[StanFan88]

has the guts to ask Shaw when he's going to give up the playcalling.  His Red Zone/crunch time playcalling in particular has gotten progressively worse, not better:
- Fiasco Bowl was one series
- '12 Washington & ND it was the fourth quarter/crunch time
- '13 Utah/USC and '14 Rose Bowl it was the entire second half
- '14 USC it was the entire game

[StanFan88]

has the guts to ask Shaw when he's going to give up the playcalling.  His Red Zone/crunch time playcalling in particular has gotten progressively worse, not better:
- Fiasco Bowl was one series
- '12 Washington & ND it was the fourth quarter/crunch time
- '13 Utah/USC and '14 Rose Bowl it was the entire second half
- '14 USC it was the entire game

[yvonne]

You've made your point. Move on.

[yvonne]

You've made your point. Move on.

[76lsjumb]

StanFan88, give my regards to johnnyo53 when you see him...

[76lsjumb]

StanFan88, give my regards to johnnyo53 when you see him...

[Extra Point]

has the guts to ask Shaw when he's going to give up the playcalling.  His Red Zone/crunch time playcalling in particular has gotten progressively worse, not better:
- Fiasco Bowl was one series
- '12 Washington & ND it was the fourth quarter/crunch time
- '13 Utah/U$€ and '14 Rose Bowl it was the entire second half
- '14 U$€ it was the entire game

Do you sometimes get the feeling that you are the only person in the world who can see the obvious?

[Extra Point]

has the guts to ask Shaw when he's going to give up the playcalling.  His Red Zone/crunch time playcalling in particular has gotten progressively worse, not better:
- Fiasco Bowl was one series
- '12 Washington & ND it was the fourth quarter/crunch time
- '13 Utah/U$€ and '14 Rose Bowl it was the entire second half
- '14 U$€ it was the entire game

Do you sometimes get the feeling that you are the only person in the world who can see the obvious?

[fullmetal]

I'm worried Shaw is overthinking his playcalling because he's worried his players can't execute what the rest of us fans think ought to be the right call...

[fullmetal]

I'm worried Shaw is overthinking his playcalling because he's worried his players can't execute what the rest of us fans think ought to be the right call...

[CompSci87]

I'm worried Shaw is overthinking his playcalling because he's worried his players can't execute what the rest of us fans think ought to be the right call...

I interpreted his remark about calling plays the players can execute a different way. I think he was saying he'd sometimes been guilty of calling a play that was great in theory against the opponents' defense, but which in fact the offense hadn't practiced enough to be reliably executed.

[CompSci87]

I'm worried Shaw is overthinking his playcalling because he's worried his players can't execute what the rest of us fans think ought to be the right call...

I interpreted his remark about calling plays the players can execute a different way. I think he was saying he'd sometimes been guilty of calling a play that was great in theory against the opponents' defense, but which in fact the offense hadn't practiced enough to be reliably executed.

[Farm93]

As long as Coach Shaw remains undefeated vs. UCB, I probably won't care too much about individual calls.
Whenever Coach Shaw is coaching Stanford as the defending Pac-12 champs, I definitely won't question individual calls.

Today, Coach Shaw is coaching the two time defending Pac-12 champions and he sports a 3-0 record vs UCB.  That is a glass 99% full scenario IMHO.  For those that are demanding that last 1% be careful because our NEXT coach is unlikely to get that 1% for you and is more likely to bring us back to that 40% full zone.

Start treating Shaw like he should coach this team like a creative top tier NFL coach and then the NFL is likely where we will see Shaw next.  :'(

[Farm93]

As long as Coach Shaw remains undefeated vs. UCB, I probably won't care too much about individual calls.
Whenever Coach Shaw is coaching Stanford as the defending Pac-12 champs, I definitely won't question individual calls.

Today, Coach Shaw is coaching the two time defending Pac-12 champions and he sports a 3-0 record vs UCB.  That is a glass 99% full scenario IMHO.  For those that are demanding that last 1% be careful because our NEXT coach is unlikely to get that 1% for you and is more likely to bring us back to that 40% full zone.

Start treating Shaw like he should coach this team like a creative top tier NFL coach and then the NFL is likely where we will see Shaw next.  :'(

[Leftcoast]

Let's look at Shaw's first three years as a head coach. 

**  Three BCS bowls
**  Overall record 35-8
**  2 top 10 AP finishes (finished 11th the other year)
**  Two time Pac 12 champion
**  Two time Pac 12 coach of the year
**  Covetted by many other Power 5 conference teams plus a handful of NFL teams. 
**  Alumni with unswerving loyalty to Stanford (thus far). 
**  Players excel in the classroom
**  Three top 25 recruiting classes (someone check me on this ...)

I think criticism is fair and warranted with ANY Stanford coach but as Stanford fans we should also keep our criticisms in perspective.  There is no Stanford coach in the 33 years of my fandom that I would rather have right now.

/Stepford Lefty

[Leftcoast]

Let's look at Shaw's first three years as a head coach. 

**  Three BCS bowls
**  Overall record 35-8
**  2 top 10 AP finishes (finished 11th the other year)
**  Two time Pac 12 champion
**  Two time Pac 12 coach of the year
**  Covetted by many other Power 5 conference teams plus a handful of NFL teams. 
**  Alumni with unswerving loyalty to Stanford (thus far). 
**  Players excel in the classroom
**  Three top 25 recruiting classes (someone check me on this ...)

I think criticism is fair and warranted with ANY Stanford coach but as Stanford fans we should also keep our criticisms in perspective.  There is no Stanford coach in the 33 years of my fandom that I would rather have right now.

/Stepford Lefty

[CornFed]

Hear!  Hear!

[CornFed]

Hear!  Hear!

[fullmetal]

No one's asking Shaw to resign!  Good heavens.  But I think even he would admit that any Stanford football team loss has, in part, something to do with his actions.  I do think Shaw is man enough to stop the buck at his desk.  He is the head football coach, and the program wins and loses at his extremely capable hands.  He thinks he can do better, and I'm going to agree with him...that football team was in a winnable game last week, and then something happened.  Film session must have been extremely interesting this week.

[fullmetal]

No one's asking Shaw to resign!  Good heavens.  But I think even he would admit that any Stanford football team loss has, in part, something to do with his actions.  I do think Shaw is man enough to stop the buck at his desk.  He is the head football coach, and the program wins and loses at his extremely capable hands.  He thinks he can do better, and I'm going to agree with him...that football team was in a winnable game last week, and then something happened.  Film session must have been extremely interesting this week.

[doug]

StanFan88 is taking some criticism for his comments, but I share his frustration. For an example, I agreed with Shaw's decision to go for it on 4th down from SC's 3 yard line. But as it became clear that he was going for it, I said aloud: "Now I hope he calls something that gives us a good chance to succeed." I feared he would call the play SC clearly expected -- power run between the tackles, which is exactly what he called. Only today did I learn that it was even worse than I realized. Despite Patrick Skov pile-driving the SC middle linebacker into the end zone earlier for a TD and Remound Wright easily jumping over the pile to gain a couple of yards, Shaw decided to give the ball to a true freshman (Marx) for his first college carry on that 4th and 1 on the goal line. How can that decision possibly be defended as the consciously selected best option? I frankly find it stunning that Shaw could come to the conclusion that was our best option in that situation. And I say that with no aspersion of Marx nor any belief that he will not be a very good player, as he perhaps already is.

My frustration does not boil down to simply "conservative" play calling, as some have criticized Shaw for and to which he appears sensitive and defensive. I suppose I would phrase my frustration as stemming more from a negative approach -- "playing not to lose" or "don't take a chance you don't have to even if you might fool your opponent by taking a chance," which is how I would characterize the 4th down play call in the SC game. What I have gradually come to realize is that I don't enjoy watching Stanford now, at least as we play under Shaw. The losses (SC this year and last; Utah and MSU last year; UW and ND in 2012) were all excruciating to watch. [As a Class of '75, I have suffered through many losses -- I can handle Stanford losing; it is the approach and the reason for the losses that makes them so excruciating.] But many of the wins are also agonizing -- examples just from 2013 are the ASU regular season game, UW, OSU and UO. I had mixed feelings even about the Rose Bowl win over Wisc. On the one hand, I was not sure Stanford would win a Rose Bowl again in my lifetime, so just winning was fun, but the game itself was more frustrating than it was fun to watch, certainly after the 1st quarter. Shaw's philosophy seems to be to do as little as possible to win, and he has won a lot. But his approach leaves a razor-thin margin for error and makes very likely that a game will be decided by just a couple of late plays (a slip in the end zone or a blocked or missed FG for a loss, or a nice bootleg or late INT for a win) even against an inferior opponent. Winning is certainly more fun than losing, and I understand winning is the prime directive for a head coach. But this is supposed to be fun and entertaining, and it isn't for me anymore. 

[doug]

StanFan88 is taking some criticism for his comments, but I share his frustration. For an example, I agreed with Shaw's decision to go for it on 4th down from SC's 3 yard line. But as it became clear that he was going for it, I said aloud: "Now I hope he calls something that gives us a good chance to succeed." I feared he would call the play SC clearly expected -- power run between the tackles, which is exactly what he called. Only today did I learn that it was even worse than I realized. Despite Patrick Skov pile-driving the SC middle linebacker into the end zone earlier for a TD and Remound Wright easily jumping over the pile to gain a couple of yards, Shaw decided to give the ball to a true freshman (Marx) for his first college carry on that 4th and 1 on the goal line. How can that decision possibly be defended as the consciously selected best option? I frankly find it stunning that Shaw could come to the conclusion that was our best option in that situation. And I say that with no aspersion of Marx nor any belief that he will not be a very good player, as he perhaps already is.

My frustration does not boil down to simply "conservative" play calling, as some have criticized Shaw for and to which he appears sensitive and defensive. I suppose I would phrase my frustration as stemming more from a negative approach -- "playing not to lose" or "don't take a chance you don't have to even if you might fool your opponent by taking a chance," which is how I would characterize the 4th down play call in the SC game. What I have gradually come to realize is that I don't enjoy watching Stanford now, at least as we play under Shaw. The losses (SC this year and last; Utah and MSU last year; UW and ND in 2012) were all excruciating to watch. [As a Class of '75, I have suffered through many losses -- I can handle Stanford losing; it is the approach and the reason for the losses that makes them so excruciating.] But many of the wins are also agonizing -- examples just from 2013 are the ASU regular season game, UW, OSU and UO. I had mixed feelings even about the Rose Bowl win over Wisc. On the one hand, I was not sure Stanford would win a Rose Bowl again in my lifetime, so just winning was fun, but the game itself was more frustrating than it was fun to watch, certainly after the 1st quarter. Shaw's philosophy seems to be to do as little as possible to win, and he has won a lot. But his approach leaves a razor-thin margin for error and makes very likely that a game will be decided by just a couple of late plays (a slip in the end zone or a blocked or missed FG for a loss, or a nice bootleg or late INT for a win) even against an inferior opponent. Winning is certainly more fun than losing, and I understand winning is the prime directive for a head coach. But this is supposed to be fun and entertaining, and it isn't for me anymore. 

[Farm93]

No one's asking Shaw to resign! 

Right, but fielding gripes and talking with dissatisfied alums can get annoying.

I remember after the 2009 Stanford USC game I was stuck in South Central traffic, so I elected to listen to the USC radio station.  The calls for Carroll to do more were silly.  Oh, you'd have thought they were 0-11.  How could he let THAT happen?  Didn't he have a Plan B?  The team has too much talent to not perform better.  None of the callers was saying he needed to go, and yet I have to believe that since he was getting treated like an NFL coach he decided he might as well become an NFL coach.

So those that expect Shaw to develop fully baked alternate game plans, all while complying with the NCAA practice limits, should just be careful.  Even if Shaw wanted to do some of those things, the NCAA practice limits makes that challenging.  However in the NFL he likely could show all of the doubters just what he can do with more time with the players....just like Carroll has done.

Just sayin'

[Farm93]

No one's asking Shaw to resign! 

Right, but fielding gripes and talking with dissatisfied alums can get annoying.

I remember after the 2009 Stanford USC game I was stuck in South Central traffic, so I elected to listen to the USC radio station.  The calls for Carroll to do more were silly.  Oh, you'd have thought they were 0-11.  How could he let THAT happen?  Didn't he have a Plan B?  The team has too much talent to not perform better.  None of the callers was saying he needed to go, and yet I have to believe that since he was getting treated like an NFL coach he decided he might as well become an NFL coach.

So those that expect Shaw to develop fully baked alternate game plans, all while complying with the NCAA practice limits, should just be careful.  Even if Shaw wanted to do some of those things, the NCAA practice limits makes that challenging.  However in the NFL he likely could show all of the doubters just what he can do with more time with the players....just like Carroll has done.

Just sayin'

[Rally]

Let's look at Shaw's first three years as a head coach. 

**  Three BCS bowls
**  Overall record 35-8
**  2 top 10 AP finishes (finished 11th the other year)
**  Two time Pac 12 champion
**  Two time Pac 12 coach of the year
**  Covetted by many other Power 5 conference teams plus a handful of NFL teams. 
**  Alumni with unswerving loyalty to Stanford (thus far). 
**  Players excel in the classroom
**  Three top 25 recruiting classes (someone check me on this ...)

I think criticism is fair and warranted with ANY Stanford coach but as Stanford fans we should also keep our criticisms in perspective.  There is no Stanford coach in the 33 years of my fandom that I would rather have right now.

/Stepford Lefty

Agree.

[Rally]

Let's look at Shaw's first three years as a head coach. 

**  Three BCS bowls
**  Overall record 35-8
**  2 top 10 AP finishes (finished 11th the other year)
**  Two time Pac 12 champion
**  Two time Pac 12 coach of the year
**  Covetted by many other Power 5 conference teams plus a handful of NFL teams. 
**  Alumni with unswerving loyalty to Stanford (thus far). 
**  Players excel in the classroom
**  Three top 25 recruiting classes (someone check me on this ...)

I think criticism is fair and warranted with ANY Stanford coach but as Stanford fans we should also keep our criticisms in perspective.  There is no Stanford coach in the 33 years of my fandom that I would rather have right now.

/Stepford Lefty

Agree.

[StanFan88]

StanFan88, give my regards to johnnyo53 when you see him...

Give me a break.  Unlike johnnyo:
- I don't want Shaw to be fired.  I just want him to delegate
- I think Williamson is a good kicker overall
- I don't type everything in all caps
- I think Hogan is a good QB

He and I agree ONLY that Shaw needs to give up the playcalling, because when it comes to the red zone and crunch time, he is getting worse not better.

[StanFan88]

StanFan88, give my regards to johnnyo53 when you see him...

Give me a break.  Unlike johnnyo:
- I don't want Shaw to be fired.  I just want him to delegate
- I think Williamson is a good kicker overall
- I don't type everything in all caps
- I think Hogan is a good QB

He and I agree ONLY that Shaw needs to give up the playcalling, because when it comes to the red zone and crunch time, he is getting worse not better.

[76lsjumb]

- I don't type everything in all caps

Touche... And worth a thumbs up.  :)

[76lsjumb]

- I don't type everything in all caps

Touche... And worth a thumbs up.  :)

[cardcoug]

There's another thing I think people should keep in mind when criticizing Shaw's play calling. With the exception of the Oregon game in 2011, every Stanford loss has been extremely close, and we had a definite chance to win the game in the fourth quarter. The only reason anybody ever nitpicks play calls is because the game was so close that it is easy to isolate small things here or there (or, as with last saturday, everywhere and anywhere) that could have made the difference. Contrast that with virtually every other team, all of which are likely to suffer several losses each year by a relatively large margin, causing their fans to worry about whether they have the right personnel or system in place. With the one previously noted exception, a David Shaw coached team has never been thoroughly outclassed on the field. He deserves a LOT of credit for that, perhaps even more than for the wins and the championships.

Having said all that... I really don't understand punting from the 29. Ever. No matter how you calculate it, it simply doesn't make sense. I hope that doesn't happen again.

[cardcoug]

There's another thing I think people should keep in mind when criticizing Shaw's play calling. With the exception of the Oregon game in 2011, every Stanford loss has been extremely close, and we had a definite chance to win the game in the fourth quarter. The only reason anybody ever nitpicks play calls is because the game was so close that it is easy to isolate small things here or there (or, as with last saturday, everywhere and anywhere) that could have made the difference. Contrast that with virtually every other team, all of which are likely to suffer several losses each year by a relatively large margin, causing their fans to worry about whether they have the right personnel or system in place. With the one previously noted exception, a David Shaw coached team has never been thoroughly outclassed on the field. He deserves a LOT of credit for that, perhaps even more than for the wins and the championships.

Having said all that... I really don't understand punting from the 29. Ever. No matter how you calculate it, it simply doesn't make sense. I hope that doesn't happen again.

[StanFan88]

With the one previously noted exception, a David Shaw coached team has never been thoroughly outclassed on the field.

Not sure if you meant outclassed or outcoached.  If you really meant outclasses, I think that's never happened.  If you really meant outcoached, I would disagree.  Shaw was outcoached at least three times last year alone - Utah, Washington, and the Rose Bowl.  While Stanford did win against Washington, it was only due to special teams.  He could not solve Wilcox's defense (true again this year), and UW rang up a lot of yardage on offense.

I also think that sometimes Shaw outcoaches himself - Oregon State '13, USC '13, ND '12.

You might argue that Shaw has also had some outcoaching achievements as well - Oregon '13, ASU '13 (twice) - but in a lot of cases victories were the result of having superior personnel.  However, in most of those cases, Shaw outcoaching the opponent happened because he came into the game with a superior gameplan.  I cannot remember him adjusting the gameplan in a substantive way and turning a game around and winning - especially on offense.  It's probably happened, but I just don't recall one.

[StanFan88]

With the one previously noted exception, a David Shaw coached team has never been thoroughly outclassed on the field.

Not sure if you meant outclassed or outcoached.  If you really meant outclasses, I think that's never happened.  If you really meant outcoached, I would disagree.  Shaw was outcoached at least three times last year alone - Utah, Washington, and the Rose Bowl.  While Stanford did win against Washington, it was only due to special teams.  He could not solve Wilcox's defense (true again this year), and UW rang up a lot of yardage on offense.

I also think that sometimes Shaw outcoaches himself - Oregon State '13, USC '13, ND '12.

You might argue that Shaw has also had some outcoaching achievements as well - Oregon '13, ASU '13 (twice) - but in a lot of cases victories were the result of having superior personnel.  However, in most of those cases, Shaw outcoaching the opponent happened because he came into the game with a superior gameplan.  I cannot remember him adjusting the gameplan in a substantive way and turning a game around and winning - especially on offense.  It's probably happened, but I just don't recall one.

[Papa John]

You might argue that Shaw has also had some outcoaching achievements as well - Oregon '13, ASU '13 (twice) - but in a lot of cases victories were the result of having superior personnel.  However, in most of those cases, Shaw outcoaching the opponent happened because he came into the game with a superior gameplan.  I cannot remember him adjusting the gameplan in a substantive way and turning a game around and winning - especially on offense.  It's probably happened, but I just don't recall one.

I would remind you, then, of the Colorado game in 2012. While most folks were screaming for Nottingham, Shaw brought in Hogan and turned around that game (Stanford did not score an offensive TD until Hogan came into the game) and the season.

[Papa John]

You might argue that Shaw has also had some outcoaching achievements as well - Oregon '13, ASU '13 (twice) - but in a lot of cases victories were the result of having superior personnel.  However, in most of those cases, Shaw outcoaching the opponent happened because he came into the game with a superior gameplan.  I cannot remember him adjusting the gameplan in a substantive way and turning a game around and winning - especially on offense.  It's probably happened, but I just don't recall one.

I would remind you, then, of the Colorado game in 2012. While most folks were screaming for Nottingham, Shaw brought in Hogan and turned around that game (Stanford did not score an offensive TD until Hogan came into the game) and the season.

[oman]

Let's look at Shaw's first three years as a head coach. 

**  Three BCS bowls
**  Overall record 35-8
**  2 top 10 AP finishes (finished 11th the other year)
**  Two time Pac 12 champion
**  Two time Pac 12 coach of the year
**  Covetted by many other Power 5 conference teams plus a handful of NFL teams. 
**  Alumni with unswerving loyalty to Stanford (thus far). 
**  Players excel in the classroom
**  Three top 25 recruiting classes (someone check me on this ...)

I think criticism is fair and warranted with ANY Stanford coach but as Stanford fans we should also keep our criticisms in perspective.  There is no Stanford coach in the 33 years of my fandom that I would rather have right now.

Great is the enemy of super fantastic.

[oman]

Let's look at Shaw's first three years as a head coach. 

**  Three BCS bowls
**  Overall record 35-8
**  2 top 10 AP finishes (finished 11th the other year)
**  Two time Pac 12 champion
**  Two time Pac 12 coach of the year
**  Covetted by many other Power 5 conference teams plus a handful of NFL teams. 
**  Alumni with unswerving loyalty to Stanford (thus far). 
**  Players excel in the classroom
**  Three top 25 recruiting classes (someone check me on this ...)

I think criticism is fair and warranted with ANY Stanford coach but as Stanford fans we should also keep our criticisms in perspective.  There is no Stanford coach in the 33 years of my fandom that I would rather have right now.

Great is the enemy of super fantastic.

[washingtonismoney]

The big problem with assessing coaching on a game-by-game basis is ignoring that the vast majority of what a coach does is in-between games. Deflating Shaw's overall coaching accomplishments by saying he has superior personnel ignores the fact that he plays the principal role in acquiring and developing that personnel in the first place.*

Mike Riley is a good in-game coach but hasn't won as much as Shaw. Some of the reasons for that are outside his control, but the fact remains that Shaw's a better coach than Riley.

* (Like, let's take SC, and let's say you believe Stanford had superior talent and therefore ought to have won. Well, then: Montgomery, low-four-star; Cajuste, three-star; Rector, low-ranked three star; Hooper, borderline four-star/three-star but rated as a DE...and so on. Making it seem like the talent is equivalent or superior to SC's is acknowledging that some unseen talent either systematically acquired underrated talent, or developed it better, or some combination of both. Perhaps we might call that talent a "coach.")

[washingtonismoney]

The big problem with assessing coaching on a game-by-game basis is ignoring that the vast majority of what a coach does is in-between games. Deflating Shaw's overall coaching accomplishments by saying he has superior personnel ignores the fact that he plays the principal role in acquiring and developing that personnel in the first place.*

Mike Riley is a good in-game coach but hasn't won as much as Shaw. Some of the reasons for that are outside his control, but the fact remains that Shaw's a better coach than Riley.

* (Like, let's take SC, and let's say you believe Stanford had superior talent and therefore ought to have won. Well, then: Montgomery, low-four-star; Cajuste, three-star; Rector, low-ranked three star; Hooper, borderline four-star/three-star but rated as a DE...and so on. Making it seem like the talent is equivalent or superior to SC's is acknowledging that some unseen talent either systematically acquired underrated talent, or developed it better, or some combination of both. Perhaps we might call that talent a "coach.")