's O playbook and made the O less predictable. Color me skeptical.

His stubbornness, unimaginativeness, arrogance, and unwillingness to delegate O play calling to a clever, strategic O coordinator seem intact. 

Troy, your questions struck me as being soft balls on a tee; no follow ups that challenged Shaw. 
Guess you're worried about losing access to future interviews. 

Nonetheless, thanks for sharing your interview.

[MV72018]

I didn't pick up any initiatives for significant change in anything that Shaw said. 

That there were not any coaching changes is beyond belief after the fiasco of last season. 

I wonder if he has actually scrutinized Stanford's O playbook and made the O less predictable. Color me skeptical.

His stubbornness, unimaginativeness, arrogance, and unwillingness to delegate O play calling to a clever, strategic O coordinator seem intact. 

Troy, your questions struck me as being soft balls on a tee; no follow ups that challenged Shaw. 
Guess you're worried about losing access to future interviews. 

Nonetheless, thanks for sharing your interview.

[troyc]

Troy, your questions struck me as being soft balls on a tee; no follow ups that challenged Shaw. 
Guess you're worried about losing access to future interviews. 

Nonetheless, thanks for sharing your interview.

Thank you for listening!

Troy C

[troyc]

Troy, your questions struck me as being soft balls on a tee; no follow ups that challenged Shaw. 
Guess you're worried about losing access to future interviews. 

Nonetheless, thanks for sharing your interview.

Thank you for listening!

Troy C

[OutsiderFan]

One thing needs to be made clear. Sometimes coaches aren't actually deserving of being fired.  It's possible that given more time they can turn things around. But, when people lose their jobs for not performing, it demonstrates a culture of accountability that will translate to everyone.

So you can say changing coaches won't matter, and you may e, but, absent even be correct, but don't expect anything to improve if people don't lose their jobs when there is failure. Accepting failure without accountability is just awful for any enterprise.

Never seen a bigger delta between the talk of toughness and the actual demonstration of it. Firing people is hard.  As Bill Walsh said, if you don't have the intestinal fortitude to fire people when performance standards aren't met, you aren't going to last as an AD or a Head Coach.

[OutsiderFan]

One thing needs to be made clear. Sometimes coaches aren't actually deserving of being fired.  It's possible that given more time they can turn things around. But, when people lose their jobs for not performing, it demonstrates a culture of accountability that will translate to everyone.

So you can say changing coaches won't matter, and you may e, but, absent even be correct, but don't expect anything to improve if people don't lose their jobs when there is failure. Accepting failure without accountability is just awful for any enterprise.

Never seen a bigger delta between the talk of toughness and the actual demonstration of it. Firing people is hard.  As Bill Walsh said, if you don't have the intestinal fortitude to fire people when performance standards aren't met, you aren't going to last as an AD or a Head Coach.

[81alum]

One thing needs to be made clear. Sometimes coaches aren't actually deserving of being fired.  It's possible that given more time they can turn things around. But, when people lose their jobs for not performing, it demonstrates a culture of accountability that will translate to everyone.

So you can say changing coaches won't matter, and you may e, but, absent even be correct, but don't expect anything to improve if people don't lose their jobs when there is failure. Accepting failure without accountability is just awful for any enterprise.

Never seen a bigger delta between the talk of toughness and the actual demonstration of it. Firing people is hard.  As Bill Walsh said, if you don't have the intestinal fortitude to fire people when performance standards aren't met, you aren't going to last as an AD or a Head Coach.

This I do agree with, which is why I do wish changes had been made on his staff.  I've seen this too many times in my own career  in academic administration outside of athletics, too, when various Vice Presidents who are disasters are not fired because it would reflect poorly on the President.

Shaw undoubtedly knows things that the Cardboard does not know.  He may think that his assistant coaches actually completed their jobs as well as they could and their obvious failures were actually largely due to his own mistakes or external factors beyond their control.  Under those circumstances he may feel that it would be unfair to remove them.

But at that level of pay and responsibility it is not only about fairness.  Firing a questionably performing assistant coach--even if Shaw knew there were mitigating factors--would send a signal to all the coaches and players that lack of performance will have consequences.  That creates a culture of competition that is healthy.  So I would argue that it is actually about MORE than "fair individual accountability," but the creation of a non-complacent, collective competitive culture.  The earlier quote from Walsh is spot-on.

None of this changes my mind that the odds of getting back to an elite performing football program are even lower with a new head coach than they are with Shaw.  In fact, I am pretty pessimistic that it is possible at all given the structural changes underway.  But I do agree with many here that Shaw would improve the odds by showing a willingness to make personnel changes.

[81alum]

One thing needs to be made clear. Sometimes coaches aren't actually deserving of being fired.  It's possible that given more time they can turn things around. But, when people lose their jobs for not performing, it demonstrates a culture of accountability that will translate to everyone.

So you can say changing coaches won't matter, and you may e, but, absent even be correct, but don't expect anything to improve if people don't lose their jobs when there is failure. Accepting failure without accountability is just awful for any enterprise.

Never seen a bigger delta between the talk of toughness and the actual demonstration of it. Firing people is hard.  As Bill Walsh said, if you don't have the intestinal fortitude to fire people when performance standards aren't met, you aren't going to last as an AD or a Head Coach.

This I do agree with, which is why I do wish changes had been made on his staff.  I've seen this too many times in my own career  in academic administration outside of athletics, too, when various Vice Presidents who are disasters are not fired because it would reflect poorly on the President.

Shaw undoubtedly knows things that the Cardboard does not know.  He may think that his assistant coaches actually completed their jobs as well as they could and their obvious failures were actually largely due to his own mistakes or external factors beyond their control.  Under those circumstances he may feel that it would be unfair to remove them.

But at that level of pay and responsibility it is not only about fairness.  Firing a questionably performing assistant coach--even if Shaw knew there were mitigating factors--would send a signal to all the coaches and players that lack of performance will have consequences.  That creates a culture of competition that is healthy.  So I would argue that it is actually about MORE than "fair individual accountability," but the creation of a non-complacent, collective competitive culture.  The earlier quote from Walsh is spot-on.

None of this changes my mind that the odds of getting back to an elite performing football program are even lower with a new head coach than they are with Shaw.  In fact, I am pretty pessimistic that it is possible at all given the structural changes underway.  But I do agree with many here that Shaw would improve the odds by showing a willingness to make personnel changes.

[Phogge]

Yeah OF but he hasn’t been fired.

[Phogge]

Yeah OF but he hasn’t been fired.

[murky]

One thing needs to be made clear. Sometimes coaches aren't actually deserving of being fired.  It's possible that given more time they can turn things around. But, when people lose their jobs for not performing, it demonstrates a culture of accountability that will translate to everyone.

So you can say changing coaches won't matter, and you may e, but, absent even be correct, but don't expect anything to improve if people don't lose their jobs when there is failure. Accepting failure without accountability is just awful for any enterprise.

Never seen a bigger delta between the talk of toughness and the actual demonstration of it. Firing people is hard.  As Bill Walsh said, if you don't have the intestinal fortitude to fire people when performance standards aren't met, you aren't going to last as an AD or a Head Coach.

This I do agree with, which is why I do wish changes had been made on his staff.  I've seen this too many times in my own career  in academic administration outside of athletics, too, when various Vice Presidents who are disasters are not fired because it would reflect poorly on the President.

Shaw undoubtedly knows things that the Cardboard does not know.  He may think that his assistant coaches actually completed their jobs as well as they could and their obvious failures were actually largely due to his own mistakes or external factors beyond their control.  Under those circumstances he may feel that it would be unfair to remove them.

But at that level of pay and responsibility it is not only about fairness.  Firing a questionably performing assistant coach--even if Shaw knew there were mitigating factors--would send a signal to all the coaches and players that lack of performance will have consequences.  That creates a culture of competition that is healthy.  So I would argue that it is actually about MORE than "fair individual accountability," but the creation of a non-complacent, collective competitive culture.  The earlier quote from Walsh is spot-on.

None of this changes my mind that the odds of getting back to an elite performing football program are even lower with a new head coach than they are with Shaw.  In fact, I am pretty pessimistic that it is possible at all given the structural changes underway.  But I do agree with many here that Shaw would improve the odds by showing a willingness to make personnel changes.

That was a thoughtful post, and perhaps captures some of why I think we're better off if staff changes are initiated by Shaw, rather than pressured from outside.

[murky]

One thing needs to be made clear. Sometimes coaches aren't actually deserving of being fired.  It's possible that given more time they can turn things around. But, when people lose their jobs for not performing, it demonstrates a culture of accountability that will translate to everyone.

So you can say changing coaches won't matter, and you may e, but, absent even be correct, but don't expect anything to improve if people don't lose their jobs when there is failure. Accepting failure without accountability is just awful for any enterprise.

Never seen a bigger delta between the talk of toughness and the actual demonstration of it. Firing people is hard.  As Bill Walsh said, if you don't have the intestinal fortitude to fire people when performance standards aren't met, you aren't going to last as an AD or a Head Coach.

This I do agree with, which is why I do wish changes had been made on his staff.  I've seen this too many times in my own career  in academic administration outside of athletics, too, when various Vice Presidents who are disasters are not fired because it would reflect poorly on the President.

Shaw undoubtedly knows things that the Cardboard does not know.  He may think that his assistant coaches actually completed their jobs as well as they could and their obvious failures were actually largely due to his own mistakes or external factors beyond their control.  Under those circumstances he may feel that it would be unfair to remove them.

But at that level of pay and responsibility it is not only about fairness.  Firing a questionably performing assistant coach--even if Shaw knew there were mitigating factors--would send a signal to all the coaches and players that lack of performance will have consequences.  That creates a culture of competition that is healthy.  So I would argue that it is actually about MORE than "fair individual accountability," but the creation of a non-complacent, collective competitive culture.  The earlier quote from Walsh is spot-on.

None of this changes my mind that the odds of getting back to an elite performing football program are even lower with a new head coach than they are with Shaw.  In fact, I am pretty pessimistic that it is possible at all given the structural changes underway.  But I do agree with many here that Shaw would improve the odds by showing a willingness to make personnel changes.

That was a thoughtful post, and perhaps captures some of why I think we're better off if staff changes are initiated by Shaw, rather than pressured from outside.

[gailtate]

One thing needs to be made clear. Sometimes coaches aren't actually deserving of being fired.  It's possible that given more time they can turn things around. But, when people lose their jobs for not performing, it demonstrates a culture of accountability that will translate to everyone.

So you can say changing coaches won't matter, and you may e, but, absent even be correct, but don't expect anything to improve if people don't lose their jobs when there is failure. Accepting failure without accountability is just awful for any enterprise.

Never seen a bigger delta between the talk of toughness and the actual demonstration of it. Firing people is hard.  As Bill Walsh said, if you don't have the intestinal fortitude to fire people when performance standards aren't met, you aren't going to last as an AD or a Head Coach.

This I do agree with, which is why I do wish changes had been made on his staff.  I've seen this too many times in my own career  in academic administration outside of athletics, too, when various Vice Presidents who are disasters are not fired because it would reflect poorly on the President.

Shaw undoubtedly knows things that the Cardboard does not know.  He may think that his assistant coaches actually completed their jobs as well as they could and their obvious failures were actually largely due to his own mistakes or external factors beyond their control.  Under those circumstances he may feel that it would be unfair to remove them.

But at that level of pay and responsibility it is not only about fairness.  Firing a questionably performing assistant coach--even if Shaw knew there were mitigating factors--would send a signal to all the coaches and players that lack of performance will have consequences.  That creates a culture of competition that is healthy.  So I would argue that it is actually about MORE than "fair individual accountability," but the creation of a non-complacent, collective competitive culture.  The earlier quote from Walsh is spot-on.

None of this changes my mind that the odds of getting back to an elite performing football program are even lower with a new head coach than they are with Shaw.  In fact, I am pretty pessimistic that it is possible at all given the structural changes underway.  But I do agree with many here that Shaw would improve the odds by showing a willingness to make personnel changes.

That was a thoughtful post, and perhaps captures some of why I think we're better off if staff changes are initiated by Shaw, rather than pressured from outside.

Here's the thing. Shaw's credibility is now the central issue. Listening to him is akin to hearing the fantasies of someone with delusions of grandeur. Dude lives in the past like a male actor version of Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard. What kind of "staff changes" of any useful purpose is he really capable of implementing or hiring to achieve?  To ask the question is to answer it. With Delusional David at the helm, please explain how Stanford football is not doomed to a future of futility, or mediocrity at best? I am now only casually interested, but still curious.

[gailtate]

One thing needs to be made clear. Sometimes coaches aren't actually deserving of being fired.  It's possible that given more time they can turn things around. But, when people lose their jobs for not performing, it demonstrates a culture of accountability that will translate to everyone.

So you can say changing coaches won't matter, and you may e, but, absent even be correct, but don't expect anything to improve if people don't lose their jobs when there is failure. Accepting failure without accountability is just awful for any enterprise.

Never seen a bigger delta between the talk of toughness and the actual demonstration of it. Firing people is hard.  As Bill Walsh said, if you don't have the intestinal fortitude to fire people when performance standards aren't met, you aren't going to last as an AD or a Head Coach.

This I do agree with, which is why I do wish changes had been made on his staff.  I've seen this too many times in my own career  in academic administration outside of athletics, too, when various Vice Presidents who are disasters are not fired because it would reflect poorly on the President.

Shaw undoubtedly knows things that the Cardboard does not know.  He may think that his assistant coaches actually completed their jobs as well as they could and their obvious failures were actually largely due to his own mistakes or external factors beyond their control.  Under those circumstances he may feel that it would be unfair to remove them.

But at that level of pay and responsibility it is not only about fairness.  Firing a questionably performing assistant coach--even if Shaw knew there were mitigating factors--would send a signal to all the coaches and players that lack of performance will have consequences.  That creates a culture of competition that is healthy.  So I would argue that it is actually about MORE than "fair individual accountability," but the creation of a non-complacent, collective competitive culture.  The earlier quote from Walsh is spot-on.

None of this changes my mind that the odds of getting back to an elite performing football program are even lower with a new head coach than they are with Shaw.  In fact, I am pretty pessimistic that it is possible at all given the structural changes underway.  But I do agree with many here that Shaw would improve the odds by showing a willingness to make personnel changes.

That was a thoughtful post, and perhaps captures some of why I think we're better off if staff changes are initiated by Shaw, rather than pressured from outside.

Here's the thing. Shaw's credibility is now the central issue. Listening to him is akin to hearing the fantasies of someone with delusions of grandeur. Dude lives in the past like a male actor version of Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard. What kind of "staff changes" of any useful purpose is he really capable of implementing or hiring to achieve?  To ask the question is to answer it. With Delusional David at the helm, please explain how Stanford football is not doomed to a future of futility, or mediocrity at best? I am now only casually interested, but still curious.