09-10-2021, 08:52 AM
Blowouts not entertaining. Nail biters are.
Shaw at Sea Level
09-10-2021, 09:51 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2021, 10:02 AM by BostonCard.)
Stanford record 2016-2021: 36-23 (61.2%)
Records of previous Stanford coaches:
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58.0%)
Walt Harris 6-17 (26.1%)
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30.3%)
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (54.9%)
Dennis Green 16-18 (47.1%)
Jack Elway 25-29-2 (46.4%)
Paul Wiggin 16-28 (47.1%)
Rod Dowhower 5-5-1 (50%)
Bill Walsh 34-24 (58.5%)
Jack Christiansen 30-22 (57.3%)
John Ralston 55-36 (60.1%)
You actually have to go all the way back to Clark Shaughnessy in 1940-41 to find a Stanford coach with a better record than Shaw since he gave up the keys to the "Ferrari." Shaw's "bad years" are still better than the record of any post-war coach we've had. OK, we are no longer driving a Ferrari, but Shaw hasn't exactly been driving a Ford Pinto.
BC
Records of previous Stanford coaches:
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58.0%)
Walt Harris 6-17 (26.1%)
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30.3%)
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (54.9%)
Dennis Green 16-18 (47.1%)
Jack Elway 25-29-2 (46.4%)
Paul Wiggin 16-28 (47.1%)
Rod Dowhower 5-5-1 (50%)
Bill Walsh 34-24 (58.5%)
Jack Christiansen 30-22 (57.3%)
John Ralston 55-36 (60.1%)
You actually have to go all the way back to Clark Shaughnessy in 1940-41 to find a Stanford coach with a better record than Shaw since he gave up the keys to the "Ferrari." Shaw's "bad years" are still better than the record of any post-war coach we've had. OK, we are no longer driving a Ferrari, but Shaw hasn't exactly been driving a Ford Pinto.
BC
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2021, 10:02 AM by BostonCard.)
Stanford record 2016-2021: 36-23 (61.2%)
Records of previous Stanford coaches:
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58.0%)
Walt Harris 6-17 (26.1%)
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30.3%)
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (54.9%)
Dennis Green 16-18 (47.1%)
Jack Elway 25-29-2 (46.4%)
Paul Wiggin 16-28 (47.1%)
Rod Dowhower 5-5-1 (50%)
Bill Walsh 34-24 (58.5%)
Jack Christiansen 30-22 (57.3%)
John Ralston 55-36 (60.1%)
You actually have to go all the way back to Clark Shaughnessy in 1940-41 to find a Stanford coach with a better record than Shaw since he gave up the keys to the "Ferrari." Shaw's "bad years" are still better than the record of any post-war coach we've had. OK, we are no longer driving a Ferrari, but Shaw hasn't exactly been driving a Ford Pinto.
BC
Records of previous Stanford coaches:
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58.0%)
Walt Harris 6-17 (26.1%)
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30.3%)
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (54.9%)
Dennis Green 16-18 (47.1%)
Jack Elway 25-29-2 (46.4%)
Paul Wiggin 16-28 (47.1%)
Rod Dowhower 5-5-1 (50%)
Bill Walsh 34-24 (58.5%)
Jack Christiansen 30-22 (57.3%)
John Ralston 55-36 (60.1%)
You actually have to go all the way back to Clark Shaughnessy in 1940-41 to find a Stanford coach with a better record than Shaw since he gave up the keys to the "Ferrari." Shaw's "bad years" are still better than the record of any post-war coach we've had. OK, we are no longer driving a Ferrari, but Shaw hasn't exactly been driving a Ford Pinto.
BC
09-10-2021, 11:33 AM
(09-09-2021, 10:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote: <snip>
But at this point, I'm just hoping to have fun watching Stanford football. I know I'm getting cranky in my old age, but when is the last time you left a Stanford game and said to yourself: Boy, that was fun! I'm sure there must have been a time or two since the Iowa Rose Bowl, but I gotta tell you, that's the only one in last 6 years that comes immediately to mind.
Since the 2016 Rose Bowl, here are the Stanford games that I consider fun with an exclamation point:
2016
Stanford 27, USC 10
Stanford 22, UCLA 13 (Fun started in the 4th quarter)
Stanford 17, Notre Dame 10
Stanford 45, Cal 31
2017
Stanford 58, UCLA 34 (Fun started in the 2nd quarter)
Stanford 34, ASU 24
Stanford 23, Utah 20
Stanford 30, UW 22
Stanford 17, Cal 14
Stanford 38, Notre Dame 20 (especially the 4th quarter)
2018
Stanford 17, USC 3
Stanford 38, Oregon 31
Stanford 49, UCLA 42
Stanford 23, Cal 13
2019
Stanford 23, UW 13
2020
Stanford 31, UW 26
Stanford 48, UCLA 47
All wins are fun, but the above are games that, for one reason or another, stand out to me.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
(09-09-2021, 10:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote: <snip>
But at this point, I'm just hoping to have fun watching Stanford football. I know I'm getting cranky in my old age, but when is the last time you left a Stanford game and said to yourself: Boy, that was fun! I'm sure there must have been a time or two since the Iowa Rose Bowl, but I gotta tell you, that's the only one in last 6 years that comes immediately to mind.
Since the 2016 Rose Bowl, here are the Stanford games that I consider fun with an exclamation point:
2016
Stanford 27, USC 10
Stanford 22, UCLA 13 (Fun started in the 4th quarter)
Stanford 17, Notre Dame 10
Stanford 45, Cal 31
2017
Stanford 58, UCLA 34 (Fun started in the 2nd quarter)
Stanford 34, ASU 24
Stanford 23, Utah 20
Stanford 30, UW 22
Stanford 17, Cal 14
Stanford 38, Notre Dame 20 (especially the 4th quarter)
2018
Stanford 17, USC 3
Stanford 38, Oregon 31
Stanford 49, UCLA 42
Stanford 23, Cal 13
2019
Stanford 23, UW 13
2020
Stanford 31, UW 26
Stanford 48, UCLA 47
All wins are fun, but the above are games that, for one reason or another, stand out to me.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
09-10-2021, 01:07 PM
(09-10-2021, 09:51 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Stanford record 2016-2021: 36-23 (61.2%)
Records of previous Stanford coaches:
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58.0%)
Walt Harris 6-17 (26.1%)
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30.3%)
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (54.9%)
Dennis Green 16-18 (47.1%)
Jack Elway 25-29-2 (46.4%)
Paul Wiggin 16-28 (47.1%)
Rod Dowhower 5-5-1 (50%)
Bill Walsh 34-24 (58.5%)
Jack Christiansen 30-22 (57.3%)
John Ralston 55-36 (60.1%)
You actually have to go all the way back to Clark Shaughnessy in 1940-41 to find a Stanford coach with a better record than Shaw since he gave up the keys to the "Ferrari." Shaw's "bad years" are still better than the record of any post-war coach we've had. OK, we are no longer driving a Ferrari, but Shaw hasn't exactly been driving a Ford Pinto.
BC
You're not wrong, but David Shaw is a victim of his own success. Here are Stanford's winning percentages by year since 2011:
Year Overall Pac-12
2011 85% 89%
2012 86% 89%
2013 79% 78%
2014 62% 56%
2015 86% 89%
2016 77% 67%
2017 64% 78%
2018 69% 67%
2019 33% 33%
2020 67% 67%
The difference between 2011-2015 and 2016-2020 is significant and cannot be ignored, There's only one year in 2011-2015 with winning percentages lower than ANY year in 2016-2020. Is it better than the past? Yes, but for at least some of us it's not good enough because Shaw (and Harbaugh) showed that we CAN be better and we CAN be a nationally prominent program.
(09-10-2021, 09:51 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Stanford record 2016-2021: 36-23 (61.2%)
Records of previous Stanford coaches:
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58.0%)
Walt Harris 6-17 (26.1%)
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30.3%)
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (54.9%)
Dennis Green 16-18 (47.1%)
Jack Elway 25-29-2 (46.4%)
Paul Wiggin 16-28 (47.1%)
Rod Dowhower 5-5-1 (50%)
Bill Walsh 34-24 (58.5%)
Jack Christiansen 30-22 (57.3%)
John Ralston 55-36 (60.1%)
You actually have to go all the way back to Clark Shaughnessy in 1940-41 to find a Stanford coach with a better record than Shaw since he gave up the keys to the "Ferrari." Shaw's "bad years" are still better than the record of any post-war coach we've had. OK, we are no longer driving a Ferrari, but Shaw hasn't exactly been driving a Ford Pinto.
BC
You're not wrong, but David Shaw is a victim of his own success. Here are Stanford's winning percentages by year since 2011:
Year Overall Pac-12
2011 85% 89%
2012 86% 89%
2013 79% 78%
2014 62% 56%
2015 86% 89%
2016 77% 67%
2017 64% 78%
2018 69% 67%
2019 33% 33%
2020 67% 67%
The difference between 2011-2015 and 2016-2020 is significant and cannot be ignored, There's only one year in 2011-2015 with winning percentages lower than ANY year in 2016-2020. Is it better than the past? Yes, but for at least some of us it's not good enough because Shaw (and Harbaugh) showed that we CAN be better and we CAN be a nationally prominent program.
09-10-2021, 02:26 PM
I think that's fair, but it reminds me a bit of when I used to play competitive sports. My performance (which wasn't all that good), would wax and wane, but I would always benchmark to the one game when everything sort of clicked and I was playing out of my mind. I would then beat myself up for not meeting that standard for myself. My son, who plays golf, is the same way. He had one round where he hit par, and ever since then, he has been disappointed with rounds in the mid- or high-70's even though they are objectively a significant improvement from where he was a year or two ago. But the fact that he had one great round has translated into pressure on himself to have a similar round every time he goes out, because he knows he could do it.
BC
BC
I think that's fair, but it reminds me a bit of when I used to play competitive sports. My performance (which wasn't all that good), would wax and wane, but I would always benchmark to the one game when everything sort of clicked and I was playing out of my mind. I would then beat myself up for not meeting that standard for myself. My son, who plays golf, is the same way. He had one round where he hit par, and ever since then, he has been disappointed with rounds in the mid- or high-70's even though they are objectively a significant improvement from where he was a year or two ago. But the fact that he had one great round has translated into pressure on himself to have a similar round every time he goes out, because he knows he could do it.
BC
BC
09-10-2021, 02:28 PM
(09-10-2021, 01:07 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-10-2021, 09:51 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Stanford record 2016-2021: 36-23 (61.2%)
Records of previous Stanford coaches:
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58.0%)
Walt Harris 6-17 (26.1%)
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30.3%)
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (54.9%)
Dennis Green 16-18 (47.1%)
Jack Elway 25-29-2 (46.4%)
Paul Wiggin 16-28 (47.1%)
Rod Dowhower 5-5-1 (50%)
Bill Walsh 34-24 (58.5%)
Jack Christiansen 30-22 (57.3%)
John Ralston 55-36 (60.1%)
You actually have to go all the way back to Clark Shaughnessy in 1940-41 to find a Stanford coach with a better record than Shaw since he gave up the keys to the "Ferrari." Shaw's "bad years" are still better than the record of any post-war coach we've had. OK, we are no longer driving a Ferrari, but Shaw hasn't exactly been driving a Ford Pinto.
BC
You're not wrong, but David Shaw is a victim of his own success. Here are Stanford's winning percentages by year since 2011:
Year Overall Pac-12
2011 85% 89%
2012 86% 89%
2013 79% 78%
2014 62% 56%
2015 86% 89%
2016 77% 67%
2017 64% 78%
2018 69% 67%
2019 33% 33%
2020 67% 67%
The difference between 2011-2015 and 2016-2020 is significant and cannot be ignored, There's only one year in 2011-2015 with winning percentages lower than ANY year in 2016-2020. Is it better than the past? Yes, but for at least some of us it's not good enough because Shaw (and Harbaugh) showed that we CAN be better and we CAN be a nationally prominent program.
Indeed, Stanford did--and CAN--run with The Big Dogs. And I repeat: Shaw has failed to replenish and restore what he inherited in January 2011. No amount of hand-wringing and spinning by the chorus of Shaw-pologists here can refute this simple truth.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(09-10-2021, 01:07 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-10-2021, 09:51 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Stanford record 2016-2021: 36-23 (61.2%)
Records of previous Stanford coaches:
Jim Harbaugh 29-21 (58.0%)
Walt Harris 6-17 (26.1%)
Buddy Teevens 10-23 (30.3%)
Tyrone Willingham 44-36-1 (54.9%)
Dennis Green 16-18 (47.1%)
Jack Elway 25-29-2 (46.4%)
Paul Wiggin 16-28 (47.1%)
Rod Dowhower 5-5-1 (50%)
Bill Walsh 34-24 (58.5%)
Jack Christiansen 30-22 (57.3%)
John Ralston 55-36 (60.1%)
You actually have to go all the way back to Clark Shaughnessy in 1940-41 to find a Stanford coach with a better record than Shaw since he gave up the keys to the "Ferrari." Shaw's "bad years" are still better than the record of any post-war coach we've had. OK, we are no longer driving a Ferrari, but Shaw hasn't exactly been driving a Ford Pinto.
BC
You're not wrong, but David Shaw is a victim of his own success. Here are Stanford's winning percentages by year since 2011:
Year Overall Pac-12
2011 85% 89%
2012 86% 89%
2013 79% 78%
2014 62% 56%
2015 86% 89%
2016 77% 67%
2017 64% 78%
2018 69% 67%
2019 33% 33%
2020 67% 67%
The difference between 2011-2015 and 2016-2020 is significant and cannot be ignored, There's only one year in 2011-2015 with winning percentages lower than ANY year in 2016-2020. Is it better than the past? Yes, but for at least some of us it's not good enough because Shaw (and Harbaugh) showed that we CAN be better and we CAN be a nationally prominent program.
Indeed, Stanford did--and CAN--run with The Big Dogs. And I repeat: Shaw has failed to replenish and restore what he inherited in January 2011. No amount of hand-wringing and spinning by the chorus of Shaw-pologists here can refute this simple truth.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
09-10-2021, 02:59 PM
First of all I’d like to say I’ve never met Coach Shaw but from all I’ve heard he is a fine individual and an excellent representative for Stanford. I wish him nothing but success.
I’ve never met Coach Harbaugh but from what I’ve read and heard he has many undesirable qualities and I have no interest in ever meeting him.
I started watching Stanford football in the mid seventies. I still remember the innovative offense that was memorialized by the Stanford band chant “ Run, sweep, pass”.
I don’t have the detailed knowledge of many on this board, my perspective is at the 5,000 foot level. Pre- Harbaugh it appeared to me that Stanford recruits first and foremost wanted to attend the Stanford school. And oh by the way they wanted to play college football. As a result of this we had mediocre teams that occasionally took out a top team. We couldn’t get good players for all the positions and didn’t have the depth we needed. Frequently, it looked like we only had 10 players on the filed instead of 11. I thought there were not enough recruits that could get through the academic requirements. We were doing the best we could do under the circumstances. During this time I attended all but one home game and frequently made trips to away games.
At some point the academic process was changed around the Harbaugh era. I’m not sure how this played out in the background. I was just happy to see that the year round training and excellence of football players was recognized as being equivalent to other areas of excellence that new students were evaluated on. It was at this time that I changed my opinion of how many more quality recruits were available to us. Harbaugh was able attract another type of recruit. He recruited players that wanted to play top tier football and oh by way it sure would be nice to go to Stanford. We were also able to attract top quality assistant coaches. If I remember correctly improvements to pay structures for the assistant coaches helped in this area. I’m probably wrong about some of the timing of these changes but the net results was:
1. We could recruit two types of players: Ones that wanted Stanford first and football second. Ones that wanted football first and Stanford second.
2. We could get high quality assistant coaches.
3. We won a lot of games and became known as a successful football program.
4. There was positive feedback between 1, 2, and 3 resulting in the continued quality Stanford football.
During these golden years I truly enjoyed watching Stanford football: the downfield blocking, the play away from the ball, the minimization of penalties, the team playing 60 minutes of football, playing to win (not playing not to loose), being in control, Randy Hart coaching on the side lines, consistently surprising me and the other team with the offensive play call, players in the correct position, minimal delay of game penalties/wasted time outs, a defense that was basically aggressive but adopted a scheme that complemented the offense and the state of the game, etc. Perhaps I’m looking at these years through rose colored glasses since we didn’t win an overwhelming number of games under Harbaugh but the fundamental execution of the team seemed to be very good. The team seemed to be in control of the games they played..
Following Harbaugh’s departure the momentum continued. Results 1,2 and 3 continued to reinforce each other and we continued to be very successful. However, the play on the field started to deteriorate. There were fewer enjoyable individual observations and more and more annoying observations. These observations have been covered before on this board for a long time. But let me add one that I don’t think was mentioned. I attended the 2016 Washington game in Seattle in which Stanford was thoroughly demolished from the initial kickoff. They looked like a bad high school team. What did I see? From the beginning kickoff till the end of the game I see the Washington coaches feverishly coaching on the sides and for most of the first half no coaching on the Stanford sideline. For some reason I found this terribly annoying. I’m back to thinking Stanford is playing with only 10 players again but the problem is I now know it doesn’t have to be this way.
It is my opinion we have been loosing the battle for some time but the momentum from the golden years has kept us limping along until the loses have become too much to ignore. But is has never been the loses that bothered me: it has been the multitude of little things that demonstrate we are not taking care of the details. Now the momentum is gone and results 1,2, and 3 need to be done again so the task is much much harder now than if corrective action had been taken earlier.
A coach once said this about Bear Bryant: “He can take his and beat yours then he can take yours and beat his”. I suppose this means different things to different people but to me one of the things it means is the coach designs the offense and defense to fit the players. Off and on post Harbaugh I have not had the feeling that has been the case on the offensive side of the ball.
Mntcard
I’ve never met Coach Harbaugh but from what I’ve read and heard he has many undesirable qualities and I have no interest in ever meeting him.
I started watching Stanford football in the mid seventies. I still remember the innovative offense that was memorialized by the Stanford band chant “ Run, sweep, pass”.
I don’t have the detailed knowledge of many on this board, my perspective is at the 5,000 foot level. Pre- Harbaugh it appeared to me that Stanford recruits first and foremost wanted to attend the Stanford school. And oh by the way they wanted to play college football. As a result of this we had mediocre teams that occasionally took out a top team. We couldn’t get good players for all the positions and didn’t have the depth we needed. Frequently, it looked like we only had 10 players on the filed instead of 11. I thought there were not enough recruits that could get through the academic requirements. We were doing the best we could do under the circumstances. During this time I attended all but one home game and frequently made trips to away games.
At some point the academic process was changed around the Harbaugh era. I’m not sure how this played out in the background. I was just happy to see that the year round training and excellence of football players was recognized as being equivalent to other areas of excellence that new students were evaluated on. It was at this time that I changed my opinion of how many more quality recruits were available to us. Harbaugh was able attract another type of recruit. He recruited players that wanted to play top tier football and oh by way it sure would be nice to go to Stanford. We were also able to attract top quality assistant coaches. If I remember correctly improvements to pay structures for the assistant coaches helped in this area. I’m probably wrong about some of the timing of these changes but the net results was:
1. We could recruit two types of players: Ones that wanted Stanford first and football second. Ones that wanted football first and Stanford second.
2. We could get high quality assistant coaches.
3. We won a lot of games and became known as a successful football program.
4. There was positive feedback between 1, 2, and 3 resulting in the continued quality Stanford football.
During these golden years I truly enjoyed watching Stanford football: the downfield blocking, the play away from the ball, the minimization of penalties, the team playing 60 minutes of football, playing to win (not playing not to loose), being in control, Randy Hart coaching on the side lines, consistently surprising me and the other team with the offensive play call, players in the correct position, minimal delay of game penalties/wasted time outs, a defense that was basically aggressive but adopted a scheme that complemented the offense and the state of the game, etc. Perhaps I’m looking at these years through rose colored glasses since we didn’t win an overwhelming number of games under Harbaugh but the fundamental execution of the team seemed to be very good. The team seemed to be in control of the games they played..
Following Harbaugh’s departure the momentum continued. Results 1,2 and 3 continued to reinforce each other and we continued to be very successful. However, the play on the field started to deteriorate. There were fewer enjoyable individual observations and more and more annoying observations. These observations have been covered before on this board for a long time. But let me add one that I don’t think was mentioned. I attended the 2016 Washington game in Seattle in which Stanford was thoroughly demolished from the initial kickoff. They looked like a bad high school team. What did I see? From the beginning kickoff till the end of the game I see the Washington coaches feverishly coaching on the sides and for most of the first half no coaching on the Stanford sideline. For some reason I found this terribly annoying. I’m back to thinking Stanford is playing with only 10 players again but the problem is I now know it doesn’t have to be this way.
It is my opinion we have been loosing the battle for some time but the momentum from the golden years has kept us limping along until the loses have become too much to ignore. But is has never been the loses that bothered me: it has been the multitude of little things that demonstrate we are not taking care of the details. Now the momentum is gone and results 1,2, and 3 need to be done again so the task is much much harder now than if corrective action had been taken earlier.
A coach once said this about Bear Bryant: “He can take his and beat yours then he can take yours and beat his”. I suppose this means different things to different people but to me one of the things it means is the coach designs the offense and defense to fit the players. Off and on post Harbaugh I have not had the feeling that has been the case on the offensive side of the ball.
Mntcard
First of all I’d like to say I’ve never met Coach Shaw but from all I’ve heard he is a fine individual and an excellent representative for Stanford. I wish him nothing but success.
I’ve never met Coach Harbaugh but from what I’ve read and heard he has many undesirable qualities and I have no interest in ever meeting him.
I started watching Stanford football in the mid seventies. I still remember the innovative offense that was memorialized by the Stanford band chant “ Run, sweep, pass”.
I don’t have the detailed knowledge of many on this board, my perspective is at the 5,000 foot level. Pre- Harbaugh it appeared to me that Stanford recruits first and foremost wanted to attend the Stanford school. And oh by the way they wanted to play college football. As a result of this we had mediocre teams that occasionally took out a top team. We couldn’t get good players for all the positions and didn’t have the depth we needed. Frequently, it looked like we only had 10 players on the filed instead of 11. I thought there were not enough recruits that could get through the academic requirements. We were doing the best we could do under the circumstances. During this time I attended all but one home game and frequently made trips to away games.
At some point the academic process was changed around the Harbaugh era. I’m not sure how this played out in the background. I was just happy to see that the year round training and excellence of football players was recognized as being equivalent to other areas of excellence that new students were evaluated on. It was at this time that I changed my opinion of how many more quality recruits were available to us. Harbaugh was able attract another type of recruit. He recruited players that wanted to play top tier football and oh by way it sure would be nice to go to Stanford. We were also able to attract top quality assistant coaches. If I remember correctly improvements to pay structures for the assistant coaches helped in this area. I’m probably wrong about some of the timing of these changes but the net results was:
1. We could recruit two types of players: Ones that wanted Stanford first and football second. Ones that wanted football first and Stanford second.
2. We could get high quality assistant coaches.
3. We won a lot of games and became known as a successful football program.
4. There was positive feedback between 1, 2, and 3 resulting in the continued quality Stanford football.
During these golden years I truly enjoyed watching Stanford football: the downfield blocking, the play away from the ball, the minimization of penalties, the team playing 60 minutes of football, playing to win (not playing not to loose), being in control, Randy Hart coaching on the side lines, consistently surprising me and the other team with the offensive play call, players in the correct position, minimal delay of game penalties/wasted time outs, a defense that was basically aggressive but adopted a scheme that complemented the offense and the state of the game, etc. Perhaps I’m looking at these years through rose colored glasses since we didn’t win an overwhelming number of games under Harbaugh but the fundamental execution of the team seemed to be very good. The team seemed to be in control of the games they played..
Following Harbaugh’s departure the momentum continued. Results 1,2 and 3 continued to reinforce each other and we continued to be very successful. However, the play on the field started to deteriorate. There were fewer enjoyable individual observations and more and more annoying observations. These observations have been covered before on this board for a long time. But let me add one that I don’t think was mentioned. I attended the 2016 Washington game in Seattle in which Stanford was thoroughly demolished from the initial kickoff. They looked like a bad high school team. What did I see? From the beginning kickoff till the end of the game I see the Washington coaches feverishly coaching on the sides and for most of the first half no coaching on the Stanford sideline. For some reason I found this terribly annoying. I’m back to thinking Stanford is playing with only 10 players again but the problem is I now know it doesn’t have to be this way.
It is my opinion we have been loosing the battle for some time but the momentum from the golden years has kept us limping along until the loses have become too much to ignore. But is has never been the loses that bothered me: it has been the multitude of little things that demonstrate we are not taking care of the details. Now the momentum is gone and results 1,2, and 3 need to be done again so the task is much much harder now than if corrective action had been taken earlier.
A coach once said this about Bear Bryant: “He can take his and beat yours then he can take yours and beat his”. I suppose this means different things to different people but to me one of the things it means is the coach designs the offense and defense to fit the players. Off and on post Harbaugh I have not had the feeling that has been the case on the offensive side of the ball.
Mntcard
I’ve never met Coach Harbaugh but from what I’ve read and heard he has many undesirable qualities and I have no interest in ever meeting him.
I started watching Stanford football in the mid seventies. I still remember the innovative offense that was memorialized by the Stanford band chant “ Run, sweep, pass”.
I don’t have the detailed knowledge of many on this board, my perspective is at the 5,000 foot level. Pre- Harbaugh it appeared to me that Stanford recruits first and foremost wanted to attend the Stanford school. And oh by the way they wanted to play college football. As a result of this we had mediocre teams that occasionally took out a top team. We couldn’t get good players for all the positions and didn’t have the depth we needed. Frequently, it looked like we only had 10 players on the filed instead of 11. I thought there were not enough recruits that could get through the academic requirements. We were doing the best we could do under the circumstances. During this time I attended all but one home game and frequently made trips to away games.
At some point the academic process was changed around the Harbaugh era. I’m not sure how this played out in the background. I was just happy to see that the year round training and excellence of football players was recognized as being equivalent to other areas of excellence that new students were evaluated on. It was at this time that I changed my opinion of how many more quality recruits were available to us. Harbaugh was able attract another type of recruit. He recruited players that wanted to play top tier football and oh by way it sure would be nice to go to Stanford. We were also able to attract top quality assistant coaches. If I remember correctly improvements to pay structures for the assistant coaches helped in this area. I’m probably wrong about some of the timing of these changes but the net results was:
1. We could recruit two types of players: Ones that wanted Stanford first and football second. Ones that wanted football first and Stanford second.
2. We could get high quality assistant coaches.
3. We won a lot of games and became known as a successful football program.
4. There was positive feedback between 1, 2, and 3 resulting in the continued quality Stanford football.
During these golden years I truly enjoyed watching Stanford football: the downfield blocking, the play away from the ball, the minimization of penalties, the team playing 60 minutes of football, playing to win (not playing not to loose), being in control, Randy Hart coaching on the side lines, consistently surprising me and the other team with the offensive play call, players in the correct position, minimal delay of game penalties/wasted time outs, a defense that was basically aggressive but adopted a scheme that complemented the offense and the state of the game, etc. Perhaps I’m looking at these years through rose colored glasses since we didn’t win an overwhelming number of games under Harbaugh but the fundamental execution of the team seemed to be very good. The team seemed to be in control of the games they played..
Following Harbaugh’s departure the momentum continued. Results 1,2 and 3 continued to reinforce each other and we continued to be very successful. However, the play on the field started to deteriorate. There were fewer enjoyable individual observations and more and more annoying observations. These observations have been covered before on this board for a long time. But let me add one that I don’t think was mentioned. I attended the 2016 Washington game in Seattle in which Stanford was thoroughly demolished from the initial kickoff. They looked like a bad high school team. What did I see? From the beginning kickoff till the end of the game I see the Washington coaches feverishly coaching on the sides and for most of the first half no coaching on the Stanford sideline. For some reason I found this terribly annoying. I’m back to thinking Stanford is playing with only 10 players again but the problem is I now know it doesn’t have to be this way.
It is my opinion we have been loosing the battle for some time but the momentum from the golden years has kept us limping along until the loses have become too much to ignore. But is has never been the loses that bothered me: it has been the multitude of little things that demonstrate we are not taking care of the details. Now the momentum is gone and results 1,2, and 3 need to be done again so the task is much much harder now than if corrective action had been taken earlier.
A coach once said this about Bear Bryant: “He can take his and beat yours then he can take yours and beat his”. I suppose this means different things to different people but to me one of the things it means is the coach designs the offense and defense to fit the players. Off and on post Harbaugh I have not had the feeling that has been the case on the offensive side of the ball.
Mntcard
09-10-2021, 04:07 PM
(09-10-2021, 02:28 PM)gailtate Wrote: Indeed, Stanford did--and CAN--run with The Big Dogs. And I repeat: Shaw has failed to replenish and restore what he inherited in January 2011. No amount of hand-wringing and spinning by the chorus of Shaw-pologists here can refute this simple truth.
The problem is that every team uses this logic. Washington State makes it to the Rose Bowl twice in a span of five years under Mike Price and Cougars fans become convinced it means that Wazzu can and should run with the "big boys" every year. Dennis Erickson leads the OSU Beavers to the Fiesta Bowl in 2000, and all of a sudden it shows that OSU can and should run with the "big boys" every year. Hell, Cal fans haven't been to a Rose Bowl since 1958, but Tedford has a couple of years where they almost win the conference, and Bear fans too believe that it proves that they can and should run with the "big boys". And that's to say nothing of expectations at USC (last national title 17 years ago, but somehow thought of as a birthright there), Washington, UCLA, and pretty much every other team).
It's great to aspire to be excellent every year. But it is also important to recognize that college football is a zero sum game, and by definition, the average team loses half their games, and that everyone wants/expects their team to be above average. Sorry, but this ain't Lake Wobegon.
BC
(09-10-2021, 02:28 PM)gailtate Wrote: Indeed, Stanford did--and CAN--run with The Big Dogs. And I repeat: Shaw has failed to replenish and restore what he inherited in January 2011. No amount of hand-wringing and spinning by the chorus of Shaw-pologists here can refute this simple truth.
The problem is that every team uses this logic. Washington State makes it to the Rose Bowl twice in a span of five years under Mike Price and Cougars fans become convinced it means that Wazzu can and should run with the "big boys" every year. Dennis Erickson leads the OSU Beavers to the Fiesta Bowl in 2000, and all of a sudden it shows that OSU can and should run with the "big boys" every year. Hell, Cal fans haven't been to a Rose Bowl since 1958, but Tedford has a couple of years where they almost win the conference, and Bear fans too believe that it proves that they can and should run with the "big boys". And that's to say nothing of expectations at USC (last national title 17 years ago, but somehow thought of as a birthright there), Washington, UCLA, and pretty much every other team).
It's great to aspire to be excellent every year. But it is also important to recognize that college football is a zero sum game, and by definition, the average team loses half their games, and that everyone wants/expects their team to be above average. Sorry, but this ain't Lake Wobegon.
BC
09-10-2021, 05:16 PM
My take is somewhere between gailtate and BC. I agree with gailtate that Shaw has failed to replenish and restore what he had up to January 1, 2016. I and other Shaw-pologists have been vocal about our concerns about recruiting and depth, especially for the defense. I also agree with BC that the success we saw from 2009-2015 cannot be the standard at Stanford. If it is, then we are just going to cycle through one coach after the other until we finally catch lightning in a bottle, only to see that savior leave for greener pastures.
I'm not satisfied with our record over the past 19 games. I just happen to feel that Shaw has more than earned the right to fix what's wrong. Some folks here don't think that's possible and, apparently, are ready to cut bait now. I think it's much more likely that Shaw returns us to, on average, 8 or 9 wins year-in and year-out than any successor whom we could convince to coach at Stanford.
Jeff Tedford, the winningest coach in Cal history, was fired after the 2012 season. He was a victim of his own success, as he was 15-22 in his final three seasons, but 67-35 (!) with a 5-2 bowl record before that. And what has Cal done since? Four years of Sonny Dykes (19-30) and four-and-counting years of Justin Wilcox (21-22).
I'm not satisfied with our record over the past 19 games. I just happen to feel that Shaw has more than earned the right to fix what's wrong. Some folks here don't think that's possible and, apparently, are ready to cut bait now. I think it's much more likely that Shaw returns us to, on average, 8 or 9 wins year-in and year-out than any successor whom we could convince to coach at Stanford.
Jeff Tedford, the winningest coach in Cal history, was fired after the 2012 season. He was a victim of his own success, as he was 15-22 in his final three seasons, but 67-35 (!) with a 5-2 bowl record before that. And what has Cal done since? Four years of Sonny Dykes (19-30) and four-and-counting years of Justin Wilcox (21-22).
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
My take is somewhere between gailtate and BC. I agree with gailtate that Shaw has failed to replenish and restore what he had up to January 1, 2016. I and other Shaw-pologists have been vocal about our concerns about recruiting and depth, especially for the defense. I also agree with BC that the success we saw from 2009-2015 cannot be the standard at Stanford. If it is, then we are just going to cycle through one coach after the other until we finally catch lightning in a bottle, only to see that savior leave for greener pastures.
I'm not satisfied with our record over the past 19 games. I just happen to feel that Shaw has more than earned the right to fix what's wrong. Some folks here don't think that's possible and, apparently, are ready to cut bait now. I think it's much more likely that Shaw returns us to, on average, 8 or 9 wins year-in and year-out than any successor whom we could convince to coach at Stanford.
Jeff Tedford, the winningest coach in Cal history, was fired after the 2012 season. He was a victim of his own success, as he was 15-22 in his final three seasons, but 67-35 (!) with a 5-2 bowl record before that. And what has Cal done since? Four years of Sonny Dykes (19-30) and four-and-counting years of Justin Wilcox (21-22).
I'm not satisfied with our record over the past 19 games. I just happen to feel that Shaw has more than earned the right to fix what's wrong. Some folks here don't think that's possible and, apparently, are ready to cut bait now. I think it's much more likely that Shaw returns us to, on average, 8 or 9 wins year-in and year-out than any successor whom we could convince to coach at Stanford.
Jeff Tedford, the winningest coach in Cal history, was fired after the 2012 season. He was a victim of his own success, as he was 15-22 in his final three seasons, but 67-35 (!) with a 5-2 bowl record before that. And what has Cal done since? Four years of Sonny Dykes (19-30) and four-and-counting years of Justin Wilcox (21-22).
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
09-10-2021, 06:07 PM
I’ve met them both. Professionally. Harbaugh was overflowing and effervescent. Shaw was cold and withdrawn.
They both win.
They both win.
09-10-2021, 06:13 PM
(09-10-2021, 06:07 PM)Phogge Wrote: I’ve met them both. Professionally. Harbaugh was overflowing and effervescent. Shaw was cold and withdrawn.
They both win.
Interesting. I haven't met Harbaugh but did meet Shaw briefly. He was warm and nice as could be. Really liked him. And, I'm saying that as someone who has mainly bashed his coaching the past few years.
(09-10-2021, 06:07 PM)Phogge Wrote: I’ve met them both. Professionally. Harbaugh was overflowing and effervescent. Shaw was cold and withdrawn.
They both win.
Interesting. I haven't met Harbaugh but did meet Shaw briefly. He was warm and nice as could be. Really liked him. And, I'm saying that as someone who has mainly bashed his coaching the past few years.
09-10-2021, 06:31 PM
Met Shaw once at SFO (it was shortly after our 2015 Rose Bowl win); I thought he was very pleasant, but of course it is easy to do so when you have a fan gushing over your dominant Rose Bowl performance.
BC
BC
Met Shaw once at SFO (it was shortly after our 2015 Rose Bowl win); I thought he was very pleasant, but of course it is easy to do so when you have a fan gushing over your dominant Rose Bowl performance.
BC
BC
09-11-2021, 02:22 PM
(09-10-2021, 05:16 PM)Papa John Wrote: I also agree with BC that the success we saw from 2009-2015 cannot be the standard at Stanford. If it is, then we are just going to cycle through one coach after the other until we finally catch lightning in a bottle, only to see that savior leave for greener pastures.
That is Old Stanford thinking . . . you know, when Stanford underpaid its football coaches.
Stanford is paying its current guy $6.7M/year base salary. Think about that. And tell me again why you don't think Stanford could keep an excellent and winning football coach on The Farm.
What greener pastures are out there?
(09-10-2021, 05:16 PM)Papa John Wrote: I also agree with BC that the success we saw from 2009-2015 cannot be the standard at Stanford. If it is, then we are just going to cycle through one coach after the other until we finally catch lightning in a bottle, only to see that savior leave for greener pastures.
That is Old Stanford thinking . . . you know, when Stanford underpaid its football coaches.
Stanford is paying its current guy $6.7M/year base salary. Think about that. And tell me again why you don't think Stanford could keep an excellent and winning football coach on The Farm.
What greener pastures are out there?
09-11-2021, 06:28 PM
(09-10-2021, 02:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think that's fair, but it reminds me a bit of when I used to play competitive sports. My performance (which wasn't all that good), would wax and wane, but I would always benchmark to the one game when everything sort of clicked and I was playing out of my mind. I would then beat myself up for not meeting that standard for myself. My son, who plays golf, is the same way. He had one round where he hit par, and ever since then, he has been disappointed with rounds in the mid- or high-70's even though they are objectively a significant improvement from where he was a year or two ago. But the fact that he had one great round has translated into pressure on himself to have a similar round every time he goes out, because he knows he could do it.
BC
This isn't one round at par. It's winning tournaments over a period of years and then making an occasional top 25 but missing cuts and not making any Top 10s.
(09-10-2021, 02:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think that's fair, but it reminds me a bit of when I used to play competitive sports. My performance (which wasn't all that good), would wax and wane, but I would always benchmark to the one game when everything sort of clicked and I was playing out of my mind. I would then beat myself up for not meeting that standard for myself. My son, who plays golf, is the same way. He had one round where he hit par, and ever since then, he has been disappointed with rounds in the mid- or high-70's even though they are objectively a significant improvement from where he was a year or two ago. But the fact that he had one great round has translated into pressure on himself to have a similar round every time he goes out, because he knows he could do it.
BC
This isn't one round at par. It's winning tournaments over a period of years and then making an occasional top 25 but missing cuts and not making any Top 10s.
09-11-2021, 06:35 PM
It's still pretty much an exceptional 5 year period otherwise unreplicated in the last 50 years.
BC
BC
It's still pretty much an exceptional 5 year period otherwise unreplicated in the last 50 years.
BC
BC
09-11-2021, 10:42 PM
(09-09-2021, 10:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-09-2021, 05:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Divis..._the_2010s
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/foo...ast-decade
Over the course of the 2010's, Stanford was 10th in the NCAA in winning percentage, better than Notre Dame (because they had wins vacated, and I trust that you don't want Shaw to cheat to get to their level of success). Are there programs that are better? Yes, absolutely, and would I rather the winning consistency of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Oklahoma? Sure (provided we don't sell our soul to get there). But there are 121 other BCS teams, including 10 other Pac-12 teams, that would have readily traded in their (comparatively) mediocre records for Stanford's over the last decade. In the 2010's, Stanford had more top-10 finishes and more 10+ win seasons than Notre Dame, and owns a 6-4 record against the Domers. It had as many 10 win seasons as Oregon. And there is a veritable who's who of "blue-blood programs" (Penn State, Florida, USC, Washington, Texas, Florida State and yes, Michigan) that had a lower winning percentage, fewer 10+ win seasons, and fewer top-10 finishes than Stanford. And all of this was accomplished at Stanford, with all our recruiting limitations and academic requirements.
Listen, going forward, I agree with you guys that we are heading for a rough patch. I doubt the next 10 years will be as good as last 10, and the next five will probably not be as good as the last five (we did, after all, go to three bowl games and won the Pac-12 North once). I am not, however, convinced that the program is in terminal decline, and while I doubt we will be the 10th best program of the 2020's, I don't think that we are headed for a decade of 4-8 teams, or that the 2015 to 2019 trajectory will continue in a straight line until we again have a 1-15 team.
You want to say that the future is not as bright as the past? Fine. But let's not make a single 4-8 season negate a pretty darned good decade for Stanford football.
BC
Yep. As suspected, you're clinging to the Ferrari.
But at this point, I'm just hoping to have fun watching Stanford football. I know I'm getting cranky in my old age, but when is the last time you left a Stanford game and said to yourself: Boy, that was fun! I'm sure there must have been a time or two since the Iowa Rose Bowl, but I gotta tell you, that's the only one in last 6 years that comes immediately to mind.
In about 1/2 an hour...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(09-09-2021, 10:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-09-2021, 05:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Divis..._the_2010s
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/foo...ast-decade
Over the course of the 2010's, Stanford was 10th in the NCAA in winning percentage, better than Notre Dame (because they had wins vacated, and I trust that you don't want Shaw to cheat to get to their level of success). Are there programs that are better? Yes, absolutely, and would I rather the winning consistency of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Oklahoma? Sure (provided we don't sell our soul to get there). But there are 121 other BCS teams, including 10 other Pac-12 teams, that would have readily traded in their (comparatively) mediocre records for Stanford's over the last decade. In the 2010's, Stanford had more top-10 finishes and more 10+ win seasons than Notre Dame, and owns a 6-4 record against the Domers. It had as many 10 win seasons as Oregon. And there is a veritable who's who of "blue-blood programs" (Penn State, Florida, USC, Washington, Texas, Florida State and yes, Michigan) that had a lower winning percentage, fewer 10+ win seasons, and fewer top-10 finishes than Stanford. And all of this was accomplished at Stanford, with all our recruiting limitations and academic requirements.
Listen, going forward, I agree with you guys that we are heading for a rough patch. I doubt the next 10 years will be as good as last 10, and the next five will probably not be as good as the last five (we did, after all, go to three bowl games and won the Pac-12 North once). I am not, however, convinced that the program is in terminal decline, and while I doubt we will be the 10th best program of the 2020's, I don't think that we are headed for a decade of 4-8 teams, or that the 2015 to 2019 trajectory will continue in a straight line until we again have a 1-15 team.
You want to say that the future is not as bright as the past? Fine. But let's not make a single 4-8 season negate a pretty darned good decade for Stanford football.
BC
Yep. As suspected, you're clinging to the Ferrari.
But at this point, I'm just hoping to have fun watching Stanford football. I know I'm getting cranky in my old age, but when is the last time you left a Stanford game and said to yourself: Boy, that was fun! I'm sure there must have been a time or two since the Iowa Rose Bowl, but I gotta tell you, that's the only one in last 6 years that comes immediately to mind.
In about 1/2 an hour...
Audaces fortuna iuvat
09-12-2021, 09:13 AM
(09-11-2021, 10:42 PM)Mick Wrote:(09-09-2021, 10:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-09-2021, 05:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Divis..._the_2010s
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/foo...ast-decade
Over the course of the 2010's, Stanford was 10th in the NCAA in winning percentage, better than Notre Dame (because they had wins vacated, and I trust that you don't want Shaw to cheat to get to their level of success). Are there programs that are better? Yes, absolutely, and would I rather the winning consistency of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Oklahoma? Sure (provided we don't sell our soul to get there). But there are 121 other BCS teams, including 10 other Pac-12 teams, that would have readily traded in their (comparatively) mediocre records for Stanford's over the last decade. In the 2010's, Stanford had more top-10 finishes and more 10+ win seasons than Notre Dame, and owns a 6-4 record against the Domers. It had as many 10 win seasons as Oregon. And there is a veritable who's who of "blue-blood programs" (Penn State, Florida, USC, Washington, Texas, Florida State and yes, Michigan) that had a lower winning percentage, fewer 10+ win seasons, and fewer top-10 finishes than Stanford. And all of this was accomplished at Stanford, with all our recruiting limitations and academic requirements.
Listen, going forward, I agree with you guys that we are heading for a rough patch. I doubt the next 10 years will be as good as last 10, and the next five will probably not be as good as the last five (we did, after all, go to three bowl games and won the Pac-12 North once). I am not, however, convinced that the program is in terminal decline, and while I doubt we will be the 10th best program of the 2020's, I don't think that we are headed for a decade of 4-8 teams, or that the 2015 to 2019 trajectory will continue in a straight line until we again have a 1-15 team.
You want to say that the future is not as bright as the past? Fine. But let's not make a single 4-8 season negate a pretty darned good decade for Stanford football.
BC
Yep. As suspected, you're clinging to the Ferrari.
But at this point, I'm just hoping to have fun watching Stanford football. I know I'm getting cranky in my old age, but when is the last time you left a Stanford game and said to yourself: Boy, that was fun! I'm sure there must have been a time or two since the Iowa Rose Bowl, but I gotta tell you, that's the only one in last 6 years that comes immediately to mind.
In about 1/2 an hour...
Yes, that was fun! (2H anyway). McKee . . . fantastic.
(09-11-2021, 10:42 PM)Mick Wrote:(09-09-2021, 10:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-09-2021, 05:41 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Divis..._the_2010s
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/foo...ast-decade
Over the course of the 2010's, Stanford was 10th in the NCAA in winning percentage, better than Notre Dame (because they had wins vacated, and I trust that you don't want Shaw to cheat to get to their level of success). Are there programs that are better? Yes, absolutely, and would I rather the winning consistency of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, or Oklahoma? Sure (provided we don't sell our soul to get there). But there are 121 other BCS teams, including 10 other Pac-12 teams, that would have readily traded in their (comparatively) mediocre records for Stanford's over the last decade. In the 2010's, Stanford had more top-10 finishes and more 10+ win seasons than Notre Dame, and owns a 6-4 record against the Domers. It had as many 10 win seasons as Oregon. And there is a veritable who's who of "blue-blood programs" (Penn State, Florida, USC, Washington, Texas, Florida State and yes, Michigan) that had a lower winning percentage, fewer 10+ win seasons, and fewer top-10 finishes than Stanford. And all of this was accomplished at Stanford, with all our recruiting limitations and academic requirements.
Listen, going forward, I agree with you guys that we are heading for a rough patch. I doubt the next 10 years will be as good as last 10, and the next five will probably not be as good as the last five (we did, after all, go to three bowl games and won the Pac-12 North once). I am not, however, convinced that the program is in terminal decline, and while I doubt we will be the 10th best program of the 2020's, I don't think that we are headed for a decade of 4-8 teams, or that the 2015 to 2019 trajectory will continue in a straight line until we again have a 1-15 team.
You want to say that the future is not as bright as the past? Fine. But let's not make a single 4-8 season negate a pretty darned good decade for Stanford football.
BC
Yep. As suspected, you're clinging to the Ferrari.
But at this point, I'm just hoping to have fun watching Stanford football. I know I'm getting cranky in my old age, but when is the last time you left a Stanford game and said to yourself: Boy, that was fun! I'm sure there must have been a time or two since the Iowa Rose Bowl, but I gotta tell you, that's the only one in last 6 years that comes immediately to mind.
In about 1/2 an hour...
Yes, that was fun! (2H anyway). McKee . . . fantastic.
09-12-2021, 10:56 AM
Blowouts *are* fun when they're against U$C.
Welcome to the board Mntcard! Look forward to your experiences and observations.
Shaw has righted the ship; can he execute the rest of the season? Oregon awaits...
Shaw had better figure out this game 1 business in subsequent seasons. Stop rolling dice, you're getting paid $6+ million to win every game, not just every game other than the first.
Welcome to the board Mntcard! Look forward to your experiences and observations.
Shaw has righted the ship; can he execute the rest of the season? Oregon awaits...
Shaw had better figure out this game 1 business in subsequent seasons. Stop rolling dice, you're getting paid $6+ million to win every game, not just every game other than the first.
Blowouts *are* fun when they're against U$C.
Welcome to the board Mntcard! Look forward to your experiences and observations.
Shaw has righted the ship; can he execute the rest of the season? Oregon awaits...
Shaw had better figure out this game 1 business in subsequent seasons. Stop rolling dice, you're getting paid $6+ million to win every game, not just every game other than the first.
Welcome to the board Mntcard! Look forward to your experiences and observations.
Shaw has righted the ship; can he execute the rest of the season? Oregon awaits...
Shaw had better figure out this game 1 business in subsequent seasons. Stop rolling dice, you're getting paid $6+ million to win every game, not just every game other than the first.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »