Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 (/thread-22521.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 (/thread-22521.html)
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - Softball Fan - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 06:08 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I don't really care if Shaw stays or goes at this point, but the fact you guys all act like he is his own boss, free to remain coach as long as he wants, like he calls the shots, suggests the David Shaw tail wags the Stanford dog. This idea is absurd, and if true, it's completely unhinged.
I think Shaw will leave on his own accord and timetable. There are intangibles to consider.
He seems to have a good relationship with his players at least looking from the outside. None of his players have gotten into any major trouble. Very few of the players have contracted Covid to my knowledge so they are obeying the rules. He is a mild-mannered guy who comes across well in interviews. He’s a family man whose daughter is going to Duke. He is a role model. Shaw has become a so-called pillar of Stanford society. He doesn’t give the administration reason to fire him.
Also the issue of player compensation and forming a union was going strong until the Pandemic shut it down. That movement will be coming back. The administration knows Shaw is a reasonable guy who will help look for middle ground to resolve the battle. Type A personality like Harbaugh would be a wild card which the administration would have more trouble handling.
RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 06:21 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-07-2021, 06:08 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I don't really care if Shaw stays or goes at this point, but the fact you guys all act like he is his own boss, free to remain coach as long as he wants, like he calls the shots, suggests the David Shaw tail wags the Stanford dog. This idea is absurd, and if true, it's completely unhinged.
It's akin to allowing Mark Zuckerberg to run his evil company with nobody having the ability to take him out. Think maybe if he was accountable to others, maybe his company would be less awful?
Not sure what Zuckerberg or his “evil” company has to do with anything. I also don’t know of anyone saying that Shaw gets to call his own shots etc.
I do hear people (including me) saying he’s not going anywhere anytime soon. Which I suspect to be true. OTOH, Shanahan may be available soon…… :)
Forgetting the editorializing about Facebook (excuse me, Meta), I think the point was that because of the voting structure at Facebook, Zuckerberg is unaccountable to anyone else. Like Zuckerberg, Shaw owns a disproportionate number of the voting shares at Stanford, and thus is unaccountable, or something. Which is a joke, because even though his 11 year coaching record has earned him a fair bit of job security (probably more than most here would be comfortable with, but which, let’s be honest, we’d all like to have for ourselves), the truth is that Shaw would be held to account if he assaulted a player on the sidelines, if he tried to claim an exemption from the Stanford vaccination mandate, if he otherwise embarrassed the university, or if he went through a prolonged period of poor results (accent on prolonged). The powers that be have concluded that leading the program to nine winning seasons, three Rose Bowls, and four PAC-12 North championships, all while sporting a conference best graduation rate has earned the coach a little slack when the program takes a (hopefully temporary) dive and has two losing seasons over three years (I am assuming Shaw cannot salvage a winning season this year, though technically, 7-6 is still on the table). I think the issue is many people here believe that Shaw cannot pullout of what they see as a tailspin, and that there is no reason to believe that the next five years will be much different than the last three. They may well be right; I don’t claim to be able to predict the future. But alas, the AD, the Provost, and the President have not yet concluded it is hopeless, and thus are not going to fire Shaw anything soon. But I think OF mistakes the AD’s patience with a lack of accountability for Shaw, and I don’t think that is right.
BC
RE: lex24 - Goose - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 08:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: But I think OF mistakes the AD’s patience with a lack of accountability for Shaw, and I don’t think that is right.I agree that Shaw is not without accountability. It may be distant, but it can become proximate much faster than I think most here expect. It also has to do with what expectations Shaw has communicated to his bosses. He may not tell the public, but if he told his boss this year and next would not be good, it will hold off accountability much longer than if he said the opposite. We don't know what he forecast, so how upset the AD should be isn't known.
BC
However, one thing I think I can Guarantee is that Shaw doesn't like losing. I can also pretty much guarantee that he will do what he thinks is necessary to "fix" the issues, even if it means people get fired. Whether his assessment of the required steps is accurate/adequate is TBD.
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - teejers1 - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 07:53 PM)paloalto Wrote: I think Shaw will leave on his own accord and timetable. There are intangibles to consider.
He seems to have a good relationship with his players at least looking from the outside. None of his players have gotten into any major trouble. Very few of the players have contracted Covid to my knowledge so they are obeying the rules. He is a mild-mannered guy who comes across well in interviews. He’s a family man whose daughter is going to Duke. He is a role model. Shaw has become a so-called pillar of Stanford society. He doesn’t give the administration reason to fire him.
Except that his team is playing worse than any team in Stanford history, including from The Dark Times (Buddy and Wlat). Friday was the worst, most lifeless and hapless performance in 50 years of Stanford football. And that doesn't even include the 10K in the stands (equally hapless and lifeless). The program under Shaw is already moribund. It's scary how quickly the vortex around the drain gained steam. Shocking, really.
In short, the administration has every reason to fire Shaw as a football coach; but I agree with conventional wisdom that they will not because they just don't give a damn.
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - BostonCard - 11-07-2021
You may have wiped this doozy from your mind: https://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore/_/gameId/262870024
I don’t blame you, but we did have 92 yards of total offense on that day, the highlight of which was a 54 yard punt by our QB in third down, which probably saved him from getting sacked a ninth time. Hell, Osaisai had almost as much offense on his 72 yard pick six as the entire offense.
Keep in mind that that Arizona game was in the midst of a seven game stretch where the Stanford offense never scored more than 10 points and averaged under six points a game.
BC
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - CowboyIndian - 11-07-2021
(11-07-2021, 11:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You may have wiped this doozy from your mind: https://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore/_/gameId/262870024
I don’t blame you, but we did have 92 yards of total offense on that day, the highlight of which was a 54 yard punt by our QB in third down, which probably saved him from getting sacked a ninth time. Hell, Osaisai had almost as much offense on his 72 yard pick six as the entire offense.
Keep in mind that that Arizona game was in the midst of a seven game stretch where the Stanford offense never scored more than 10 points and averaged under six points a game.
BC
My recollection (foggy at best) is that we had 52 yards of offense that day.
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - BostonCard - 11-07-2021
I think you are right. The ESPN box score says 98 yards passing for the entire team, but Ostrander (the only QB who had a pass), had 58 yards passing so either we had an immaculate 40 yard pass, or there was a typo in there.
BC
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - Phogge - 11-08-2021
(11-07-2021, 11:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think you are right. The ESPN box score says 98 yards passing for the entire team, but Ostrander (the only QB who had a pass), had 58 yards passing so either we had an immaculate 40 yard pass, or there was a typo in there.
BC
When Yogi was a rookie he had a big game, four hits. When he was interviewed the next day here was the first question:
"So Yogi have you ever had a four hit game before?"
Yogi: "It was five hits."
Reporter: "Must have been a typographical error."
Yogi: "Hell no, it was a clean single to right."
RE: lex24 - winflop - 11-08-2021
(11-07-2021, 09:54 PM)Goose Wrote: I can also pretty much guarantee that he will do what he thinks is necessary to "fix" the issues, even if it means people get fired.
Sorry Goose but if that were the case firings would have already happened. To my knowledge Shaw has never fired a single coach
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - JohnR34231 - 11-08-2021
(11-08-2021, 07:25 AM)Phogge Wrote:(11-07-2021, 11:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think you are right. The ESPN box score says 98 yards passing for the entire team, but Ostrander (the only QB who had a pass), had 58 yards passing so either we had an immaculate 40 yard pass, or there was a typo in there.
BC
When Yogi was a rookie he had a big game, four hits. When he was interviewed the next day here was the first question:
"So Yogi have you ever had a four hit game before?"
Yogi: "It was five hits."
Reporter: "Must have been a typographical error."
Yogi: "Hell no, it was a clean single to right."
YogiBerraisms are amusing.
I always liked "Nobody goes there any more. It's too crowded." and "If people don't want to come out to the ball park, nobody's going to stop them." Maybe we should have a thread where everybody posts their favorite.
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - Phogge - 11-08-2021
JR, that would be a classic thread and well worth reading rather than anything about the train wreck that is happening on the ole gridiron.
Casey called Lawrence Peter Berra his best athlete.
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - 82lsju - 11-08-2021
you know it is a lost season when the discussion turns to the analysis of which games/teams were worse than the current one....
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - Phogge - 11-08-2021
1962 Stanford with a dazzling upset of highly ranked Michigan State as Ed Cummings makes about 35 tackles. 2-0 with big plans and the Oregon comes in and annihilates the Indians.
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - teejers1 - 11-08-2021
(11-07-2021, 11:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You may have wiped this doozy from your mind: https://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore/_/gameId/262870024
I don’t blame you, but we did have 92 yards of total offense on that day, the highlight of which was a 54 yard punt by our QB in third down, which probably saved him from getting sacked a ninth time. Hell, Osaisai had almost as much offense on his 72 yard pick six as the entire offense.
Keep in mind that that Arizona game was in the midst of a seven game stretch where the Stanford offense never scored more than 10 points and averaged under six points a game.
BC
(11-08-2021, 10:18 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-07-2021, 11:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You may have wiped this doozy from your mind: https://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore/_/gameId/262870024
I don’t blame you, but we did have 92 yards of total offense on that day, the highlight of which was a 54 yard punt by our QB in third down, which probably saved him from getting sacked a ninth time. Hell, Osaisai had almost as much offense on his 72 yard pick six as the entire offense.
Keep in mind that that Arizona game was in the midst of a seven game stretch where the Stanford offense never scored more than 10 points and averaged under six points a game.
BC
Was at that game, and it truly was heinous. The D was pretty good that day (and in many of the years of the Dark Times - the O just couldn't do anything and kept forcing the D to play more and more downs, and that eventually wore them down).
I'd also be interested in a comparison of the recruiting talent on that O and the current O players, particularly on OL.
We all agree everything starts with a competent OL (don't have to be overpowering, just competent). And with good scheme and coaching, you can compete. We just are not seeing that.
P.S. Were the 1999-2001 offenses also misleadingly balanced? And they weren't phone booth, power running offenses. Again, I think the drudgery of the last decade has wiped away the memory of what a very good college O at Stanford (i.e., pro style) looks like.
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - BostonCard - 11-08-2021
Does the phrase “Bookman up the middle” ring any bells?
BC
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - winflop - 11-09-2021
(11-08-2021, 10:18 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-07-2021, 11:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You may have wiped this doozy from your mind: https://www.espn.com/college-football/boxscore/_/gameId/262870024
I don’t blame you, but we did have 92 yards of total offense on that day, the highlight of which was a 54 yard punt by our QB in third down, which probably saved him from getting sacked a ninth time. Hell, Osaisai had almost as much offense on his 72 yard pick six as the entire offense.
Keep in mind that that Arizona game was in the midst of a seven game stretch where the Stanford offense never scored more than 10 points and averaged under six points a game.
BC
Was at that game, and it truly was heinous. The D was pretty good that day (and in many of the years of the Dark Times - the O just couldn't do anything and kept forcing the D to play more and more downs, and that eventually wore them down).
That's the delta I see between that game and Friday's. The defense actually showed up that day and was worn down. We weren't down 38-0 at half time. It was 20-7
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - slide - 11-09-2021
(11-08-2021, 09:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Does the phrase “Bookman up the middle” ring any bells?
BC
even the 2000 team (5-6) was far more entertaining and talented than what Shaw has self-selected and is rolling out there. Kerry Carter, Brian Allen and Casey Moore as the backs; Randy Fasani and Chris OB Lewis at QB; DeRonnie Pitts, Luke Powell, Skillethands Bowman at WR. Heitman, Kwame, and Chambers on the OL (?).
lex24 - lex24 - 11-09-2021
(11-07-2021, 08:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-07-2021, 06:21 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-07-2021, 06:08 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I don't really care if Shaw stays or goes at this point, but the fact you guys all act like he is his own boss, free to remain coach as long as he wants, like he calls the shots, suggests the David Shaw tail wags the Stanford dog. This idea is absurd, and if true, it's completely unhinged.
It's akin to allowing Mark Zuckerberg to run his evil company with nobody having the ability to take him out. Think maybe if he was accountable to others, maybe his company would be less awful?
Not sure what Zuckerberg or his “evil” company has to do with anything. I also don’t know of anyone saying that Shaw gets to call his own shots etc.
I do hear people (including me) saying he’s not going anywhere anytime soon. Which I suspect to be true. OTOH, Shanahan may be available soon…… :)
Forgetting the editorializing about Facebook (excuse me, Meta), I think the point was that because of the voting structure at Facebook, Zuckerberg is unaccountable to anyone else. Like Zuckerberg, Shaw owns a disproportionate number of the voting shares at Stanford, and thus is unaccountable, or something. Which is a joke, because even though his 11 year coaching record has earned him a fair bit of job security (probably more than most here would be comfortable with, but which, let’s be honest, we’d all like to have for ourselves), the truth is that Shaw would be held to account if he assaulted a player on the sidelines, if he tried to claim an exemption from the Stanford vaccination mandate, if he otherwise embarrassed the university, or if he went through a prolonged period of poor results (accent on prolonged). The powers that be have concluded that leading the program to nine winning seasons, three Rose Bowls, and four PAC-12 North championships, all while sporting a conference best graduation rate has earned the coach a little slack when the program takes a (hopefully temporary) dive and has two losing seasons over three years (I am assuming Shaw cannot salvage a winning season this year, though technically, 7-6 is still on the table). I think the issue is many people here believe that Shaw cannot pullout of what they see as a tailspin, and that there is no reason to believe that the next five years will be much different than the last three. They may well be right; I don’t claim to be able to predict the future. But alas, the AD, the Provost, and the President have not yet concluded it is hopeless, and thus are not going to fire Shaw anything soon. But I think OF mistakes the AD’s patience with a lack of accountability for Shaw, and I don’t think that is right.
BC
Agree completely. I am not a fan of coaches firing coordinators mid-season. Just the HC trying to save his ass. I do think changes are needed off season. Some new blood can’t hurt.
RE: Embarrassing Loss 52- 7 - Austroturf - 11-09-2021
(11-08-2021, 08:57 AM)82lsju Wrote: you know it is a lost season when the discussion turns to the analysis of which games/teams were worse than the current one....
Good point.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 09:05 AM)lex24 Wrote: Agree completely. I am not a fan of coaches firing coordinators mid-season. Just the HC trying to save his ass. I do think changes are needed off season. Some new blood can’t hurt.You are correct. It only makes sense if the coordinator has basically refused to make a move that the head coach insists upon. In that case, the coordinator should resign. If the coordinator does not resign, in that case firing him is necessary. All other cases are for show and are totally the definition of throwing somebody under the bus.
I think changing coordinators under pressure from the AD seldom works. Id did for ND, but in most cases it doesn't. The new hire knows he wasn't really desired by HC. There is also probably a difference in philosophy between the HC and the new coordinator. Otherwise why get a new guy? In the presence of this inherent difficulty it often doesn't work. See U$C for an example. OTOH, if the HC sees a necessity for change and can find a candidate that he considers an upgrade, it absolutely is a great idea.
The area where we all feel this year was a problem is the OL, but we have a relatively new guy there who maybe hasn't had a full opportunity to "do his thing". However, if Shaw wants to change there, I can certainly see it. I question how good the last two guys have been. They both seem to be NFL guys, and that may just not be appropriate for college players. It may be that EUTM is needed in college and not so much in the professional ranks. I don't know the "inside story" on the S&C situation. We see lots of generalized criticism on this board, but I don't know if there is substance in those criticisms. That is one area where I would think you can measure the performance to a greater degree than in most other parts of football.
I think Shaw pretty much lets the DC run the defense. That is an attractive point for Stanford hiring a new DC. There is also money available to pay the DC very well (it seems). Almost everything else about Stanford is a minus for hiring the DC. You are on the side of the ball that has not been part of Stanford's reputation. This isn't really accurate, as obviously whenever Stanford has done well the defense has been a key part of that success. However, that isn't the perception of the public. The public remembers Jim Plunkett but not the Thunderchickens. You have to recruit a DL that can get admitted. You have to convince guys to come to a school where even if they are great they will be overshadowed by the offense. Kind of cuts down on the candidates. Guys who do take the job may do so as a stepping stone. This isn't ideal, but it may still be an upgrade.
I don't see Shaw making a change just for the sake of change. If he does make a change, it will be because he thinks the new guy will be better than the old guy. That makes sense, but it also reduces the probability of it happening. However, I do think Shaw can recognize a situation where the current system isn't functioning as it should and is "stuck" in that mode. I wouldn't be surprised if the wheels of change are already turning. We shall see.