11-02-2012, 01:34 PM
That's OK. Part of good leadership is choosing good assistants.
A theory re: Nunes and Shaw
JohnOlenchalk
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-02-2012, 03:21 PM
NOT ARGUING THE POINT. BUT GIVING HIM CREDIT FOR MASON'S ACTUAL BRILLIANCE ON THE JOB MEANS I'VE GOT TO ALSO BLAME HIM (SHAW) FOR HIS ABJECTLY MISERABLE PERFORMANCE AS AN OC, QB COACH, PLAY SELECTOR, GAME MANAGER, AND INTERVIEWEE.
NOT ARGUING THE POINT. BUT GIVING HIM CREDIT FOR MASON'S ACTUAL BRILLIANCE ON THE JOB MEANS I'VE GOT TO ALSO BLAME HIM (SHAW) FOR HIS ABJECTLY MISERABLE PERFORMANCE AS AN OC, QB COACH, PLAY SELECTOR, GAME MANAGER, AND INTERVIEWEE.
JohnOlenchalk
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-02-2012, 03:21 PM
NOT ARGUING THE POINT. BUT GIVING HIM CREDIT FOR MASON'S ACTUAL BRILLIANCE ON THE JOB MEANS I'VE GOT TO ALSO BLAME HIM (SHAW) FOR HIS ABJECTLY MISERABLE PERFORMANCE AS AN OC, QB COACH, PLAY SELECTOR, GAME MANAGER, AND INTERVIEWEE.
NOT ARGUING THE POINT. BUT GIVING HIM CREDIT FOR MASON'S ACTUAL BRILLIANCE ON THE JOB MEANS I'VE GOT TO ALSO BLAME HIM (SHAW) FOR HIS ABJECTLY MISERABLE PERFORMANCE AS AN OC, QB COACH, PLAY SELECTOR, GAME MANAGER, AND INTERVIEWEE.
11-02-2012, 03:38 PM
(11-02-2012, 03:21 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:NOT ARGUING THE POINT. BUT GIVING HIM CREDIT FOR MASON'S ACTUAL BRILLIANCE ON THE JOB MEANS I'VE GOT TO ALSO BLAME HIM (SHAW) FOR HIS ABJECTLY MISERABLE PERFORMANCE AS AN OC, QB COACH, PLAY SELECTOR, GAME MANAGER, AND INTERVIEWEE.
Kind of a bundle deal though. Give him some blame if you must for Nunes and the offense struggles, but then as the HC he has to get some credit for the D. He could have hired a bend until you break type DC, but he didn't. Who knows how much the current D philosophy reflects his views of the game, but it does look and feel a lot like Willie Shaw's D. As a student at the time I loved that the defense found a way to get its best players to really make plays. I had no real understanding that Stanford's D history was so bleak and would return to those terrible days for most of the next 20 years. So some how, some way, the family beliefs about D playmakers have found their way to this team. In any event, the bundle deal means that Coach Shaw is 17-4 and 6-2 without Luck. Both numbers are very, very good by Stanford Football standards.
How much is/was Luck, Skov, the new stadium, the new AD, the move to the shady side, the gift from donors, etc. is up for debate. The reality is that Coach Shaw's Stanford Football team (and it is a team game) is 17-4. Not 21-0, but definitely better than most on this board would have predicted when JH left for the 49ers.
I remember last year most that thought 8-4 or 9-3 were above the 2011 mean. This year the mean was down around 8-4 or 7-5 for 2012. So Shaw is exceeding expectations of some of the most loyal fans but oddly at the same time apparently not meeting the undefined standards expected of a coach by some in that same group. ::)
(11-02-2012, 03:21 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:NOT ARGUING THE POINT. BUT GIVING HIM CREDIT FOR MASON'S ACTUAL BRILLIANCE ON THE JOB MEANS I'VE GOT TO ALSO BLAME HIM (SHAW) FOR HIS ABJECTLY MISERABLE PERFORMANCE AS AN OC, QB COACH, PLAY SELECTOR, GAME MANAGER, AND INTERVIEWEE.
Kind of a bundle deal though. Give him some blame if you must for Nunes and the offense struggles, but then as the HC he has to get some credit for the D. He could have hired a bend until you break type DC, but he didn't. Who knows how much the current D philosophy reflects his views of the game, but it does look and feel a lot like Willie Shaw's D. As a student at the time I loved that the defense found a way to get its best players to really make plays. I had no real understanding that Stanford's D history was so bleak and would return to those terrible days for most of the next 20 years. So some how, some way, the family beliefs about D playmakers have found their way to this team. In any event, the bundle deal means that Coach Shaw is 17-4 and 6-2 without Luck. Both numbers are very, very good by Stanford Football standards.
How much is/was Luck, Skov, the new stadium, the new AD, the move to the shady side, the gift from donors, etc. is up for debate. The reality is that Coach Shaw's Stanford Football team (and it is a team game) is 17-4. Not 21-0, but definitely better than most on this board would have predicted when JH left for the 49ers.
I remember last year most that thought 8-4 or 9-3 were above the 2011 mean. This year the mean was down around 8-4 or 7-5 for 2012. So Shaw is exceeding expectations of some of the most loyal fans but oddly at the same time apparently not meeting the undefined standards expected of a coach by some in that same group. ::)
11-02-2012, 03:38 PM
(11-02-2012, 03:21 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:NOT ARGUING THE POINT. BUT GIVING HIM CREDIT FOR MASON'S ACTUAL BRILLIANCE ON THE JOB MEANS I'VE GOT TO ALSO BLAME HIM (SHAW) FOR HIS ABJECTLY MISERABLE PERFORMANCE AS AN OC, QB COACH, PLAY SELECTOR, GAME MANAGER, AND INTERVIEWEE.
Kind of a bundle deal though. Give him some blame if you must for Nunes and the offense struggles, but then as the HC he has to get some credit for the D. He could have hired a bend until you break type DC, but he didn't. Who knows how much the current D philosophy reflects his views of the game, but it does look and feel a lot like Willie Shaw's D. As a student at the time I loved that the defense found a way to get its best players to really make plays. I had no real understanding that Stanford's D history was so bleak and would return to those terrible days for most of the next 20 years. So some how, some way, the family beliefs about D playmakers have found their way to this team. In any event, the bundle deal means that Coach Shaw is 17-4 and 6-2 without Luck. Both numbers are very, very good by Stanford Football standards.
How much is/was Luck, Skov, the new stadium, the new AD, the move to the shady side, the gift from donors, etc. is up for debate. The reality is that Coach Shaw's Stanford Football team (and it is a team game) is 17-4. Not 21-0, but definitely better than most on this board would have predicted when JH left for the 49ers.
I remember last year most that thought 8-4 or 9-3 were above the 2011 mean. This year the mean was down around 8-4 or 7-5 for 2012. So Shaw is exceeding expectations of some of the most loyal fans but oddly at the same time apparently not meeting the undefined standards expected of a coach by some in that same group. ::)
(11-02-2012, 03:21 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:NOT ARGUING THE POINT. BUT GIVING HIM CREDIT FOR MASON'S ACTUAL BRILLIANCE ON THE JOB MEANS I'VE GOT TO ALSO BLAME HIM (SHAW) FOR HIS ABJECTLY MISERABLE PERFORMANCE AS AN OC, QB COACH, PLAY SELECTOR, GAME MANAGER, AND INTERVIEWEE.
Kind of a bundle deal though. Give him some blame if you must for Nunes and the offense struggles, but then as the HC he has to get some credit for the D. He could have hired a bend until you break type DC, but he didn't. Who knows how much the current D philosophy reflects his views of the game, but it does look and feel a lot like Willie Shaw's D. As a student at the time I loved that the defense found a way to get its best players to really make plays. I had no real understanding that Stanford's D history was so bleak and would return to those terrible days for most of the next 20 years. So some how, some way, the family beliefs about D playmakers have found their way to this team. In any event, the bundle deal means that Coach Shaw is 17-4 and 6-2 without Luck. Both numbers are very, very good by Stanford Football standards.
How much is/was Luck, Skov, the new stadium, the new AD, the move to the shady side, the gift from donors, etc. is up for debate. The reality is that Coach Shaw's Stanford Football team (and it is a team game) is 17-4. Not 21-0, but definitely better than most on this board would have predicted when JH left for the 49ers.
I remember last year most that thought 8-4 or 9-3 were above the 2011 mean. This year the mean was down around 8-4 or 7-5 for 2012. So Shaw is exceeding expectations of some of the most loyal fans but oddly at the same time apparently not meeting the undefined standards expected of a coach by some in that same group. ::)
JohnOlenchalk
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-02-2012, 04:44 PM
out where he deserves it, and giving credit where he deserves it. Remember, he didn't even hire Mason, but he did promote him. He didn't hire the d-line coach either for that matter. But as brilliant as Mason is on D, and the offensive coaches by comparison deserve to be fired, or should have their resumes ready. It's Dana Bible like. Shaw can't fire himself, so either he's got to retrofit his offensive staff next year and hire an OC who knows what he's doing, a QB coach who can achieve results and a WR coach he can coach up guys or at least recruit somebody who can catch. Does Shaw get a pass for all that? Do you really think he'll do it? We will be lucky if we can finish the season without losing at least 1 more game.
Look, if you're happy and can rationalize losing games we should win with a ridiculously underperforming offense, and think our trajectory on offense is sustainable and compatible with a winning program, good for you. I still expected him to go 9-3 or 10-2 this year with this year's talent, but now I can't believe we're 6-2 with such an abysmal showing on the offensive side. So I guess by your logic, I should be happy no matter what.Â
Look, if you're happy and can rationalize losing games we should win with a ridiculously underperforming offense, and think our trajectory on offense is sustainable and compatible with a winning program, good for you. I still expected him to go 9-3 or 10-2 this year with this year's talent, but now I can't believe we're 6-2 with such an abysmal showing on the offensive side. So I guess by your logic, I should be happy no matter what.Â
out where he deserves it, and giving credit where he deserves it. Remember, he didn't even hire Mason, but he did promote him. He didn't hire the d-line coach either for that matter. But as brilliant as Mason is on D, and the offensive coaches by comparison deserve to be fired, or should have their resumes ready. It's Dana Bible like. Shaw can't fire himself, so either he's got to retrofit his offensive staff next year and hire an OC who knows what he's doing, a QB coach who can achieve results and a WR coach he can coach up guys or at least recruit somebody who can catch. Does Shaw get a pass for all that? Do you really think he'll do it? We will be lucky if we can finish the season without losing at least 1 more game.
Look, if you're happy and can rationalize losing games we should win with a ridiculously underperforming offense, and think our trajectory on offense is sustainable and compatible with a winning program, good for you. I still expected him to go 9-3 or 10-2 this year with this year's talent, but now I can't believe we're 6-2 with such an abysmal showing on the offensive side. So I guess by your logic, I should be happy no matter what.Â
Look, if you're happy and can rationalize losing games we should win with a ridiculously underperforming offense, and think our trajectory on offense is sustainable and compatible with a winning program, good for you. I still expected him to go 9-3 or 10-2 this year with this year's talent, but now I can't believe we're 6-2 with such an abysmal showing on the offensive side. So I guess by your logic, I should be happy no matter what.Â
JohnOlenchalk
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-02-2012, 04:44 PM
out where he deserves it, and giving credit where he deserves it. Remember, he didn't even hire Mason, but he did promote him. He didn't hire the d-line coach either for that matter. But as brilliant as Mason is on D, and the offensive coaches by comparison deserve to be fired, or should have their resumes ready. It's Dana Bible like. Shaw can't fire himself, so either he's got to retrofit his offensive staff next year and hire an OC who knows what he's doing, a QB coach who can achieve results and a WR coach he can coach up guys or at least recruit somebody who can catch. Does Shaw get a pass for all that? Do you really think he'll do it? We will be lucky if we can finish the season without losing at least 1 more game.
Look, if you're happy and can rationalize losing games we should win with a ridiculously underperforming offense, and think our trajectory on offense is sustainable and compatible with a winning program, good for you. I still expected him to go 9-3 or 10-2 this year with this year's talent, but now I can't believe we're 6-2 with such an abysmal showing on the offensive side. So I guess by your logic, I should be happy no matter what.Â
Look, if you're happy and can rationalize losing games we should win with a ridiculously underperforming offense, and think our trajectory on offense is sustainable and compatible with a winning program, good for you. I still expected him to go 9-3 or 10-2 this year with this year's talent, but now I can't believe we're 6-2 with such an abysmal showing on the offensive side. So I guess by your logic, I should be happy no matter what.Â
out where he deserves it, and giving credit where he deserves it. Remember, he didn't even hire Mason, but he did promote him. He didn't hire the d-line coach either for that matter. But as brilliant as Mason is on D, and the offensive coaches by comparison deserve to be fired, or should have their resumes ready. It's Dana Bible like. Shaw can't fire himself, so either he's got to retrofit his offensive staff next year and hire an OC who knows what he's doing, a QB coach who can achieve results and a WR coach he can coach up guys or at least recruit somebody who can catch. Does Shaw get a pass for all that? Do you really think he'll do it? We will be lucky if we can finish the season without losing at least 1 more game.
Look, if you're happy and can rationalize losing games we should win with a ridiculously underperforming offense, and think our trajectory on offense is sustainable and compatible with a winning program, good for you. I still expected him to go 9-3 or 10-2 this year with this year's talent, but now I can't believe we're 6-2 with such an abysmal showing on the offensive side. So I guess by your logic, I should be happy no matter what.Â
Look, if you're happy and can rationalize losing games we should win with a ridiculously underperforming offense, and think our trajectory on offense is sustainable and compatible with a winning program, good for you. I still expected him to go 9-3 or 10-2 this year with this year's talent, but now I can't believe we're 6-2 with such an abysmal showing on the offensive side. So I guess by your logic, I should be happy no matter what.Â
11-02-2012, 04:59 PM
Shaw doesn't get a pass for his shortcomings, but he also gets credit for his accomplishments, as well. He didn't have to promote or even retain Mason.
You don't like Shaw. We get that. No coach is going to be fired for going 17-4.
You don't like Shaw. We get that. No coach is going to be fired for going 17-4.
11-02-2012, 04:59 PM
Shaw doesn't get a pass for his shortcomings, but he also gets credit for his accomplishments, as well. He didn't have to promote or even retain Mason.
You don't like Shaw. We get that. No coach is going to be fired for going 17-4.
You don't like Shaw. We get that. No coach is going to be fired for going 17-4.
11-02-2012, 05:01 PM
(11-02-2012, 04:44 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:Â We will be lucky if we can finish the season without losing at least 1 more game.
Oh, come on... Given that we have yet to play the Ducks -- in Eugene -- this seems like a pretty weak basis on which to indict Shaw. After all, Harbaugh couldn't even do that WITH [L]uck.
Now even your straw men are beating dead horses...
(11-02-2012, 04:44 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:Â We will be lucky if we can finish the season without losing at least 1 more game.
Oh, come on... Given that we have yet to play the Ducks -- in Eugene -- this seems like a pretty weak basis on which to indict Shaw. After all, Harbaugh couldn't even do that WITH [L]uck.
Now even your straw men are beating dead horses...
11-02-2012, 05:01 PM
(11-02-2012, 04:44 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:Â We will be lucky if we can finish the season without losing at least 1 more game.
Oh, come on... Given that we have yet to play the Ducks -- in Eugene -- this seems like a pretty weak basis on which to indict Shaw. After all, Harbaugh couldn't even do that WITH [L]uck.
Now even your straw men are beating dead horses...
(11-02-2012, 04:44 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:Â We will be lucky if we can finish the season without losing at least 1 more game.
Oh, come on... Given that we have yet to play the Ducks -- in Eugene -- this seems like a pretty weak basis on which to indict Shaw. After all, Harbaugh couldn't even do that WITH [L]uck.
Now even your straw men are beating dead horses...
JohnOlenchalk
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-02-2012, 06:41 PM
To beat the ducks. Never have. They are our KRYPTONITE. But I am concerned about what Mike Riley and Jim Mora Jr. Can do with us. How can I not be given the way our offense is playing. That's no straw man. We are lucky to be 6-2, you know it and so does everybody else.
To beat the ducks. Never have. They are our KRYPTONITE. But I am concerned about what Mike Riley and Jim Mora Jr. Can do with us. How can I not be given the way our offense is playing. That's no straw man. We are lucky to be 6-2, you know it and so does everybody else.
JohnOlenchalk
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-02-2012, 06:41 PM
To beat the ducks. Never have. They are our KRYPTONITE. But I am concerned about what Mike Riley and Jim Mora Jr. Can do with us. How can I not be given the way our offense is playing. That's no straw man. We are lucky to be 6-2, you know it and so does everybody else.
To beat the ducks. Never have. They are our KRYPTONITE. But I am concerned about what Mike Riley and Jim Mora Jr. Can do with us. How can I not be given the way our offense is playing. That's no straw man. We are lucky to be 6-2, you know it and so does everybody else.
11-03-2012, 09:34 AM
(11-02-2012, 06:41 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:To beat the ducks. Never have.
Never? If I recall correctly, we beat them three years ago. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good rant.
11-03-2012, 09:34 AM
(11-02-2012, 06:41 PM)johnnyo53 link Wrote:To beat the ducks. Never have.
Never? If I recall correctly, we beat them three years ago. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good rant.
JohnOlenchalk
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-03-2012, 01:09 PM
Meant this year I don't expect us to beat them. But Hogan is giving me some Hope and Changr! About effing time.
Meant this year I don't expect us to beat them. But Hogan is giving me some Hope and Changr! About effing time.
JohnOlenchalk
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-03-2012, 01:09 PM
Meant this year I don't expect us to beat them. But Hogan is giving me some Hope and Changr! About effing time.
Meant this year I don't expect us to beat them. But Hogan is giving me some Hope and Changr! About effing time.
11-04-2012, 09:07 AM
Now the Nottingham situation makes some sense.
Nottingham may be a better passer than Nunes, but he doesn't offer the running dimension that Hogan does. It seems highly likely that Shaw isn't looking for a guy who is just a little bit better than Nunes. He's looking for a much greater leap in production, and Hogan, with his ability to run, provides the best chance for that opportunity.
It was only one game, but Hogan sure did demonstrate an ability to make the offense more dynamic. The one area that continues to vex the offense is the stagnant WR production, but Stanford didn't really need its WRs against Colorado. That said, you could almost sense a tourniquet being taken off the offense with Hogan in the game. The run blocking was still not as good as it needs to be, but more of the field seemed to be more open to attack than has usually been the case this season.
Nottingham may be a better passer than Nunes, but he doesn't offer the running dimension that Hogan does. It seems highly likely that Shaw isn't looking for a guy who is just a little bit better than Nunes. He's looking for a much greater leap in production, and Hogan, with his ability to run, provides the best chance for that opportunity.
It was only one game, but Hogan sure did demonstrate an ability to make the offense more dynamic. The one area that continues to vex the offense is the stagnant WR production, but Stanford didn't really need its WRs against Colorado. That said, you could almost sense a tourniquet being taken off the offense with Hogan in the game. The run blocking was still not as good as it needs to be, but more of the field seemed to be more open to attack than has usually been the case this season.
Now the Nottingham situation makes some sense.
Nottingham may be a better passer than Nunes, but he doesn't offer the running dimension that Hogan does. It seems highly likely that Shaw isn't looking for a guy who is just a little bit better than Nunes. He's looking for a much greater leap in production, and Hogan, with his ability to run, provides the best chance for that opportunity.
It was only one game, but Hogan sure did demonstrate an ability to make the offense more dynamic. The one area that continues to vex the offense is the stagnant WR production, but Stanford didn't really need its WRs against Colorado. That said, you could almost sense a tourniquet being taken off the offense with Hogan in the game. The run blocking was still not as good as it needs to be, but more of the field seemed to be more open to attack than has usually been the case this season.
Nottingham may be a better passer than Nunes, but he doesn't offer the running dimension that Hogan does. It seems highly likely that Shaw isn't looking for a guy who is just a little bit better than Nunes. He's looking for a much greater leap in production, and Hogan, with his ability to run, provides the best chance for that opportunity.
It was only one game, but Hogan sure did demonstrate an ability to make the offense more dynamic. The one area that continues to vex the offense is the stagnant WR production, but Stanford didn't really need its WRs against Colorado. That said, you could almost sense a tourniquet being taken off the offense with Hogan in the game. The run blocking was still not as good as it needs to be, but more of the field seemed to be more open to attack than has usually been the case this season.
11-04-2012, 09:07 AM
Now the Nottingham situation makes some sense.
Nottingham may be a better passer than Nunes, but he doesn't offer the running dimension that Hogan does. It seems highly likely that Shaw isn't looking for a guy who is just a little bit better than Nunes. He's looking for a much greater leap in production, and Hogan, with his ability to run, provides the best chance for that opportunity.
It was only one game, but Hogan sure did demonstrate an ability to make the offense more dynamic. The one area that continues to vex the offense is the stagnant WR production, but Stanford didn't really need its WRs against Colorado. That said, you could almost sense a tourniquet being taken off the offense with Hogan in the game. The run blocking was still not as good as it needs to be, but more of the field seemed to be more open to attack than has usually been the case this season.
Nottingham may be a better passer than Nunes, but he doesn't offer the running dimension that Hogan does. It seems highly likely that Shaw isn't looking for a guy who is just a little bit better than Nunes. He's looking for a much greater leap in production, and Hogan, with his ability to run, provides the best chance for that opportunity.
It was only one game, but Hogan sure did demonstrate an ability to make the offense more dynamic. The one area that continues to vex the offense is the stagnant WR production, but Stanford didn't really need its WRs against Colorado. That said, you could almost sense a tourniquet being taken off the offense with Hogan in the game. The run blocking was still not as good as it needs to be, but more of the field seemed to be more open to attack than has usually been the case this season.
Now the Nottingham situation makes some sense.
Nottingham may be a better passer than Nunes, but he doesn't offer the running dimension that Hogan does. It seems highly likely that Shaw isn't looking for a guy who is just a little bit better than Nunes. He's looking for a much greater leap in production, and Hogan, with his ability to run, provides the best chance for that opportunity.
It was only one game, but Hogan sure did demonstrate an ability to make the offense more dynamic. The one area that continues to vex the offense is the stagnant WR production, but Stanford didn't really need its WRs against Colorado. That said, you could almost sense a tourniquet being taken off the offense with Hogan in the game. The run blocking was still not as good as it needs to be, but more of the field seemed to be more open to attack than has usually been the case this season.
Nottingham may be a better passer than Nunes, but he doesn't offer the running dimension that Hogan does. It seems highly likely that Shaw isn't looking for a guy who is just a little bit better than Nunes. He's looking for a much greater leap in production, and Hogan, with his ability to run, provides the best chance for that opportunity.
It was only one game, but Hogan sure did demonstrate an ability to make the offense more dynamic. The one area that continues to vex the offense is the stagnant WR production, but Stanford didn't really need its WRs against Colorado. That said, you could almost sense a tourniquet being taken off the offense with Hogan in the game. The run blocking was still not as good as it needs to be, but more of the field seemed to be more open to attack than has usually been the case this season.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »