01-03-2014, 07:56 PM
The funniest thing about this thread, by the way, is that 10-4 coaching is actually pretty darn good.
14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching
The funniest thing about this thread, by the way, is that 10-4 coaching is actually pretty darn good.
01-03-2014, 07:58 PM
(01-03-2014, 07:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The funniest thing about this thread, by the way, is that 10-4 coaching is actually pretty darn good.LOL
(01-03-2014, 07:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The funniest thing about this thread, by the way, is that 10-4 coaching is actually pretty darn good.LOL
01-03-2014, 07:58 PM
(01-03-2014, 07:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The funniest thing about this thread, by the way, is that 10-4 coaching is actually pretty darn good.LOL
(01-03-2014, 07:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The funniest thing about this thread, by the way, is that 10-4 coaching is actually pretty darn good.LOL
01-03-2014, 08:43 PM
I remember going to a Stanford MBB game about 10 years ago with a friend who spent the whole game complaining about Montgomery's coaching. Being undefeated doesn't stop the criticism.
This is our worst record in 4 years. My hope is that losing 3 games causes Shaw to look at his offense and make the changes to avoid these kinds of losses.
I don't think we can expect to have a better defense than we have had the past 2 years. I don't think we can say the same thing about the offense.
On the plus side, I don't feel like a window is closing on us competing at this level anytime soon. When Luck left there was the worry that we missed our chance.
This is our worst record in 4 years. My hope is that losing 3 games causes Shaw to look at his offense and make the changes to avoid these kinds of losses.
I don't think we can expect to have a better defense than we have had the past 2 years. I don't think we can say the same thing about the offense.
On the plus side, I don't feel like a window is closing on us competing at this level anytime soon. When Luck left there was the worry that we missed our chance.
I remember going to a Stanford MBB game about 10 years ago with a friend who spent the whole game complaining about Montgomery's coaching. Being undefeated doesn't stop the criticism.
This is our worst record in 4 years. My hope is that losing 3 games causes Shaw to look at his offense and make the changes to avoid these kinds of losses.
I don't think we can expect to have a better defense than we have had the past 2 years. I don't think we can say the same thing about the offense.
On the plus side, I don't feel like a window is closing on us competing at this level anytime soon. When Luck left there was the worry that we missed our chance.
This is our worst record in 4 years. My hope is that losing 3 games causes Shaw to look at his offense and make the changes to avoid these kinds of losses.
I don't think we can expect to have a better defense than we have had the past 2 years. I don't think we can say the same thing about the offense.
On the plus side, I don't feel like a window is closing on us competing at this level anytime soon. When Luck left there was the worry that we missed our chance.
01-03-2014, 08:43 PM
I remember going to a Stanford MBB game about 10 years ago with a friend who spent the whole game complaining about Montgomery's coaching. Being undefeated doesn't stop the criticism.
This is our worst record in 4 years. My hope is that losing 3 games causes Shaw to look at his offense and make the changes to avoid these kinds of losses.
I don't think we can expect to have a better defense than we have had the past 2 years. I don't think we can say the same thing about the offense.
On the plus side, I don't feel like a window is closing on us competing at this level anytime soon. When Luck left there was the worry that we missed our chance.
This is our worst record in 4 years. My hope is that losing 3 games causes Shaw to look at his offense and make the changes to avoid these kinds of losses.
I don't think we can expect to have a better defense than we have had the past 2 years. I don't think we can say the same thing about the offense.
On the plus side, I don't feel like a window is closing on us competing at this level anytime soon. When Luck left there was the worry that we missed our chance.
I remember going to a Stanford MBB game about 10 years ago with a friend who spent the whole game complaining about Montgomery's coaching. Being undefeated doesn't stop the criticism.
This is our worst record in 4 years. My hope is that losing 3 games causes Shaw to look at his offense and make the changes to avoid these kinds of losses.
I don't think we can expect to have a better defense than we have had the past 2 years. I don't think we can say the same thing about the offense.
On the plus side, I don't feel like a window is closing on us competing at this level anytime soon. When Luck left there was the worry that we missed our chance.
This is our worst record in 4 years. My hope is that losing 3 games causes Shaw to look at his offense and make the changes to avoid these kinds of losses.
I don't think we can expect to have a better defense than we have had the past 2 years. I don't think we can say the same thing about the offense.
On the plus side, I don't feel like a window is closing on us competing at this level anytime soon. When Luck left there was the worry that we missed our chance.
01-04-2014, 08:48 AM
I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting. The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.
I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting. The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.
01-04-2014, 08:48 AM
I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting. The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.
I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting. The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.
01-04-2014, 10:23 AM
(01-04-2014, 08:48 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches.
Exactly. Coaches' most important work is between February and August.
(01-04-2014, 08:48 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches.
Exactly. Coaches' most important work is between February and August.
01-04-2014, 10:23 AM
(01-04-2014, 08:48 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches.
Exactly. Coaches' most important work is between February and August.
(01-04-2014, 08:48 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches.
Exactly. Coaches' most important work is between February and August.
Amongst the wannabe national champions (perennial top-25) Stanford has 14-0 intellectual talent and 9-5 physical talent. Our closest rival (ND) has 11-3 intellectual talent and 10-4 physical talent. As has been implied above, none of our competitors has 14-0 physical talent. The best (Alabama) is 12-2 at best.
Given that Alabama (or whichever team you think has the best physical talent) is probably no better than 7-7 vis a vis intellectual talent, Stanford should be able to compete against anybody, and has so over the past 5 years. However, when the chips are down (Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014) our coaching staff doesn't seem to have a clue. I think they want to try to prove that we are more physical than we really are (relatively) and forget that we are more intellectual than any of our opponents.
Three yards and a cloud of dust is not what Stanford should be. Coach Shaw is a good one, but he is not Bill Walsh. With the talent we had in 2013, Walsh would have had us playing v. FSU, and we would have embarrassed them, IMVHO....
Given that Alabama (or whichever team you think has the best physical talent) is probably no better than 7-7 vis a vis intellectual talent, Stanford should be able to compete against anybody, and has so over the past 5 years. However, when the chips are down (Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014) our coaching staff doesn't seem to have a clue. I think they want to try to prove that we are more physical than we really are (relatively) and forget that we are more intellectual than any of our opponents.
Three yards and a cloud of dust is not what Stanford should be. Coach Shaw is a good one, but he is not Bill Walsh. With the talent we had in 2013, Walsh would have had us playing v. FSU, and we would have embarrassed them, IMVHO....
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
Amongst the wannabe national champions (perennial top-25) Stanford has 14-0 intellectual talent and 9-5 physical talent. Our closest rival (ND) has 11-3 intellectual talent and 10-4 physical talent. As has been implied above, none of our competitors has 14-0 physical talent. The best (Alabama) is 12-2 at best.
Given that Alabama (or whichever team you think has the best physical talent) is probably no better than 7-7 vis a vis intellectual talent, Stanford should be able to compete against anybody, and has so over the past 5 years. However, when the chips are down (Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014) our coaching staff doesn't seem to have a clue. I think they want to try to prove that we are more physical than we really are (relatively) and forget that we are more intellectual than any of our opponents.
Three yards and a cloud of dust is not what Stanford should be. Coach Shaw is a good one, but he is not Bill Walsh. With the talent we had in 2013, Walsh would have had us playing v. FSU, and we would have embarrassed them, IMVHO....
Given that Alabama (or whichever team you think has the best physical talent) is probably no better than 7-7 vis a vis intellectual talent, Stanford should be able to compete against anybody, and has so over the past 5 years. However, when the chips are down (Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014) our coaching staff doesn't seem to have a clue. I think they want to try to prove that we are more physical than we really are (relatively) and forget that we are more intellectual than any of our opponents.
Three yards and a cloud of dust is not what Stanford should be. Coach Shaw is a good one, but he is not Bill Walsh. With the talent we had in 2013, Walsh would have had us playing v. FSU, and we would have embarrassed them, IMVHO....
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
Amongst the wannabe national champions (perennial top-25) Stanford has 14-0 intellectual talent and 9-5 physical talent. Our closest rival (ND) has 11-3 intellectual talent and 10-4 physical talent. As has been implied above, none of our competitors has 14-0 physical talent. The best (Alabama) is 12-2 at best.
Given that Alabama (or whichever team you think has the best physical talent) is probably no better than 7-7 vis a vis intellectual talent, Stanford should be able to compete against anybody, and has so over the past 5 years. However, when the chips are down (Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014) our coaching staff doesn't seem to have a clue. I think they want to try to prove that we are more physical than we really are (relatively) and forget that we are more intellectual than any of our opponents.
Three yards and a cloud of dust is not what Stanford should be. Coach Shaw is a good one, but he is not Bill Walsh. With the talent we had in 2013, Walsh would have had us playing v. FSU, and we would have embarrassed them, IMVHO....
Given that Alabama (or whichever team you think has the best physical talent) is probably no better than 7-7 vis a vis intellectual talent, Stanford should be able to compete against anybody, and has so over the past 5 years. However, when the chips are down (Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014) our coaching staff doesn't seem to have a clue. I think they want to try to prove that we are more physical than we really are (relatively) and forget that we are more intellectual than any of our opponents.
Three yards and a cloud of dust is not what Stanford should be. Coach Shaw is a good one, but he is not Bill Walsh. With the talent we had in 2013, Walsh would have had us playing v. FSU, and we would have embarrassed them, IMVHO....
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
Amongst the wannabe national champions (perennial top-25) Stanford has 14-0 intellectual talent and 9-5 physical talent. Our closest rival (ND) has 11-3 intellectual talent and 10-4 physical talent. As has been implied above, none of our competitors has 14-0 physical talent. The best (Alabama) is 12-2 at best.
Given that Alabama (or whichever team you think has the best physical talent) is probably no better than 7-7 vis a vis intellectual talent, Stanford should be able to compete against anybody, and has so over the past 5 years. However, when the chips are down (Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014) our coaching staff doesn't seem to have a clue. I think they want to try to prove that we are more physical than we really are (relatively) and forget that we are more intellectual than any of our opponents.
Three yards and a cloud of dust is not what Stanford should be. Coach Shaw is a good one, but he is not Bill Walsh. With the talent we had in 2013, Walsh would have had us playing v. FSU, and we would have embarrassed them, IMVHO....
Given that Alabama (or whichever team you think has the best physical talent) is probably no better than 7-7 vis a vis intellectual talent, Stanford should be able to compete against anybody, and has so over the past 5 years. However, when the chips are down (Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014) our coaching staff doesn't seem to have a clue. I think they want to try to prove that we are more physical than we really are (relatively) and forget that we are more intellectual than any of our opponents.
Three yards and a cloud of dust is not what Stanford should be. Coach Shaw is a good one, but he is not Bill Walsh. With the talent we had in 2013, Walsh would have had us playing v. FSU, and we would have embarrassed them, IMVHO....
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
01-04-2014, 03:03 PM
(01-04-2014, 02:28 PM)Stymie link Wrote:However, when the chips are down (SC 2011, Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Wisconsin 2013, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014, Oregon State 2012, Oregon 2012, 2013, UCLA 2012, ASU 2013), they sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, because they're facing really good teams and that's what happens when good players and teams face other good players and teams -- sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. In fact, with Shaw et al.'s 9-4 ranking against AP Top 25 teams over their career, they've typically gotten it right more often than not.
Fixed that for you!
(Selective samples are not good argumentation's friend.)
(01-04-2014, 02:28 PM)Stymie link Wrote:However, when the chips are down (SC 2011, Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Wisconsin 2013, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014, Oregon State 2012, Oregon 2012, 2013, UCLA 2012, ASU 2013), they sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, because they're facing really good teams and that's what happens when good players and teams face other good players and teams -- sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. In fact, with Shaw et al.'s 9-4 ranking against AP Top 25 teams over their career, they've typically gotten it right more often than not.
Fixed that for you!
(Selective samples are not good argumentation's friend.)
01-04-2014, 03:03 PM
(01-04-2014, 02:28 PM)Stymie link Wrote:However, when the chips are down (SC 2011, Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Wisconsin 2013, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014, Oregon State 2012, Oregon 2012, 2013, UCLA 2012, ASU 2013), they sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, because they're facing really good teams and that's what happens when good players and teams face other good players and teams -- sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. In fact, with Shaw et al.'s 9-4 ranking against AP Top 25 teams over their career, they've typically gotten it right more often than not.
Fixed that for you!
(Selective samples are not good argumentation's friend.)
(01-04-2014, 02:28 PM)Stymie link Wrote:However, when the chips are down (SC 2011, Fiesta Bowl, ND 2012, Wisconsin 2013, Utah/SC 2013, MSU 2014, Oregon State 2012, Oregon 2012, 2013, UCLA 2012, ASU 2013), they sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, because they're facing really good teams and that's what happens when good players and teams face other good players and teams -- sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. In fact, with Shaw et al.'s 9-4 ranking against AP Top 25 teams over their career, they've typically gotten it right more often than not.
Fixed that for you!
(Selective samples are not good argumentation's friend.)
01-04-2014, 03:29 PM
Thanks WIM
Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. We could have easily lost both of those games from a position of dominance, and should never have been struggling late in the 4th quarter. With a more baslanced offence and some creative play calling we could have beaten ND (2012) and Utah/SC (2013) and MSU (2014). What pains me is not that we failed, but that we were so predictable when we callled power and so incompetent when we tried short/medium passes (SC).
Stymie
Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. We could have easily lost both of those games from a position of dominance, and should never have been struggling late in the 4th quarter. With a more baslanced offence and some creative play calling we could have beaten ND (2012) and Utah/SC (2013) and MSU (2014). What pains me is not that we failed, but that we were so predictable when we callled power and so incompetent when we tried short/medium passes (SC).
Stymie
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
Thanks WIM
Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. We could have easily lost both of those games from a position of dominance, and should never have been struggling late in the 4th quarter. With a more baslanced offence and some creative play calling we could have beaten ND (2012) and Utah/SC (2013) and MSU (2014). What pains me is not that we failed, but that we were so predictable when we callled power and so incompetent when we tried short/medium passes (SC).
Stymie
Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. We could have easily lost both of those games from a position of dominance, and should never have been struggling late in the 4th quarter. With a more baslanced offence and some creative play calling we could have beaten ND (2012) and Utah/SC (2013) and MSU (2014). What pains me is not that we failed, but that we were so predictable when we callled power and so incompetent when we tried short/medium passes (SC).
Stymie
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
01-04-2014, 03:29 PM
Thanks WIM
Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. We could have easily lost both of those games from a position of dominance, and should never have been struggling late in the 4th quarter. With a more baslanced offence and some creative play calling we could have beaten ND (2012) and Utah/SC (2013) and MSU (2014). What pains me is not that we failed, but that we were so predictable when we callled power and so incompetent when we tried short/medium passes (SC).
Stymie
Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. We could have easily lost both of those games from a position of dominance, and should never have been struggling late in the 4th quarter. With a more baslanced offence and some creative play calling we could have beaten ND (2012) and Utah/SC (2013) and MSU (2014). What pains me is not that we failed, but that we were so predictable when we callled power and so incompetent when we tried short/medium passes (SC).
Stymie
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
Thanks WIM
Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. We could have easily lost both of those games from a position of dominance, and should never have been struggling late in the 4th quarter. With a more baslanced offence and some creative play calling we could have beaten ND (2012) and Utah/SC (2013) and MSU (2014). What pains me is not that we failed, but that we were so predictable when we callled power and so incompetent when we tried short/medium passes (SC).
Stymie
Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. We could have easily lost both of those games from a position of dominance, and should never have been struggling late in the 4th quarter. With a more baslanced offence and some creative play calling we could have beaten ND (2012) and Utah/SC (2013) and MSU (2014). What pains me is not that we failed, but that we were so predictable when we callled power and so incompetent when we tried short/medium passes (SC).
Stymie
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
01-04-2014, 03:33 PM
(01-04-2014, 03:29 PM)Stymie link Wrote:Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. ...
Your back hurt from carrying those goalposts around?
(01-04-2014, 03:29 PM)Stymie link Wrote:Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. ...
Your back hurt from carrying those goalposts around?
01-04-2014, 03:33 PM
(01-04-2014, 03:29 PM)Stymie link Wrote:Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. ...
Your back hurt from carrying those goalposts around?
(01-04-2014, 03:29 PM)Stymie link Wrote:Of course there have been good times and bad times in the Shaw era, but I doubt that 2013 ASU (v 1.0) or 2013 Oregon will go down in history as a great 60 minutes team/coaching performance. ...
Your back hurt from carrying those goalposts around?
StanFan88
Unregistered
Unregistered
01-05-2014, 03:14 PM
(01-04-2014, 08:48 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting. The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.
I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have. But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same. That's 10-4 coaching.
(01-04-2014, 08:48 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting. The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.
I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have. But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same. That's 10-4 coaching.
StanFan88
Unregistered
Unregistered
01-05-2014, 03:14 PM
(01-04-2014, 08:48 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting. The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.
I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have. But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same. That's 10-4 coaching.
(01-04-2014, 08:48 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:I have a problem with the whole premise of the title of this thread: that a few in game decisions are the sum total of how we should evaluate the coaches. I'm frustrated about questionable offensive calls, but how is it that we don't give the coaches credit for developing the D, or molding the Offensive Line, or recruiting and developing the players. I agree that we had excellent players these last few years, but honestly they didn't come to Stanford ranked as a top-5 class out of High School. We've had only one of those,classes recently, and so far only one of the players from that class, Andrus Peat, is starting. The so-called 14-0 talent has been developed by the very staff being criticized. Our top-notch front 7? Only a smattering of 4-star players in the bunch (Skov, Vaughters, and Leuders, who wasn't even starting) otherwise a lot of guys evaluated as 3-stars, and a walk-on at,nose tackle. The O-line? Even Yankey was a borderline 3/4 star, everyone else but Peat was a 3-star. If anything,the coaches maximize the talent we have. But somehow this has been left out of some people's evaluation of the coaching, including Shaw. The coaches either need to get credit for finding hidden gems, or doing a superior job of evaluating talent that nobody else sees, or both. But without their skill in these areas, we wouldn't even be sniffing the Roses.
I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have. But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same. That's 10-4 coaching.
01-05-2014, 06:46 PM
(01-05-2014, 03:14 PM)StanFan88 link Wrote:I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have. But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same. That's 10-4 coaching.
So, what you seem to be saying is the part of the coaching at which, by your own words, Shaw and his staff excel, recruiting and development of players, doesn't factor into the overall evaluation of their job as coaching. So let's take away the "fantastic job" of recruiting and development. Let's say the coaches are just average in both areas. This is all hypothetical, of course, but I'm guessing we never get to the PAC-12 Championship game, since an average team with average player development never beats Oregon, and probably doesn't beat Washington or UCLA. So exactly how good would we be if you disproportionately weigh the in-game play calling while essentially, despite your nod in your response to the excellent job of recruiting and development? Are we 6-6 and on the bubble for marginal bowls?
I'm not against criticizing play calls made by Shaw and his staff. But I think the overall evaluation of the coaches should include a not more than just a response to one aspect of what a coach does.
(01-05-2014, 03:14 PM)StanFan88 link Wrote:I agree 100% that Shaw and his staff to a fantastic job of recruiting and developing talent, neither of which is easy given the academic standards that other elite programs do not have. But IMnsHO the coaching/playcalling was the primary reason for all three losses, and the OSU game was won in spite of the same. That's 10-4 coaching.
So, what you seem to be saying is the part of the coaching at which, by your own words, Shaw and his staff excel, recruiting and development of players, doesn't factor into the overall evaluation of their job as coaching. So let's take away the "fantastic job" of recruiting and development. Let's say the coaches are just average in both areas. This is all hypothetical, of course, but I'm guessing we never get to the PAC-12 Championship game, since an average team with average player development never beats Oregon, and probably doesn't beat Washington or UCLA. So exactly how good would we be if you disproportionately weigh the in-game play calling while essentially, despite your nod in your response to the excellent job of recruiting and development? Are we 6-6 and on the bubble for marginal bowls?
I'm not against criticizing play calls made by Shaw and his staff. But I think the overall evaluation of the coaches should include a not more than just a response to one aspect of what a coach does.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »