Timing for coaching changes? - Printable Version

Timing for coaching changes? - 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: Timing for coaching changes? (/thread-18811.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Timing for coaching changes? - GK3 - 01-06-2020

(01-06-2020, 04:15 PM)BostonCard Wrote: OK, thanks GK3. I guess the question is how much we can translate what happened 30 and 40 years ago to circumstances today.

BC

An excellent point BC. When you have come to expect success, then failing to repeat success can be reason enough for criticism. JH's rebuilding years combined with Shaw's years, less the last can make it much easier to find reason to be critical and want change. When viewed from a cost to watch perspective, you might find the criticism more vociferous. For the ancient few who have watched Stanford Football as student and later as a graduate,for nearly 70 years, might find our perspective be a bit different as we have seen the good, the bad and the ugly of Stanford Football. Sometimes I think we fans today sound more like residents of Alabama than more jaded Stanford fans. Not that is bad, but for us it is a viewpoint not tempered by history. Sometimes it helps to remember history.

RE: Timing for coaching changes? - BostonCard - 01-06-2020

(01-06-2020, 06:48 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 06:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You don't think a guy who has been to three Rose Bowls and won two is capable of being successful? What exactly does Shaw need to do to demonstrate that he can be successful?

BC

Go back to another one. The team has been punched in the mouth; get back up.

Absolutely! But some people pretend like Shaw is incapable of being successful. We forget that he won the PAC-12 north two years ago (with absolutely none of Harbaigh’s recruits, yet in this thread someone claimed that his success came on Harbaugh’s coattails).

It is entirely possible that Shaw goes into a tailspin, and that his lack of success on the field leads to subpar recruiting, which in turn leads to persistently bad play on the field, though we’ve seen no evidence that recruiting has suffered. But I don’t think this outcome is preordained, or that changing coordinators will necessarily prevent such an outcome.

BC

RE: Timing for coaching changes? - CornFed - 01-06-2020

(01-06-2020, 06:03 PM)Brickcity Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:42 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:34 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 05:04 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Also, before you all blithely conclude "that never happens" - word is that is exactly what happened after Kelley's one losing season at ND. And they have been largely excellent since then.

LOL; they've been so excellent since then that Brian Kelly just fired his offensive coordinator:

https://irish.nbcsports.com/2019/12/12/notre-dame-brian-kelly-fire-chip-long/

BC

They still went 11-2, dude. And they are cleaning our clock in recruiting.

https://irish.nbcsports.com/2019/12/12/notre-dame-brian-kelly-fire-chip-long/
"Chip Long authored the two highest-scoring seasons of Brian Kelly's time at Notre Dame, along with two of the four best-gaining offenses."

The firing seems a little like grass-is-greener syndrome to me. Regardless, I have no idea how you can argue with teejers' point. ND turned it around after firing half their staff after 4-8...10-3, 12-1, 11-2. Going 11-2 with an apparently crappy (?) OC sounds WONDERFUL to me right now.

So you're saying you would rather have Brian Kelly at Stanford than David Shaw?

To each his own...

"So you're saying you would rather have Brian Kelly at Stanford than David Shaw?"

So, you're saying that it's impossible to be an extremely successful head coach (Kelly) and also be a good guy (Shaw)? My guess is that it's very possible to do both. I just don't know if Shaw is capable of being both.

If that is so easy, maybe you could provide us with a list of current coaches who are at least as successful as Kelly and are as upstanding as Shaw. Wait. First name on the list might be . . . . David Shaw!!!

(01-06-2020, 07:04 PM)winflop Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 03:06 PM)ColoradoTree Wrote: I'm mostly with you, but not entirely. To dictate wholesale staff changes? I'm with you. But I think it's reasonable to think (1) David Shaw is the best possible head mo coach for our program for numerous reasons, and yet (2) I am not happy with the on-field product, so therefore (3) I am going to strongly suggest that Coach Shaw make certain changes to the coaching staff to try and fix what I think is wrong with the on-field product.

And what if he refuses to make any changes and the gross underperformannce continues next year?

And what if the world ends before the next season starts? Like Ted Kennedy said, "Maybe etc., etc."

Détente? - cardcrimson - 01-06-2020

As nothing appears to be changing on the football front for the foreseeable future, at least from a coaching staff standpoint, is there any chance of a ceasefire in the ongoing debate? Rehashing the same arguments is getting somewhat tiresome, especially as nothing new ever seems to come to light. Unless of course the circumstance cries out for satire or sarcasm, I suggest Détente.

I guess we could resume hostilities for a week around signing day and spring football, but really, besides then, what's the point until early September?

Why not focus on Tara's troups, Haase's hoops, Jenna's javelin, women's water polo, and the rest. . . .

RE: Timing for coaching changes? - teejers1 - 01-06-2020

(01-06-2020, 09:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 06:48 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 06:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You don't think a guy who has been to three Rose Bowls and won two is capable of being successful? What exactly does Shaw need to do to demonstrate that he can be successful?

BC

Go back to another one. The team has been punched in the mouth; get back up.

Absolutely! But some people pretend like Shaw is incapable of being successful. We forget that he won the PAC-12 north two years ago (with absolutely none of Harbaigh’s recruits, yet in this thread someone claimed that his success came on Harbaugh’s coattails).

It is entirely possible that Shaw goes into a tailspin, and that his lack of success on the field leads to subpar recruiting, which in turn leads to persistently bad play on the field, though we’ve seen no evidence that recruiting has suffered. But I don’t think this outcome is preordained, or that changing coordinators will necessarily prevent such an outcome.

BC

I agree with Cardcrimson that we've been over this terrain before and a cease-fire makes sense (especially with all the positive things happening with Stanford sports outside of football). But the one thing I keep coming back to is this: even in the "successful" seasons, Shaw made shockingly poor game management decisions that led to underperformance. Good offensive game managers would not make such decisions . . . yet Shaw does it every year. Some don't believe that, or refuse to consider it, given the overall record. I think that's short-selling the program.

And GK, I have been a Stanford football fan for the last 45 years or so, so I've seen the ups and downs, good and bad. I've seen Stanford stadium, the Old Lady, with 75K there for SJSU. I know attendance decline is not on Shaw; but my gut tells me that his persona (part vanilla, part elitist) and his style of play (dull as can be) is contributing to the decline. And that is on Shaw. Part of the benefit of a new OC with autonomy would be . . . hope. And as Andy Dufresne said, "hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K30e9O3Nng

lex24 - lex24 - 01-06-2020

(01-06-2020, 10:51 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 09:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 06:48 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 06:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You don't think a guy who has been to three Rose Bowls and won two is capable of being successful? What exactly does Shaw need to do to demonstrate that he can be successful?

BC

Go back to another one. The team has been punched in the mouth; get back up.

Absolutely! But some people pretend like Shaw is incapable of being successful. We forget that he won the PAC-12 north two years ago (with absolutely none of Harbaigh’s recruits, yet in this thread someone claimed that his success came on Harbaugh’s coattails).

It is entirely possible that Shaw goes into a tailspin, and that his lack of success on the field leads to subpar recruiting, which in turn leads to persistently bad play on the field, though we’ve seen no evidence that recruiting has suffered. But I don’t think this outcome is preordained, or that changing coordinators will necessarily prevent such an outcome.

BC

I agree with Cardcrimson that we've been over this terrain before and a cease-fire makes sense (especially with all the positive things happening with Stanford sports outside of football). But the one thing I keep coming back to is this: even in the "successful" seasons, Shaw made shockingly poor game management decisions that led to underperformance. Good offensive game managers would not make such decisions . . . yet Shaw does it every year. Some don't believe that, or refuse to consider it, given the overall record. I think that's short-selling the program.

And GK, I have been a Stanford football fan for the last 45 years or so, so I've seen the ups and downs, good and bad. I've seen Stanford stadium, the Old Lady, with 75K there for SJSU. I know attendance decline is not on Shaw; but my gut tells me that his persona (part vanilla, part elitist) and his style of play (dull as can be) is contributing to the decline. And that is on Shaw. Part of the benefit of a new OC with autonomy would be . . . hope. And as Andy Dufresne said, "hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K30e9O3Nng

“Part Vanilla, part elitist.” Sounds like a lot of people’s perception of Stanford and it’s alums. So I can see why you think he’s a “good representative “.

You think fans decide whether to go the football game because of their perception of the coaches “persona”. What garbage. Stanford draws when they win and when they play big name schools. When they don’t, they don’t. Never really have. The attendance was so lousy they cut the “Old Lady” in half. The Bay Area is a lousy college sports area. And college football attendance is dropping damn near everywhere.

RE: Détente? - cardcrimson - 01-07-2020

(01-06-2020, 10:09 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: As nothing appears to be changing on the football front for the foreseeable future, at least from a coaching staff standpoint, is there any chance of a ceasefire in the ongoing debate? Rehashing the same arguments is getting somewhat tiresome, especially as nothing new ever seems to come to light. Unless of course the circumstance cries out for satire or sarcasm, I suggest Détente.

I guess we could resume hostilities for a week around signing day and spring football, but really, besides then, what's the point until early September?

Why not focus on Tara's troups, Haase's hoops, Jenna's javelin, women's water polo, and the rest. . . .

I thought this had it's own thread. Guess it's not worthy and therefore relegated to page three of a tired series of posts.

I am depressed.

RE: Timing for coaching changes? - stupac2 - 01-07-2020

Re: poor coaching decisions even in good season, it's entirely possible that the NE Patriots are sitting at home this week because of bone-headed decisions Bill Belichick made (eating the final possession of the half against Miami, a slew of cowardly punts, and that's just off the top of my head and from the last two games). It's possible to both be good and make mistakes.

In general I do wish Shaw would get with the times on some of these things, a 10-year-old playing Madden shouldn't have a better grasp of situational coaching than someone paid millions of dollars a year, but I'm not sure any of them actually get everything right 100% of the time.

RE: Timing for coaching changes? - BostonCard - 01-07-2020

I'm all for a cease fire, and I will resist the temptation to get one last shot in by rehashing my own well worn points before declaring the cease fire.

BC

RE: Timing for coaching changes? - Phogge - 01-07-2020

OK cease fire but understand there is a vigorous element out there "The Loyal Opposition."

RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 01-07-2020

(01-06-2020, 11:38 PM)lex24 Wrote: You think fans decide whether to go the football game because of their perception of the coaches “persona”. What garbage. Stanford draws when they win and when they play big name schools. When they don’t, they don’t. Never really have. The attendance was so lousy they cut the “Old Lady” in half. The Bay Area is a lousy college sports area. And college football attendance is dropping damn near everywhere.

I think Harbaugh, for all his foibles and defects, generated two things entirely lacking under this regime: buzz/newsworthiness/interest, and hope. And no, it doesn't translate into more butts in seats overnight, but over the medium-longer term, it does. This guy is going in the wrong direction (and has been for a long time now).

And Stupac, yes, most everyone makes the occasional game management mistake (some don't, I imagine). But our guy makes them regularly. And he thinks he doesn't, which is all the more alarming.

RE: lex24 - 76lsjumb - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 12:25 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(01-06-2020, 11:38 PM)lex24 Wrote: You think fans decide whether to go the football game because of their perception of the coaches “persona”. What garbage. Stanford draws when they win and when they play big name schools. When they don’t, they don’t. Never really have. The attendance was so lousy they cut the “Old Lady” in half. The Bay Area is a lousy college sports area. And college football attendance is dropping damn near everywhere.

I think Harbaugh, for all his foibles and defects, generated two things entirely lacking under this regime: buzz/newsworthiness/interest, and hope. And no, it doesn't translate into more butts in seats overnight, but over the medium-longer term, it does. This guy is going in the wrong direction (and has been for a long time now).

And Stupac, yes, most everyone makes the occasional game management mistake (some don't, I imagine). But our guy makes them regularly. And he thinks he doesn't, which is all the more alarming.

Well, that cease fire didn't hold long... :-)

Two quick points: First, imagine an alternate universe in which, instead of Andrew Luck, Harbaugh had Shea Patterson at Stanford. I'm guessing things would have transpired a lot differently [and not be remembered nearly so fondly].

Second, if you want to fill seats again, stop charging well over $100 [almost $200?] per ticket [seat license included] for your most loyal fans [i.e., long-time season ticket holders] that simply can't justify paying that much to watch a game available for free on TV from seats worse than they had for many years. Maybe Shaw sets the ticket prices, but I doubt it.

RE: lex24 - 82lsju - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 03:33 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: Second, if you want to fill seats again, stop charging well over $100 [almost $200?] per ticket [seat license included] for your most loyal fans [i.e., long-time season ticket holders] that simply can't justify paying that much to watch a game available for free on TV from seats worse than they had for many years. Maybe Shaw sets the ticket prices, but I doubt it.

come sit on the sunny side in 134, no annual required donation (yet) and our seats (with alumni discount) were ~$51/seat/game. STH since 1982.

RE: lex24 - Goose - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 04:29 PM)82lsju Wrote: come sit on the sunny side in 134, no annual required donation (yet) and our seats (with alumni discount) were ~$51/seat/game. STH since 1982.

I still sit on the sunny side because that is the "young people's" side. The shady side was only for old folks, before they moved the teams and students to that side. I never liked that change, and I am remaining young by sitting in the sun.

RE: Timing for coaching changes? - BostonCard - 01-07-2020

Or better yet, get a family pass; four tickets for ~$400 so <$20/person/game. If you are lucky, Stupac's wife will be stuck at home with the kiddo, and you can visit. Of course, it was a better deal when it was $100 for the four tickets.

BC

RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 04:33 PM)Goose Wrote:
(01-07-2020, 04:29 PM)82lsju Wrote: come sit on the sunny side in 134, no annual required donation (yet) and our seats (with alumni discount) were ~$51/seat/game. STH since 1982.
I still sit on the sunny side because that is the "young people's" side. The shady side was only for old folks, before they moved the teams and students to that side. I never liked that change, and I am remaining young by sitting in the sun.

Miss the bikini tops and beers of the early 80s. A great way to spend a Saturday afternoon in the fall sun.

RE: lex24 - 76lsjumb - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 04:29 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(01-07-2020, 03:33 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: Second, if you want to fill seats again, stop charging well over $100 [almost $200?] per ticket [seat license included] for your most loyal fans [i.e., long-time season ticket holders] that simply can't justify paying that much to watch a game available for free on TV from seats worse than they had for many years. Maybe Shaw sets the ticket prices, but I doubt it.

come sit on the sunny side in 134, no annual required donation (yet) and our seats (with alumni discount) were ~$51/seat/game. STH since 1982.

Actually, that's exactly what my wife and I did. Same section you mention [134] in seats that are the mirror image of what we formerly had on the shady side [Row P]. STH for 60+ years [technically, legacy STH since my folks had the tickets before me]. However, my two older brothers [who live farther away] decided not to, as, I'm sure, a large number of others in our old section decided as well. Every game, I stare over at the empty seats where we used to sit...

And, as I'm sure you've noticed, Section 134 is not at all like our old "shady side" section, which was pretty much all Stanford fans. This season, we were surrounded in many [most?] of the games by large numbers of opposing fans, culminating with the incredibly obnoxious U.N.D. fans [and that foul-mouthed jerk I mentioned in a post after that game]. Even for the Northwestern game, there were several rows of Northwestern fans down lower in the section.

RE: lex24 - 82lsju - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 06:11 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: Actually, that's exactly what my wife and I did. Same section you mention [134] in seats that are the mirror image of what we formerly had on the shady side [Row P]. STH for 60+ years [technically, legacy STH since my folks had the tickets before me]. However, my two older brothers [who live farther away] decided not to, as, I'm sure, a large number of others in our old section decided as well. Every game, I stare over at the empty seats where we used to sit...

And, as I'm sure you've noticed, Section 134 is not at all like our old "shady side" section, which was pretty much all Stanford fans. This season, we were surrounded in many [most?] of the games by large numbers of opposing fans, culminating with the incredibly obnoxious U.N.D. fans [and that foul-mouthed jerk I mentioned in a post after that game]. Even for the Northwestern game, there were several rows of Northwestern fans down lower in the section.

stop by next season, we're in row w seats 9-10

and yes, we are often surrounded by the enemy, although two years ago some new ticket holders moved in behind us in row x who show up and cheer for the good guys most games vs the old STH who seemed to see them to our opponents almost every game......

RE: lex24 - CornFed - 01-07-2020

(01-07-2020, 05:02 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(01-07-2020, 04:33 PM)Goose Wrote:
(01-07-2020, 04:29 PM)82lsju Wrote: come sit on the sunny side in 134, no annual required donation (yet) and our seats (with alumni discount) were ~$51/seat/game. STH since 1982.
I still sit on the sunny side because that is the "young people's" side. The shady side was only for old folks, before they moved the teams and students to that side. I never liked that change, and I am remaining young by sitting in the sun.

Miss the bikini tops and beers of the early 80s. A great way to spend a Saturday afternoon in the fall sun.

I miss the kegs and joints from the early 70's.

RE: Timing for coaching changes? - winflop - 01-07-2020

(01-06-2020, 04:55 PM)martyup Wrote: Who is to say that Shaw and Muir don't meet over beers often and brainstorm how to right the ship? Let them do their jobs already.

If there have been no changes in either the coaching or S&C staff, then IMnsHO they aren't doing their jobs. This is not a one-year blip. It's the culmination of three years of growing issues.