[BostonCard]

Shaw achieved that success with teams Harbaugh built.  After Harbaugh left, the question was whether Shaw could continue his predecessor's success.  He did, for a while - until last year.  Then the question became whether Shaw's players could sustain the success achieved by Harbaugh's players.  Saturday's game was certainly not promising.

Fact of the matter is nobody has any idea whether Shaw can be successful with a program he built himself.  This season will go a long way toward answering that question.

Over the last 30 years, there have been 10 seasons as good or better than our 8-5 record of last year, and Shaw has three of them (Harbaugh has two, Willingham two, Walsh, Green, and Elway each have one).  An 8-5 season looks like it is the "end of success" because we have recallibrated success to mean 10-win seasons, something that prior to Harbaugh (who did it once) and Shaw (who got there three times) had been accomplished exactly three times in the history of Stanford football [to be fair, they played fewer games back then, but the number of seasons with three or fewer losses could be counted on one hand since Ralston].  By almost any historical measure, an 8-5 season would be considered very good.

BC

[BostonCard]

Shaw achieved that success with teams Harbaugh built.  After Harbaugh left, the question was whether Shaw could continue his predecessor's success.  He did, for a while - until last year.  Then the question became whether Shaw's players could sustain the success achieved by Harbaugh's players.  Saturday's game was certainly not promising.

Fact of the matter is nobody has any idea whether Shaw can be successful with a program he built himself.  This season will go a long way toward answering that question.

Over the last 30 years, there have been 10 seasons as good or better than our 8-5 record of last year, and Shaw has three of them (Harbaugh has two, Willingham two, Walsh, Green, and Elway each have one).  An 8-5 season looks like it is the "end of success" because we have recallibrated success to mean 10-win seasons, something that prior to Harbaugh (who did it once) and Shaw (who got there three times) had been accomplished exactly three times in the history of Stanford football [to be fair, they played fewer games back then, but the number of seasons with three or fewer losses could be counted on one hand since Ralston].  By almost any historical measure, an 8-5 season would be considered very good.

BC

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Over the last 30 years, there have been 10 seasons as good or better than our 8-5 record of last year, and Shaw has three of them (Harbaugh has two, Willingham two, Walsh, Green, and Elway each have one).  An 8-5 season looks like it is the "end of success" because we have recallibrated success to mean 10-win seasons, something that prior to Harbaugh (who did it once) and Shaw (who got there three times) had been accomplished exactly three times in the history of Stanford football [to be fair, they played fewer games back then, but the number of seasons with three or fewer losses could be counted on one hand since Ralston].  By almost any historical measure, an 8-5 season would be considered very good.

BC

Let me ask you this: would you, as a Stanford fan, be ok with returning to a state where 8-5 and a mediocre bowl is considered a success?  Or now that it's been proven that football success can not only be achieved at Stanford, but sustained - is it time to raise the standard?

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Over the last 30 years, there have been 10 seasons as good or better than our 8-5 record of last year, and Shaw has three of them (Harbaugh has two, Willingham two, Walsh, Green, and Elway each have one).  An 8-5 season looks like it is the "end of success" because we have recallibrated success to mean 10-win seasons, something that prior to Harbaugh (who did it once) and Shaw (who got there three times) had been accomplished exactly three times in the history of Stanford football [to be fair, they played fewer games back then, but the number of seasons with three or fewer losses could be counted on one hand since Ralston].  By almost any historical measure, an 8-5 season would be considered very good.

BC

Let me ask you this: would you, as a Stanford fan, be ok with returning to a state where 8-5 and a mediocre bowl is considered a success?  Or now that it's been proven that football success can not only be achieved at Stanford, but sustained - is it time to raise the standard?

[CornFed]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12672.msg127298#msg127298 date=1441691460]Over the last 30 years, there have been 10 seasons as good or better than our 8-5 record of last year, and Shaw has three of them (Harbaugh has two, Willingham two, Walsh, Green, and Elway each have one).  An 8-5 season looks like it is the "end of success" because we have recallibrated success to mean 10-win seasons, something that prior to Harbaugh (who did it once) and Shaw (who got there three times) had been accomplished exactly three times in the history of Stanford football [to be fair, they played fewer games back then, but the number of seasons with three or fewer losses could be counted on one hand since Ralston].  By almost any historical measure, an 8-5 season would be considered very good.

BC

Let me ask you this: would you, as a Stanford fan, be ok with returning to a state where 8-5 and a mediocre bowl is considered a success?  Or now that it's been proven that football success can not only be achieved at Stanford, but sustained - is it time to raise the standard?
[/quote]

I'm quite skeptical that "sustained" is a proven capability at this point.

[CornFed]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12672.msg127298#msg127298 date=1441691460]Over the last 30 years, there have been 10 seasons as good or better than our 8-5 record of last year, and Shaw has three of them (Harbaugh has two, Willingham two, Walsh, Green, and Elway each have one).  An 8-5 season looks like it is the "end of success" because we have recallibrated success to mean 10-win seasons, something that prior to Harbaugh (who did it once) and Shaw (who got there three times) had been accomplished exactly three times in the history of Stanford football [to be fair, they played fewer games back then, but the number of seasons with three or fewer losses could be counted on one hand since Ralston].  By almost any historical measure, an 8-5 season would be considered very good.

BC

Let me ask you this: would you, as a Stanford fan, be ok with returning to a state where 8-5 and a mediocre bowl is considered a success?  Or now that it's been proven that football success can not only be achieved at Stanford, but sustained - is it time to raise the standard?
[/quote]

I'm quite skeptical that "sustained" is a proven capability at this point.

[BostonCard]

If 8-5 is a coach's worst season, then I want him to coach for life.

Obviously I would not be happy if 8-5 was the ceiling for Stanford football, for exactly the reason you mentioned.  But I also think if 8-5 is considered a failure or even a disappointment we've completely lost perspective.  I'm all for raising the standard, but even during our extended run of 10-win seasons and back-to-back Rose Bowls, I savored every one because I knew it might be a decade before we would get back.

BC

[BostonCard]

If 8-5 is a coach's worst season, then I want him to coach for life.

Obviously I would not be happy if 8-5 was the ceiling for Stanford football, for exactly the reason you mentioned.  But I also think if 8-5 is considered a failure or even a disappointment we've completely lost perspective.  I'm all for raising the standard, but even during our extended run of 10-win seasons and back-to-back Rose Bowls, I savored every one because I knew it might be a decade before we would get back.

BC

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

If 8-5 is a coach's worst season, then I want him to coach for life.

Obviously I would not be happy if 8-5 was the ceiling for Stanford football, for exactly the reason you mentioned.  But I also think if 8-5 is considered a failure or even a disappointment we've completely lost perspective.  I'm all for raising the standard, but even during our extended run of 10-win seasons and back-to-back Rose Bowls, I savored every one because I knew it might be a decade before we would get back.

BC

8-5 is seen as something more dire than an aberration precisely for the reason I stated - Shaw has yet to prove he can build and sustain an elite program.  If Michigan State were to go 8-5 this year it would be seen as a disappointing hiccup, but nobody would be calling for Dantonio's head.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

If 8-5 is a coach's worst season, then I want him to coach for life.

Obviously I would not be happy if 8-5 was the ceiling for Stanford football, for exactly the reason you mentioned.  But I also think if 8-5 is considered a failure or even a disappointment we've completely lost perspective.  I'm all for raising the standard, but even during our extended run of 10-win seasons and back-to-back Rose Bowls, I savored every one because I knew it might be a decade before we would get back.

BC

8-5 is seen as something more dire than an aberration precisely for the reason I stated - Shaw has yet to prove he can build and sustain an elite program.  If Michigan State were to go 8-5 this year it would be seen as a disappointing hiccup, but nobody would be calling for Dantonio's head.

[yvonne]

Be careful what you wish for, Passion. In Stanford's history since Ralston, two things have happened: the coach has been awful and has been fired, or the coach has had a modicum of success and sought greener pastures. The only exception I can think of was Willingham, who stayed for seven years before seeking the big paycheck. Finding a good coach has not been easy. A coach who wins elsewhere is not always going to win at his next gig, and most coaches find Stanford's admissions to be a detriment, rather than an asset.

[yvonne]

Be careful what you wish for, Passion. In Stanford's history since Ralston, two things have happened: the coach has been awful and has been fired, or the coach has had a modicum of success and sought greener pastures. The only exception I can think of was Willingham, who stayed for seven years before seeking the big paycheck. Finding a good coach has not been easy. A coach who wins elsewhere is not always going to win at his next gig, and most coaches find Stanford's admissions to be a detriment, rather than an asset.

[BostonCard]

Dantonio is an interesting example.  His third season as head coach at Michigan State he posted a 6-7 season (after 7-6 and 9-4 seasons).  It would have been easy to look at it as a brobdingnagian step backwards (I don't see anything in his coaching at Cincinati 7-5, 4-7, 7-5 seasons that would have made me certain that he would succeed).  He followed that up with back to back 11 win seasons... then had a 7-6 season which might have been viewed as him being incapable of sustaining the success.  Then he had a 13-1 Rose Bowl winning season and an 11-2 Cotton Bowl season.

In other words, Dantonio twice had hiccups that were worse than 8-5.  I don't follow Michigan State football closely so I have no idea if they were calling for his head in either one, but I should hope that no one is calling for Shaw's head after an 8-5 season.  It constantly amazes me how much people are willing to dismiss three consecutive ten plus win seasons (something that has never been done at Stanford) back-to-back conference championships/Rose Bowls and cite an 8-5 season as evidence that Shaw is incapable of sustaining greatness.

Shaw may or may not succeed over the long term at Stanford.  Maybe the bottom will fall out this season and he will follow it up with several consecutive losing seasons.  But unless and until that happens, I think his accomplishments to date have earned him at least a modicum of goodwill from us "fans" and maybe even the benefit of the doubt that he will be able to continue our tradition of success.  Because if 8-5 is considered "dire" than I hope we are routinely in dire straights.

BC

[BostonCard]

Dantonio is an interesting example.  His third season as head coach at Michigan State he posted a 6-7 season (after 7-6 and 9-4 seasons).  It would have been easy to look at it as a brobdingnagian step backwards (I don't see anything in his coaching at Cincinati 7-5, 4-7, 7-5 seasons that would have made me certain that he would succeed).  He followed that up with back to back 11 win seasons... then had a 7-6 season which might have been viewed as him being incapable of sustaining the success.  Then he had a 13-1 Rose Bowl winning season and an 11-2 Cotton Bowl season.

In other words, Dantonio twice had hiccups that were worse than 8-5.  I don't follow Michigan State football closely so I have no idea if they were calling for his head in either one, but I should hope that no one is calling for Shaw's head after an 8-5 season.  It constantly amazes me how much people are willing to dismiss three consecutive ten plus win seasons (something that has never been done at Stanford) back-to-back conference championships/Rose Bowls and cite an 8-5 season as evidence that Shaw is incapable of sustaining greatness.

Shaw may or may not succeed over the long term at Stanford.  Maybe the bottom will fall out this season and he will follow it up with several consecutive losing seasons.  But unless and until that happens, I think his accomplishments to date have earned him at least a modicum of goodwill from us "fans" and maybe even the benefit of the doubt that he will be able to continue our tradition of success.  Because if 8-5 is considered "dire" than I hope we are routinely in dire straights.

BC

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Dantonio is an interesting example.  His third season as head coach at Michigan State he posted a 6-7 season (after 7-6 and 9-4 seasons).  It would have been easy to look at it as a of exceedingly large proportions step backwards (I don't see anything in his coaching at Cincinati 7-5, 4-7, 7-5 seasons that would have made me certain that he would succeed).  He followed that up with back to back 11 win seasons... then had a 7-6 season which might have been viewed as him being incapable of sustaining the success.  Then he had a 13-1 Rose Bowl winning season and an 11-2 Cotton Bowl season.

In other words, Dantonio twice had hiccups that were worse than 8-5.  I don't follow Michigan State football closely so I have no idea if they were calling for his head in either one, but I should hope that no one is calling for Shaw's head after an 8-5 season.  It constantly amazes me how much people are willing to dismiss three consecutive ten plus win seasons (something that has never been done at Stanford) back-to-back conference championships/Rose Bowls and cite an 8-5 season as evidence that Shaw is incapable of sustaining greatness.

Shaw may or may not succeed over the long term at Stanford.  Maybe the bottom will fall out this season and he will follow it up with several consecutive losing seasons.  But unless and until that happens, I think his accomplishments to date have earned him at least a modicum of goodwill from us "fans" and maybe even the benefit of the doubt that he will be able to continue our tradition of success.  Because if 8-5 is considered "dire" than I hope we are routinely in dire straights.

BC

The difference is Dantonio took over a Michigan State team that had gone a combined 14-21 over the preceding three seasons, not one that his predecessor had built into a national power.  He also wasn't given the best quarterback in the country.  Shaw took over a program that was ready to win NOW, and to his credit, they won.

And please, let me be clear - I haven't said that Shaw can't sustain success.  I have said that he has yet to prove that he can.  I don't exactly think that that's a very outlandish statement.  Also, continuing to say that Shaw has done something Harbaugh wasn't able to do is strange to me.  Harbaugh inherited a 1-win team.  Shaw inherited an NFL team coming off an Orange Bowl win.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Dantonio is an interesting example.  His third season as head coach at Michigan State he posted a 6-7 season (after 7-6 and 9-4 seasons).  It would have been easy to look at it as a of exceedingly large proportions step backwards (I don't see anything in his coaching at Cincinati 7-5, 4-7, 7-5 seasons that would have made me certain that he would succeed).  He followed that up with back to back 11 win seasons... then had a 7-6 season which might have been viewed as him being incapable of sustaining the success.  Then he had a 13-1 Rose Bowl winning season and an 11-2 Cotton Bowl season.

In other words, Dantonio twice had hiccups that were worse than 8-5.  I don't follow Michigan State football closely so I have no idea if they were calling for his head in either one, but I should hope that no one is calling for Shaw's head after an 8-5 season.  It constantly amazes me how much people are willing to dismiss three consecutive ten plus win seasons (something that has never been done at Stanford) back-to-back conference championships/Rose Bowls and cite an 8-5 season as evidence that Shaw is incapable of sustaining greatness.

Shaw may or may not succeed over the long term at Stanford.  Maybe the bottom will fall out this season and he will follow it up with several consecutive losing seasons.  But unless and until that happens, I think his accomplishments to date have earned him at least a modicum of goodwill from us "fans" and maybe even the benefit of the doubt that he will be able to continue our tradition of success.  Because if 8-5 is considered "dire" than I hope we are routinely in dire straights.

BC

The difference is Dantonio took over a Michigan State team that had gone a combined 14-21 over the preceding three seasons, not one that his predecessor had built into a national power.  He also wasn't given the best quarterback in the country.  Shaw took over a program that was ready to win NOW, and to his credit, they won.

And please, let me be clear - I haven't said that Shaw can't sustain success.  I have said that he has yet to prove that he can.  I don't exactly think that that's a very outlandish statement.  Also, continuing to say that Shaw has done something Harbaugh wasn't able to do is strange to me.  Harbaugh inherited a 1-win team.  Shaw inherited an NFL team coming off an Orange Bowl win.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12672.msg127312#msg127312 date=1441694470]
Dantonio is an interesting example.  His third season as head coach at Michigan State he posted a 6-7 season (after 7-6 and 9-4 seasons).  It would have been easy to look at it as a of exceedingly large proportions step backwards (I don't see anything in his coaching at Cincinati 7-5, 4-7, 7-5 seasons that would have made me certain that he would succeed).  He followed that up with back to back 11 win seasons... then had a 7-6 season which might have been viewed as him being incapable of sustaining the success.  Then he had a 13-1 Rose Bowl winning season and an 11-2 Cotton Bowl season.

In other words, Dantonio twice had hiccups that were worse than 8-5.  I don't follow Michigan State football closely so I have no idea if they were calling for his head in either one, but I should hope that no one is calling for Shaw's head after an 8-5 season.  It constantly amazes me how much people are willing to dismiss three consecutive ten plus win seasons (something that has never been done at Stanford) back-to-back conference championships/Rose Bowls and cite an 8-5 season as evidence that Shaw is incapable of sustaining greatness.

Shaw may or may not succeed over the long term at Stanford.  Maybe the bottom will fall out this season and he will follow it up with several consecutive losing seasons.  But unless and until that happens, I think his accomplishments to date have earned him at least a modicum of goodwill from us "fans" and maybe even the benefit of the doubt that he will be able to continue our tradition of success.  Because if 8-5 is considered "dire" than I hope we are routinely in dire straights.

BC

The difference is Dantonio took over a Michigan State team that had gone a combined 14-21 over the preceding three seasons, not one that his predecessor had built into a national power.  He also wasn't given the best quarterback in the country.  Shaw took over a program that was ready to win NOW, and to his credit, they won.

And please, let me be clear - I haven't said that Shaw can't sustain success.  I have said that he has yet to prove that he can.  I don't exactly think that that's a very outlandish statement.  Also, continuing to say that Shaw has done something Harbaugh wasn't able to do is strange to me.  Harbaugh inherited a 1-win team.  Shaw inherited an NFL team coming off an Orange Bowl win.
[/quote]

Shaw had the best QB in the country for one year; he went on to win two Pac-12 Championships without him. I didn't continue to mention Harbaugh (the only time I mentioned him was to note that he was one of the coaches who had 10-win seasons before Shaw, and one of the few to have an 8-5 or better season).  I think any comparison of Harbaugh and Shaw is silly because it's not like we got rid of Harbaugh to hire Shaw.  I will always be thankful for what Harbaugh did, and my praise of what Shaw has accomplished is not meant in any way to disparage Harbaugh.

But ultimately, it is Shaw (not Harbaugh) who has been coaching us the last four seasons, and he deserves to be credited for the successes. Surely had we not had the success we have had Shaw would have gotten the blame.  Even if you are not fully sold on Shaw and consider him "unproven" given what he inherited, I would hardly consider an 8-5 season at Stanford grounds to sound the alarm.  As I said, I think he has earned at least a modicum of goodwill and maybe even the benefit of the doubt that he will be able to continue our tradition of success, at least until he shows otherwise.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12672.msg127312#msg127312 date=1441694470]
Dantonio is an interesting example.  His third season as head coach at Michigan State he posted a 6-7 season (after 7-6 and 9-4 seasons).  It would have been easy to look at it as a of exceedingly large proportions step backwards (I don't see anything in his coaching at Cincinati 7-5, 4-7, 7-5 seasons that would have made me certain that he would succeed).  He followed that up with back to back 11 win seasons... then had a 7-6 season which might have been viewed as him being incapable of sustaining the success.  Then he had a 13-1 Rose Bowl winning season and an 11-2 Cotton Bowl season.

In other words, Dantonio twice had hiccups that were worse than 8-5.  I don't follow Michigan State football closely so I have no idea if they were calling for his head in either one, but I should hope that no one is calling for Shaw's head after an 8-5 season.  It constantly amazes me how much people are willing to dismiss three consecutive ten plus win seasons (something that has never been done at Stanford) back-to-back conference championships/Rose Bowls and cite an 8-5 season as evidence that Shaw is incapable of sustaining greatness.

Shaw may or may not succeed over the long term at Stanford.  Maybe the bottom will fall out this season and he will follow it up with several consecutive losing seasons.  But unless and until that happens, I think his accomplishments to date have earned him at least a modicum of goodwill from us "fans" and maybe even the benefit of the doubt that he will be able to continue our tradition of success.  Because if 8-5 is considered "dire" than I hope we are routinely in dire straights.

BC

The difference is Dantonio took over a Michigan State team that had gone a combined 14-21 over the preceding three seasons, not one that his predecessor had built into a national power.  He also wasn't given the best quarterback in the country.  Shaw took over a program that was ready to win NOW, and to his credit, they won.

And please, let me be clear - I haven't said that Shaw can't sustain success.  I have said that he has yet to prove that he can.  I don't exactly think that that's a very outlandish statement.  Also, continuing to say that Shaw has done something Harbaugh wasn't able to do is strange to me.  Harbaugh inherited a 1-win team.  Shaw inherited an NFL team coming off an Orange Bowl win.
[/quote]

Shaw had the best QB in the country for one year; he went on to win two Pac-12 Championships without him. I didn't continue to mention Harbaugh (the only time I mentioned him was to note that he was one of the coaches who had 10-win seasons before Shaw, and one of the few to have an 8-5 or better season).  I think any comparison of Harbaugh and Shaw is silly because it's not like we got rid of Harbaugh to hire Shaw.  I will always be thankful for what Harbaugh did, and my praise of what Shaw has accomplished is not meant in any way to disparage Harbaugh.

But ultimately, it is Shaw (not Harbaugh) who has been coaching us the last four seasons, and he deserves to be credited for the successes. Surely had we not had the success we have had Shaw would have gotten the blame.  Even if you are not fully sold on Shaw and consider him "unproven" given what he inherited, I would hardly consider an 8-5 season at Stanford grounds to sound the alarm.  As I said, I think he has earned at least a modicum of goodwill and maybe even the benefit of the doubt that he will be able to continue our tradition of success, at least until he shows otherwise.

BC

[winflop]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12672.msg127275#msg127275 date=1441683951]
I notice you left out 2014, when the 49ers were 25th in the NFL in ppg.  I also note you chose to highlight ppg rather than total offense; in yards per game the niners ranked 26th, 11th, 24th, 20th.  I'm not complaining about your choice of stats to highlight, but the full picture is a bit more mixed.  WE will see what the Bills do going forward; I'm not sure that the pre-season is enough to make any sort of difinitive judgment when you are basically playing backups and trying to find out who will make your roster.  I'm a Roman fan based on what he did as run game coordinator here but the jury on him as an NFL OC is still out.

BC

I thought we were discussing a fantasy replacement for Bloomgren.  Now it's gotta be the best OC of all time?  Gees.
[/quote]

1.  I don't think Shaw is going to fire Bloomgreen unless the OL failures, gameplans, or playcalls continue (to the extent that Bloomgren actually owns any of these, which remains very unclear).
2.  I doubt Muir has the guts to tell Shaw he has to fire Bloomgren.
3.  If for some reason Shaw does fire Bloomgren, he's unlikely to bring in someone who has near-term goal of being an HC.
4.  If he's going to bring someone in, best to bring in an outsider with a fresh perspective and some different ideas.

[winflop]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12672.msg127275#msg127275 date=1441683951]
I notice you left out 2014, when the 49ers were 25th in the NFL in ppg.  I also note you chose to highlight ppg rather than total offense; in yards per game the niners ranked 26th, 11th, 24th, 20th.  I'm not complaining about your choice of stats to highlight, but the full picture is a bit more mixed.  WE will see what the Bills do going forward; I'm not sure that the pre-season is enough to make any sort of difinitive judgment when you are basically playing backups and trying to find out who will make your roster.  I'm a Roman fan based on what he did as run game coordinator here but the jury on him as an NFL OC is still out.

BC

I thought we were discussing a fantasy replacement for Bloomgren.  Now it's gotta be the best OC of all time?  Gees.
[/quote]

1.  I don't think Shaw is going to fire Bloomgreen unless the OL failures, gameplans, or playcalls continue (to the extent that Bloomgren actually owns any of these, which remains very unclear).
2.  I doubt Muir has the guts to tell Shaw he has to fire Bloomgren.
3.  If for some reason Shaw does fire Bloomgren, he's unlikely to bring in someone who has near-term goal of being an HC.
4.  If he's going to bring someone in, best to bring in an outsider with a fresh perspective and some different ideas.

[Rally]

Also, continuing to say that Shaw has done something Harbaugh wasn't able to do is strange to me.  Harbaugh inherited a 1-win team.

The person who drew the comparison between Shaw and Harbaugh was OutsiderFan, who wrote that "Harbaugh made sure losing was unacceptable" whereas Shaw is just content to draw a paycheck at his comfy alma mater. That is the silly comparison, when Harbaugh never won a conference championship and Shaw has won two.

I think Harbaugh was a good coach and I was sorry he left. He did a great job rebuilding a shattered program. But he was not Superman. Meanwhile, Shaw has done a very good job as his successor. And, Saturday's game notwithstanding, he has done nothing to warrant a comparison to Jeff Tedford, who lost more games in his final two seasons than Shaw has lost in his entire career.

Agree.  We have often written that Shaw is an outstanding representative of the University.  He understands the values and traditions of the place and upholds them.  Redford brought academic ridicule to one of the finest public universities in the world by bringing in players who didn't come close to what a C.al student-athlete should be.  Harbaugh didn't do that and neither has Shaw.  If the price of elite college football were the Tedford model I wouldn't want it.  H and S showed that is not the price and made us all proud in the process.  Hopefully it can continue.

[Rally]

Also, continuing to say that Shaw has done something Harbaugh wasn't able to do is strange to me.  Harbaugh inherited a 1-win team.

The person who drew the comparison between Shaw and Harbaugh was OutsiderFan, who wrote that "Harbaugh made sure losing was unacceptable" whereas Shaw is just content to draw a paycheck at his comfy alma mater. That is the silly comparison, when Harbaugh never won a conference championship and Shaw has won two.

I think Harbaugh was a good coach and I was sorry he left. He did a great job rebuilding a shattered program. But he was not Superman. Meanwhile, Shaw has done a very good job as his successor. And, Saturday's game notwithstanding, he has done nothing to warrant a comparison to Jeff Tedford, who lost more games in his final two seasons than Shaw has lost in his entire career.

Agree.  We have often written that Shaw is an outstanding representative of the University.  He understands the values and traditions of the place and upholds them.  Redford brought academic ridicule to one of the finest public universities in the world by bringing in players who didn't come close to what a C.al student-athlete should be.  Harbaugh didn't do that and neither has Shaw.  If the price of elite college football were the Tedford model I wouldn't want it.  H and S showed that is not the price and made us all proud in the process.  Hopefully it can continue.

[OutsiderFan]

Garvin, you're not seeing the forest through the trees here.  Tedford is an analog to Shaw for a few primary reasons:

1. Both head coaches at institutions that have never demanded winning football championships (and in some cases actively undermined the idea of having a winning football team or a team period)

2. Both brought greater success at the start of their tenure than the school had experienced for a long time

3. Both offensive-minded guys most observers would call control freaks with the "bunker mentality"

4. Both had generationally great QBs to help build their programs

5. Both experiencing declines after being rewarded for past performance

6. Welcoming higher expectations out of one side of their mouth, but bristling at criticism when fans complain about team performance because they feel 7-5 seasons aren't any longer good enough

The most meaningful common denominator is #1.  That's pretty hard to overcome. Unless the institutions decide they do want to put a high priority on winning football championships and hold coaches accountable to that standard, they won't happen very often.  And BTW, that doesn't mean firing coaches every year when they don't win a championship.  But it does mean putting coaches on notice that 7-5 records are not acceptable and won't be tolerated over the long haul.

I know the idea of admitting Stanford is anything like Ca.l is hard to take, but as much as the institutions are different, they also share some key similarities that make them historically lousy football schools.  Right now, Dyke.s brings Ca.l football the sense of urgency and priority to win because he and his OC Tony Franklin are trying to prove themselves as elite coaches.  They want bigger paychecks and/or a bigger job so Ca.l football is on an upswing.  If I was buying stock in the programs, right now, I'd be buying Ca.l because I don't think Stanford has the sense of urgency to make the changes necessary to stay a championship contender.  Football championships aren't important enough at Stanford to make anyone truly uncomfortable when they aren't being won.

[OutsiderFan]

Garvin, you're not seeing the forest through the trees here.  Tedford is an analog to Shaw for a few primary reasons:

1. Both head coaches at institutions that have never demanded winning football championships (and in some cases actively undermined the idea of having a winning football team or a team period)

2. Both brought greater success at the start of their tenure than the school had experienced for a long time

3. Both offensive-minded guys most observers would call control freaks with the "bunker mentality"

4. Both had generationally great QBs to help build their programs

5. Both experiencing declines after being rewarded for past performance

6. Welcoming higher expectations out of one side of their mouth, but bristling at criticism when fans complain about team performance because they feel 7-5 seasons aren't any longer good enough

The most meaningful common denominator is #1.  That's pretty hard to overcome. Unless the institutions decide they do want to put a high priority on winning football championships and hold coaches accountable to that standard, they won't happen very often.  And BTW, that doesn't mean firing coaches every year when they don't win a championship.  But it does mean putting coaches on notice that 7-5 records are not acceptable and won't be tolerated over the long haul.

I know the idea of admitting Stanford is anything like Ca.l is hard to take, but as much as the institutions are different, they also share some key similarities that make them historically lousy football schools.  Right now, Dyke.s brings Ca.l football the sense of urgency and priority to win because he and his OC Tony Franklin are trying to prove themselves as elite coaches.  They want bigger paychecks and/or a bigger job so Ca.l football is on an upswing.  If I was buying stock in the programs, right now, I'd be buying Ca.l because I don't think Stanford has the sense of urgency to make the changes necessary to stay a championship contender.  Football championships aren't important enough at Stanford to make anyone truly uncomfortable when they aren't being won.

[stupac2]

Something that just occurred to me is that Mason, when asked about how he changed the defensive scheme to be so much more effective, cited the Arizona game in 2012 that took an otherworldly effort from Nunes for us to pull out in OT. Maybe Bloomgren will follow his example...

[stupac2]

Something that just occurred to me is that Mason, when asked about how he changed the defensive scheme to be so much more effective, cited the Arizona game in 2012 that took an otherworldly effort from Nunes for us to pull out in OT. Maybe Bloomgren will follow his example...

[Spiny_Norman]

Something that just occurred to me is that Mason, when asked about how he changed the defensive scheme to be so much more effective, cited the Arizona game in 2012 that took an otherworldly effort from Nunes for us to pull out in OT. Maybe Bloomgren will follow his example...

Nunes was playing against an Arizona defense that was 122nd out of 124 teams in total defense that season.  Hogan and the offense will be going up against a  UCF team that was 3rd in the country in yards per game allowed in 2014 (two spots ahead of Stanford).  If Stanford puts up 600 yards on UCF as Nunes did vs. Arizona, we should all feel much better about the offense!

[Spiny_Norman]

Something that just occurred to me is that Mason, when asked about how he changed the defensive scheme to be so much more effective, cited the Arizona game in 2012 that took an otherworldly effort from Nunes for us to pull out in OT. Maybe Bloomgren will follow his example...

Nunes was playing against an Arizona defense that was 122nd out of 124 teams in total defense that season.  Hogan and the offense will be going up against a  UCF team that was 3rd in the country in yards per game allowed in 2014 (two spots ahead of Stanford).  If Stanford puts up 600 yards on UCF as Nunes did vs. Arizona, we should all feel much better about the offense!

[winflop]

Stop projecting long-range Dr. Drew-style pseudo-psychoanalysis for a moment, and remind me which championship Jim Harbaugh won.

The Orange Bowl Championship, Stanford's first major bowl victory in 39 years.

[winflop]

Stop projecting long-range Dr. Drew-style pseudo-psychoanalysis for a moment, and remind me which championship Jim Harbaugh won.

The Orange Bowl Championship, Stanford's first major bowl victory in 39 years.

[Mick]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12672.msg127340#msg127340 date=1441727070]
Something that just occurred to me is that Mason, when asked about how he changed the defensive scheme to be so much more effective, cited the Arizona game in 2012 that took an otherworldly effort from Nunes for us to pull out in OT. Maybe Bloomgren will follow his example...

Nunes was playing against an Arizona defense that was 122nd out of 124 teams in total defense that season.  Hogan and the offense will be going up against a  UCF team that was 3rd in the country in yards per game allowed in 2014 (two spots ahead of Stanford).  If Stanford puts up 600 yards on UCF as Nunes did vs. Arizona, we should all feel much better about the offense!
[/quote]

UCF lost to Florida International which was 1-11 two years ago and 4-8 last year.  UCF took a 14-0 lead, then fizzled and couldn't adjust.  That was a home game for UCF, btw.

If we don't win by 3 TDs...

[Mick]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12672.msg127340#msg127340 date=1441727070]
Something that just occurred to me is that Mason, when asked about how he changed the defensive scheme to be so much more effective, cited the Arizona game in 2012 that took an otherworldly effort from Nunes for us to pull out in OT. Maybe Bloomgren will follow his example...

Nunes was playing against an Arizona defense that was 122nd out of 124 teams in total defense that season.  Hogan and the offense will be going up against a  UCF team that was 3rd in the country in yards per game allowed in 2014 (two spots ahead of Stanford).  If Stanford puts up 600 yards on UCF as Nunes did vs. Arizona, we should all feel much better about the offense!
[/quote]

UCF lost to Florida International which was 1-11 two years ago and 4-8 last year.  UCF took a 14-0 lead, then fizzled and couldn't adjust.  That was a home game for UCF, btw.

If we don't win by 3 TDs...

[Rally]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=12672.msg127337#msg127337 date=1441725989]
Stop projecting long-range Dr. Drew-style pseudo-psychoanalysis for a moment, and remind me which championship Jim Harbaugh won.

The Orange Bowl Championship, Stanford's first major bowl victory in 39 years.
[/quote]

So we tacked on the Foster Farms Bowl Championship in January?

[Rally]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=12672.msg127337#msg127337 date=1441725989]
Stop projecting long-range Dr. Drew-style pseudo-psychoanalysis for a moment, and remind me which championship Jim Harbaugh won.

The Orange Bowl Championship, Stanford's first major bowl victory in 39 years.
[/quote]

So we tacked on the Foster Farms Bowl Championship in January?

[Stymie]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=12672.msg127346#msg127346 date=1441729747]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12672.msg127340#msg127340 date=1441727070]
Something that just occurred to me is that Mason, when asked about how he changed the defensive scheme to be so much more effective, cited the Arizona game in 2012 that took an otherworldly effort from Nunes for us to pull out in OT. Maybe Bloomgren will follow his example...

Nunes was playing against an Arizona defense that was 122nd out of 124 teams in total defense that season.  Hogan and the offense will be going up against a  UCF team that was 3rd in the country in yards per game allowed in 2014 (two spots ahead of Stanford).  If Stanford puts up 600 yards on UCF as Nunes did vs. Arizona, we should all feel much better about the offense!
[/quote]

UCF lost to Florida International which was 1-11 two years ago and 4-8 last year.  UCF took a 14-0 lead, then fizzled and couldn't adjust.  That was a home game for UCF, btw.

If we don't win by 3 TDs...
[/quote]

We'll be up by 3 TDs midway through 2nd 1/4 and then coast into an agonizingly conservatively 34-31 win in the last few minutes.

[Stymie]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=12672.msg127346#msg127346 date=1441729747]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12672.msg127340#msg127340 date=1441727070]
Something that just occurred to me is that Mason, when asked about how he changed the defensive scheme to be so much more effective, cited the Arizona game in 2012 that took an otherworldly effort from Nunes for us to pull out in OT. Maybe Bloomgren will follow his example...

Nunes was playing against an Arizona defense that was 122nd out of 124 teams in total defense that season.  Hogan and the offense will be going up against a  UCF team that was 3rd in the country in yards per game allowed in 2014 (two spots ahead of Stanford).  If Stanford puts up 600 yards on UCF as Nunes did vs. Arizona, we should all feel much better about the offense!
[/quote]

UCF lost to Florida International which was 1-11 two years ago and 4-8 last year.  UCF took a 14-0 lead, then fizzled and couldn't adjust.  That was a home game for UCF, btw.

If we don't win by 3 TDs...
[/quote]

We'll be up by 3 TDs midway through 2nd 1/4 and then coast into an agonizingly conservatively 34-31 win in the last few minutes.

[Rally]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=12672.msg127358#msg127358 date=1441732638]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=12672.msg127346#msg127346 date=1441729747]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12672.msg127340#msg127340 date=1441727070]
Something that just occurred to me is that Mason, when asked about how he changed the defensive scheme to be so much more effective, cited the Arizona game in 2012 that took an otherworldly effort from Nunes for us to pull out in OT. Maybe Bloomgren will follow his example...

Nunes was playing against an Arizona defense that was 122nd out of 124 teams in total defense that season.  Hogan and the offense will be going up against a  UCF team that was 3rd in the country in yards per game allowed in 2014 (two spots ahead of Stanford).  If Stanford puts up 600 yards on UCF as Nunes did vs. Arizona, we should all feel much better about the offense!
[/quote]

UCF lost to Florida International which was 1-11 two years ago and 4-8 last year.  UCF took a 14-0 lead, then fizzled and couldn't adjust.  That was a home game for UCF, btw.

If we don't win by 3 TDs...
[/quote]

We'll be up by 3 TDs midway through 2nd 1/4 and then coast into an agonizingly conservatively 34-31 win in the last few minutes.
[/quote]

Okay, I'll do it.  New thread coming right up.  I can't be the only one here who is tir d of beating last week's dead horse.

[Rally]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=12672.msg127358#msg127358 date=1441732638]
[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=12672.msg127346#msg127346 date=1441729747]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12672.msg127340#msg127340 date=1441727070]
Something that just occurred to me is that Mason, when asked about how he changed the defensive scheme to be so much more effective, cited the Arizona game in 2012 that took an otherworldly effort from Nunes for us to pull out in OT. Maybe Bloomgren will follow his example...

Nunes was playing against an Arizona defense that was 122nd out of 124 teams in total defense that season.  Hogan and the offense will be going up against a  UCF team that was 3rd in the country in yards per game allowed in 2014 (two spots ahead of Stanford).  If Stanford puts up 600 yards on UCF as Nunes did vs. Arizona, we should all feel much better about the offense!
[/quote]

UCF lost to Florida International which was 1-11 two years ago and 4-8 last year.  UCF took a 14-0 lead, then fizzled and couldn't adjust.  That was a home game for UCF, btw.

If we don't win by 3 TDs...
[/quote]

We'll be up by 3 TDs midway through 2nd 1/4 and then coast into an agonizingly conservatively 34-31 win in the last few minutes.
[/quote]

Okay, I'll do it.  New thread coming right up.  I can't be the only one here who is tir d of beating last week's dead horse.

[Mick]

Most of you know I follow Ca.l and Stanford very closely and root for both teams.  I have hesitated to say this until now, but because so many Stanford fans are looking for answers - and because past history often allows us to foresee and hopefully learn from past mistakes - I'm going to say it.  David Shaw is going down a very similar path as Jeff Tedford.  And it really should be no surprise, because neither Ca.l or Stanford has historically demanded high performance from their football programs.

Though Shaw has achieved more than Tedford as a head coach (and hasn't yet had a losing season), and had a predecessor build the foundation of the Stanford program, relatively speaking, Shaw and Tedford delivered outsized results relative to the overall history of the two programs they were/are at.  When Tedford made Ca.l a serious contender, he was lavished with praise, NFL head coaching jobs were offered, and he was rewarded with largesse for past performance, with no accountability to future performance.  This made him comfortable, and as a result, Tedford slowly became soft.  This eventually found its way to his team.  As his team softened, he became more obsessed with the Xs and Os of the offense, convinced that if he could just get his team to execute these magical plays, all would be well.  Then he got lazy with recruiting, and figured if he could bring better athletes to Ca.l that would solve his problems.  Well, what happened was his offense became too complex while being at the same time predictable, because he just couldn't change who he was; he was more concerned about his comfort than winning because his employer didn't demand winning.  So the losses mounted, too many guys flunked out and recruiting went in the sh*tter.  Ca.l's administration didn't demand more performance or hold Tedford accountable to winning at the same level he had won, as a condition of his big contract extension.  So in the end, Ca.l got what should have been expected, sliding results with no accountability for performance; a coach who was going to get paid millions whether he won or lost, even after being fired!

Shaw may not lower Stanford's standards of recruiting, in fact he seems to be raising them.  However, the one thing I have heard people (including Hulk) say that they worry about with Shaw is the fact the players could be too comfortable and not tough enough, not physically, but mentally.  This is because Shaw, like Tedford was, is too comfortable, IMO.  He's got his dream job and isn't looking for a bigger one.  He lives in Palo Alto.  He went to four BCS games in his first four years as a Head Coach.  He's got the NFL knocking on his door.  He played for the school he coached at.  Who is going to tell him he's got to maintain championship seasons or be fired?  And does Stanford/Muir even demand this?  As for the players, how can they have it better than being on the Stanford campus, set up with degrees to take care of them for life?  Is losing a few games a year all that bad when you have all that going for you? 

Harbaugh made sure losing was unacceptable because he wanted more, frankly a bigger job in the NFL.  He was self-motivated to win and didn't need anyone demanding him to perform.  Shaw has proven he can win, but he isn't looking for a bigger job.  That means he must be held accountable for winning championships or his job will be more about his comfort than needing to  win.  That is just human nature.  You really think Shaw would punt from the NU 37 if he knew he would be fired if he didn't get to the playoff this year?  Or he knew his team's scoring average had to improve this year or he would take a pay cut?  Everyone needs to be held accountable to performance either by their own selves or by others, or they won't perform.  When you have everything you want, it's going to be tough to be that self-motivated to continue to maintain the highest possible performance level when there are no consequences for slipping results.  Nobody is going to go out of their comfort zone to maintain performance in such conditions.

In any case, the common denominator with Tedford and Shaw was/is that they were/are too comfortable at institutions that don't historically demand winning championships.  Tedford was motivated to be a top-paid head coach and performed until he became one.  While nothing short of a championship was acceptable to Harbaugh, Stanford had that as a standard of performance in the program.  Shaw wanted to prove he could be a top-flight coach and got results until he did.  When good, highly self-motivated guys were present, Ca.l and Stanford won championships (Low APR U won a "co-Chapionship" in 2009).  But the institutions have never demanded that performance themselves, so it doesn't naturally exist.  Coaches can easily get comfortable in those environments, so the institutions must demand that performance from coaches who have proven themselves or they will not maintain it.

Many here will scoff at the notion Shaw is Tedford in the making, but as someone who has observed both Ca.l and Stanford probably closer than anyone here, my perspective is probably different than most here too.  It seems safe to say Shaw doesn't want to win more than he wants to be comfortable.  If this is the case, his employer has to make it clear to him he is expected to win at a certain level or suffer the consequences.  Those four BCS bowls are nice, but Shaw has to know they don't mean squat in the context of how his performance is viewed in the future.  If Stanford lets Shaw rest on those laurels, there really is no reason to expect the football team to be an annual championship contender.

Out of curiosity, do you still feel this way?  Genuinely curious.

[Mick]

Most of you know I follow Ca.l and Stanford very closely and root for both teams.  I have hesitated to say this until now, but because so many Stanford fans are looking for answers - and because past history often allows us to foresee and hopefully learn from past mistakes - I'm going to say it.  David Shaw is going down a very similar path as Jeff Tedford.  And it really should be no surprise, because neither Ca.l or Stanford has historically demanded high performance from their football programs.

Though Shaw has achieved more than Tedford as a head coach (and hasn't yet had a losing season), and had a predecessor build the foundation of the Stanford program, relatively speaking, Shaw and Tedford delivered outsized results relative to the overall history of the two programs they were/are at.  When Tedford made Ca.l a serious contender, he was lavished with praise, NFL head coaching jobs were offered, and he was rewarded with largesse for past performance, with no accountability to future performance.  This made him comfortable, and as a result, Tedford slowly became soft.  This eventually found its way to his team.  As his team softened, he became more obsessed with the Xs and Os of the offense, convinced that if he could just get his team to execute these magical plays, all would be well.  Then he got lazy with recruiting, and figured if he could bring better athletes to Ca.l that would solve his problems.  Well, what happened was his offense became too complex while being at the same time predictable, because he just couldn't change who he was; he was more concerned about his comfort than winning because his employer didn't demand winning.  So the losses mounted, too many guys flunked out and recruiting went in the sh*tter.  Ca.l's administration didn't demand more performance or hold Tedford accountable to winning at the same level he had won, as a condition of his big contract extension.  So in the end, Ca.l got what should have been expected, sliding results with no accountability for performance; a coach who was going to get paid millions whether he won or lost, even after being fired!

Shaw may not lower Stanford's standards of recruiting, in fact he seems to be raising them.  However, the one thing I have heard people (including Hulk) say that they worry about with Shaw is the fact the players could be too comfortable and not tough enough, not physically, but mentally.  This is because Shaw, like Tedford was, is too comfortable, IMO.  He's got his dream job and isn't looking for a bigger one.  He lives in Palo Alto.  He went to four BCS games in his first four years as a Head Coach.  He's got the NFL knocking on his door.  He played for the school he coached at.  Who is going to tell him he's got to maintain championship seasons or be fired?  And does Stanford/Muir even demand this?  As for the players, how can they have it better than being on the Stanford campus, set up with degrees to take care of them for life?  Is losing a few games a year all that bad when you have all that going for you? 

Harbaugh made sure losing was unacceptable because he wanted more, frankly a bigger job in the NFL.  He was self-motivated to win and didn't need anyone demanding him to perform.  Shaw has proven he can win, but he isn't looking for a bigger job.  That means he must be held accountable for winning championships or his job will be more about his comfort than needing to  win.  That is just human nature.  You really think Shaw would punt from the NU 37 if he knew he would be fired if he didn't get to the playoff this year?  Or he knew his team's scoring average had to improve this year or he would take a pay cut?  Everyone needs to be held accountable to performance either by their own selves or by others, or they won't perform.  When you have everything you want, it's going to be tough to be that self-motivated to continue to maintain the highest possible performance level when there are no consequences for slipping results.  Nobody is going to go out of their comfort zone to maintain performance in such conditions.

In any case, the common denominator with Tedford and Shaw was/is that they were/are too comfortable at institutions that don't historically demand winning championships.  Tedford was motivated to be a top-paid head coach and performed until he became one.  While nothing short of a championship was acceptable to Harbaugh, Stanford had that as a standard of performance in the program.  Shaw wanted to prove he could be a top-flight coach and got results until he did.  When good, highly self-motivated guys were present, Ca.l and Stanford won championships (Low APR U won a "co-Chapionship" in 2009).  But the institutions have never demanded that performance themselves, so it doesn't naturally exist.  Coaches can easily get comfortable in those environments, so the institutions must demand that performance from coaches who have proven themselves or they will not maintain it.

Many here will scoff at the notion Shaw is Tedford in the making, but as someone who has observed both Ca.l and Stanford probably closer than anyone here, my perspective is probably different than most here too.  It seems safe to say Shaw doesn't want to win more than he wants to be comfortable.  If this is the case, his employer has to make it clear to him he is expected to win at a certain level or suffer the consequences.  Those four BCS bowls are nice, but Shaw has to know they don't mean squat in the context of how his performance is viewed in the future.  If Stanford lets Shaw rest on those laurels, there really is no reason to expect the football team to be an annual championship contender.

Out of curiosity, do you still feel this way?  Genuinely curious.