Apathy - 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: Apathy (/thread-22493.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: Apathy (/thread-22493.html)
RE: Apathy - BostonCard - 11-14-2021
One, no, this is not as bad as the dark times.
Two, there is no more evidence that this is sea level for Shaw than, say, 2017, when we won the PAC-12 north. In order to make it “sea level” for Shaw, you have to manufacture a situation where everything up until 2018 was due to Harbaugh, and the lingering benefits from the program, 7 full years after Harbaugh left the program. It is at least as likely that “sea level” for Shaw is something like 2018, when we finished 9-4 and went to a Sun Bowl, and that what we’ve seen is a combination of subpar recruiting classes due to changes that in the recruiting calendar that were disadvantageous to Stanford, the effect of the pandemic, and some bad injury luck. Time will tell, but it is worth noting that this year’s recruiting class is comparable in quality to the recruiting classes of the 2010-15 period that you claim benefitted from the roster he inherited in 2011/12. If you think it doesn’t take some coaching chops to build upon a previous coach’s program, look no further than Jimmy Lake, fired two years into his term after squandering that which was left to him by Chris Petersen, or what Lane Kiffin did in the wake of Pete Carroll (to be fair to Kiffin, Carroll also left him NCAA sanctions).
I think we forget how much variability there is in college football, unless you are a Nick Saban level coach. Good coaches go through rough stretches, where their teams look like crap. Shaw is going through one such stretch, but I don’t think that should define him. Sure, it is entirely possible that Shaw has entered a vicious cycle that he will never be able to fix, but I think that is less likely than the possibility that Shaw is a better coach than you are giving him credit for, and that a few years from now, things will be looking somewhat different.
BC
RE: Apathy - teejers1 - 11-14-2021
(11-14-2021, 08:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote: One, no, this is not as bad as the dark times.
Two, there is no more evidence that this is sea level for Shaw than, say, 2017, when we won the PAC-12 north. In order to make it “sea level” for Shaw, you have to manufacture a situation where everything up until 2018 was due to Harbaugh, and the lingering benefits from the program, 7 full years after Harbaugh left the program. It is at least as likely that “sea level” for Shaw is something like 2018, when we finished 9-4 and went to a Sun Bowl, and that what we’ve seen is a combination of subpar recruiting classes due to changes that in the recruiting calendar that were disadvantageous to Stanford, the effect of the pandemic, and some bad injury luck. Time will tell, but it is worth noting that this year’s recruiting class is comparable in quality to the recruiting classes of the 2010-15 period that you claim benefitted from the roster he inherited in 2011/12. If you think it doesn’t take some coaching chops to build upon a previous coach’s program, look no further than Jimmy Lake, fired two years into his term after squandering that which was left to him by Chris Petersen, or what Lane Kiffin did in the wake of Pete Carroll (to be fair to Kiffin, Carroll also left him NCAA sanctions).
I think we forget how much variability there is in college football, unless you are a Nick Saban level coach. Good coaches go through rough stretches, where their teams look like crap. Shaw is going through one such stretch, but I don’t think that should define him. Sure, it is entirely possible that Shaw has entered a vicious cycle that he will never be able to fix, but I think that is less likely than the possibility that Shaw is a better coach than you are giving him credit for, and that a few years from now, things will be looking somewhat different.
BC
From a Sagarin standpoint we ARE as bad as we've ever been in the last 3 years (despite meaningless 4-2 Covid record, where our Sagarin rating sucked, too). And inside the stadium, the atmosphere is indubitably at an all-time low (a reflection of dull-as-death schemes employed by O and D).
What makes you think that Shaw can reverse the destruction of the Stanford football program that occurred under his watch?
That is fundamentally the question to be answered. I can think of no reason to believe that Shaw can rebuild what he toppled. I have yet to hear a real reason why anyone would think that's possible, let alone likely.
RE: Apathy - gailtate - 11-14-2021
(11-14-2021, 08:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote: One, no, this is not as bad as the dark times.
Two, there is no more evidence that this is sea level for Shaw than, say, 2017, when we won the PAC-12 north. In order to make it “sea level” for Shaw, you have to manufacture a situation where everything up until 2018 was due to Harbaugh, and the lingering benefits from the program, 7 full years after Harbaugh left the program. It is at least as likely that “sea level” for Shaw is something like 2018, when we finished 9-4 and went to a Sun Bowl, and that what we’ve seen is a combination of subpar recruiting classes due to changes that in the recruiting calendar that were disadvantageous to Stanford, the effect of the pandemic, and some bad injury luck. Time will tell, but it is worth noting that this year’s recruiting class is comparable in quality to the recruiting classes of the 2010-15 period that you claim benefitted from the roster he inherited in 2011/12. If you think it doesn’t take some coaching chops to build upon a previous coach’s program, look no further than Jimmy Lake, fired two years into his term after squandering that which was left to him by Chris Petersen, or what Lane Kiffin did in the wake of Pete Carroll (to be fair to Kiffin, Carroll also left him NCAA sanctions).
I think we forget how much variability there is in college football, unless you are a Nick Saban level coach. Good coaches go through rough stretches, where their teams look like crap. Shaw is going through one such stretch, but I don’t think that should define him. Sure, it is entirely possible that Shaw has entered a vicious cycle that he will never be able to fix, but I think that is less likely than the possibility that Shaw is a better coach than you are giving him credit for, and that a few years from now, things will be looking somewhat different.
BC
Ever read "The True Believer" by Eric Hofer?
RE: Apathy - 76lsjumb - 11-15-2021
(11-14-2021, 09:17 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-14-2021, 08:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote: One, no, this is not as bad as the dark times.
Two, there is no more evidence that this is sea level for Shaw than, say, 2017, when we won the PAC-12 north. In order to make it “sea level” for Shaw, you have to manufacture a situation where everything up until 2018 was due to Harbaugh, and the lingering benefits from the program, 7 full years after Harbaugh left the program. It is at least as likely that “sea level” for Shaw is something like 2018, when we finished 9-4 and went to a Sun Bowl, and that what we’ve seen is a combination of subpar recruiting classes due to changes that in the recruiting calendar that were disadvantageous to Stanford, the effect of the pandemic, and some bad injury luck. Time will tell, but it is worth noting that this year’s recruiting class is comparable in quality to the recruiting classes of the 2010-15 period that you claim benefitted from the roster he inherited in 2011/12. If you think it doesn’t take some coaching chops to build upon a previous coach’s program, look no further than Jimmy Lake, fired two years into his term after squandering that which was left to him by Chris Petersen, or what Lane Kiffin did in the wake of Pete Carroll (to be fair to Kiffin, Carroll also left him NCAA sanctions).
I think we forget how much variability there is in college football, unless you are a Nick Saban level coach. Good coaches go through rough stretches, where their teams look like crap. Shaw is going through one such stretch, but I don’t think that should define him. Sure, it is entirely possible that Shaw has entered a vicious cycle that he will never be able to fix, but I think that is less likely than the possibility that Shaw is a better coach than you are giving him credit for, and that a few years from now, things will be looking somewhat different.
BC
From a Sagarin standpoint we ARE as bad as we've ever been in the last 3 years (despite meaningless 4-2 Covid record, where our Sagarin rating sucked, too). And inside the stadium, the atmosphere is indubitably at an all-time low (a reflection of dull-as-death schemes employed by O and D).
What makes you think that Shaw can reverse the destruction of the Stanford football program that occurred under his watch?
That is fundamentally the question to be answered. I can think of no reason to believe that Shaw can rebuild what he toppled. I have yet to hear a real reason why anyone would think that's possible, let alone likely.
What about the fact that he built it to begin with?
RE: Apathy - chrisk - 11-15-2021
(11-14-2021, 08:18 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-14-2021, 07:49 PM)M T Wrote:(11-14-2021, 03:18 PM)gailtate Wrote:You got that wrong. Stanford had a winning season last year. True, it was 4-2 in a COVID year.(11-14-2021, 11:08 AM)M T Wrote:OK I will take the bait and say this:(11-14-2021, 09:42 AM)gailtate Wrote: But there's larger truth that must be addressed: a perennial losing team,
Can you give me the facts on that larger truth?
When was our Stanford's last winning season? How many losing seasons has it had in the last decade?
1. Stanford's "losing-season" era began in 2019 and will likely continue as long as Shaw is HC.
You also didn't answer the other question. Stanford football has had one losing season in the last decade. The current season will be the second.
If you want to misrepresent the facts and say Stanford football is a perennial losing team, I think Cal's got a place you can be very negative about Stanford.
It's sorta interesting. I was an undergrad at a school that truly had a perennial losing football team. Nobody bitched & complained about the coaches or players. Not everyone paid attention, but those that did truly cheered them on and celebrated each little victory.
Stanford wins far more of its sporting events than any other school, but this board is festering with negativity, feeding on itself. Coaches at Stanford are highly respected by their peers but not by a subset of the members here. But, I guess that subset believes they know better. Maybe they should quit their day job and apply as a coach for Stanford. Maybe you can recruit better?
MT, Sam Leopold and others defending Shaw, I'm curious if:
1. You've actually watched the games over the years (or just one of those check-the-scores-the-next-day kind of fans)?
2. You've actually attended the games in-person and seen the vibe in the stands?
3. Have any sense where the program was when Shaw took over and where it stands right now?
In a previous post I laid out the rationale why what we're seeing now is Shaw at his sea level. This is his team, his program, without any lingering benefits (including recruiting benefits from monster roster he inherited that won in 2011 and 2012). And make no mistake, this is as BAD as Stanford football has ever been, including the Dark Times. Why anyone think Shaw "deserves" any kind of long leash from the fan base is a mystery. He has been ridiculously compensated for his services. Time to thank him and move on. Otherwise, the program is Neidermeyer.
How can this season be as bad as the Dark Times?
Stanford is the only team in the Pac-12 that has beaten 2 ranked teams.
RE: Apathy - Austroturf - 11-15-2021
In this back and forth debate about the current state of Cardinal football, I submit the following observations.
For the most part, recruiting at Stanford has been pretty decent during the Harbaugh-Shaw era. There have been a few bad years now and then, but on the whole Stanford has been able to attract recruiting classes that are in or around the top 30, sometimes in the top 20. From 2007-2015, the average recruiting ranking was 29.1. From 2015-2020, the average was 22.3 (according to 247 Sports).
From 2009 to 2016, Stanford tended to outperform vs. the recruiting rankings, fielding teams that ended up in the top ten (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015) or at least in the top 25 (#12, 2016, just missed in 2014). During these 8 years, for example, Stanford beat USC 7 times and lost twice. Yes, USC had sanctions in the beginning of this period and, yes, USC had coaching turbulence; yet they had average recruiting rankings of 5.2 during this period. The perennial argument at the time was that Stanford, despite having lower-ranking recruiting classes compared to USC, made up the difference with superior player development, better coaching and better S&C. The players were better than their recruiting stars, played more cohesively, made fewer mistakes, committed fewer penalties and were simply tougher. In short, the team was greater than the sum of the parts.
Beginning in 2017, this situation began to flip-flop. In fact, 2017 was the last time a Stanford team ended the season in the top 25 (#20). Recruiting rankings have not been lower, but we have seen more and more highly-touted players enter the squad and underperform vs. expectations. Foster Sarrell is the poster-child for a big-time recruit who never lived up to his billing. As I have noted elsewhere, we have also seen multiple cases of player regression during their Stanford tenure. Today, the players hardly live up to their recruiting stars, seem to lack basic skills, commit many errors and are highly prone to injury. If the key to outperforming our recruiting rankings in the past was player development, coaching and S&C, what do we currently conclude about our inability to perform at the level of our recruiting rankings? Clearly, the current team is less than the sum of the parts. Getting hammered by an Oregon State team that has had recruiting rankings in the 50-70 range during the last 6 years should be a clear sign that something is amiss.
RE: Apathy - winflop - 11-15-2021
(11-15-2021, 04:57 AM)Austroturf Wrote: In this back and forth debate about the current state of Cardinal football, I submit the following observations.
For the most part, recruiting at Stanford has been pretty decent during the Harbaugh-Shaw era. There have been a few bad years now and then, but on the whole Stanford has been able to attract recruiting classes that are in or around the top 30, sometimes in the top 20. From 2007-2015, the average recruiting ranking was 29.1. From 2015-2020, the average was 22.3 (according to 247 Sports).
From 2009 to 2016, Stanford tended to outperform vs. the recruiting rankings, fielding teams that ended up in the top ten (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015) or at least in the top 25 (#12, 2016, just missed in 2014). During these 8 years, for example, Stanford beat USC 7 times and lost twice. Yes, USC had sanctions in the beginning of this period and, yes, USC had coaching turbulence; yet they had average recruiting rankings of 5.2 during this period. The perennial argument at the time was that Stanford, despite having lower-ranking recruiting classes compared to USC, made up the difference with superior player development, better coaching and better S&C. The players were better than their recruiting stars, played more cohesively, made fewer mistakes, committed fewer penalties and were simply tougher. In short, the team was greater than the sum of the parts.
Beginning in 2017, this situation began to flip-flop. In fact, 2017 was the last time a Stanford team ended the season in the top 25 (#20). Recruiting rankings have not been lower, but we have seen more and more highly-touted players enter the squad and underperform vs. expectations. Foster Sarrell is the poster-child for a big-time recruit who never lived up to his billing. As I have noted elsewhere, we have also seen multiple cases of player regression during their Stanford tenure. Today, the players hardly live up to their recruiting stars, seem to lack basic skills, commit many errors and are highly prone to injury. If the key to outperforming our recruiting rankings in the past was player development, coaching and S&C, what do we currently conclude about our inability to perform at the level of our recruiting rankings? Clearly, the current team is less than the sum of the parts. Getting hammered by an Oregon State team that has had recruiting rankings in the 50-70 range during the last 6 years should be a clear sign that something is amiss.
THIS x 1 bazillion
RE: Apathy - Phogge - 11-15-2021
Shaw didn’t build it 76.
RE: Apathy - McKenwood - 11-15-2021
(11-15-2021, 12:47 AM)76lsjumb Wrote:(11-14-2021, 09:17 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-14-2021, 08:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote: One, no, this is not as bad as the dark times.
Two, there is no more evidence that this is sea level for Shaw than, say, 2017, when we won the PAC-12 north. In order to make it “sea level” for Shaw, you have to manufacture a situation where everything up until 2018 was due to Harbaugh, and the lingering benefits from the program, 7 full years after Harbaugh left the program. It is at least as likely that “sea level” for Shaw is something like 2018, when we finished 9-4 and went to a Sun Bowl, and that what we’ve seen is a combination of subpar recruiting classes due to changes that in the recruiting calendar that were disadvantageous to Stanford, the effect of the pandemic, and some bad injury luck. Time will tell, but it is worth noting that this year’s recruiting class is comparable in quality to the recruiting classes of the 2010-15 period that you claim benefitted from the roster he inherited in 2011/12. If you think it doesn’t take some coaching chops to build upon a previous coach’s program, look no further than Jimmy Lake, fired two years into his term after squandering that which was left to him by Chris Petersen, or what Lane Kiffin did in the wake of Pete Carroll (to be fair to Kiffin, Carroll also left him NCAA sanctions).
I think we forget how much variability there is in college football, unless you are a Nick Saban level coach. Good coaches go through rough stretches, where their teams look like crap. Shaw is going through one such stretch, but I don’t think that should define him. Sure, it is entirely possible that Shaw has entered a vicious cycle that he will never be able to fix, but I think that is less likely than the possibility that Shaw is a better coach than you are giving him credit for, and that a few years from now, things will be looking somewhat different.
BC
From a Sagarin standpoint we ARE as bad as we've ever been in the last 3 years (despite meaningless 4-2 Covid record, where our Sagarin rating sucked, too). And inside the stadium, the atmosphere is indubitably at an all-time low (a reflection of dull-as-death schemes employed by O and D).
What makes you think that Shaw can reverse the destruction of the Stanford football program that occurred under his watch?
That is fundamentally the question to be answered. I can think of no reason to believe that Shaw can rebuild what he toppled. I have yet to hear a real reason why anyone would think that's possible, let alone likely.
What about the fact that he built it to begin with?
What did Shaw build? Was he head man in 2007? Was he the offensive coordinator in 2010? He took a powerhouse program and got to the Rose Bowl more than once, which he should get a brobdingnagian amount of credit for. But he was not in charge for the build back rebuild that Harbaugh led in 2007-10. This type of rebuild takes a much different mindset than Shaw currently has. When he starts cycling through coordinators/assistants to find better ones I'll believe that he understands the gravity of the situation. Right now he leads the hubris and complacency brigade within Stanford's AD.
RE: Apathy - gailtate - 11-15-2021
(11-15-2021, 12:47 AM)76lsjumb Wrote:(11-14-2021, 09:17 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-14-2021, 08:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote: One, no, this is not as bad as the dark times.
Two, there is no more evidence that this is sea level for Shaw than, say, 2017, when we won the PAC-12 north. In order to make it “sea level” for Shaw, you have to manufacture a situation where everything up until 2018 was due to Harbaugh, and the lingering benefits from the program, 7 full years after Harbaugh left the program. It is at least as likely that “sea level” for Shaw is something like 2018, when we finished 9-4 and went to a Sun Bowl, and that what we’ve seen is a combination of subpar recruiting classes due to changes that in the recruiting calendar that were disadvantageous to Stanford, the effect of the pandemic, and some bad injury luck. Time will tell, but it is worth noting that this year’s recruiting class is comparable in quality to the recruiting classes of the 2010-15 period that you claim benefitted from the roster he inherited in 2011/12. If you think it doesn’t take some coaching chops to build upon a previous coach’s program, look no further than Jimmy Lake, fired two years into his term after squandering that which was left to him by Chris Petersen, or what Lane Kiffin did in the wake of Pete Carroll (to be fair to Kiffin, Carroll also left him NCAA sanctions).
I think we forget how much variability there is in college football, unless you are a Nick Saban level coach. Good coaches go through rough stretches, where their teams look like crap. Shaw is going through one such stretch, but I don’t think that should define him. Sure, it is entirely possible that Shaw has entered a vicious cycle that he will never be able to fix, but I think that is less likely than the possibility that Shaw is a better coach than you are giving him credit for, and that a few years from now, things will be looking somewhat different.
BC
From a Sagarin standpoint we ARE as bad as we've ever been in the last 3 years (despite meaningless 4-2 Covid record, where our Sagarin rating sucked, too). And inside the stadium, the atmosphere is indubitably at an all-time low (a reflection of dull-as-death schemes employed by O and D).
What makes you think that Shaw can reverse the destruction of the Stanford football program that occurred under his watch?
That is fundamentally the question to be answered. I can think of no reason to believe that Shaw can rebuild what he toppled. I have yet to hear a real reason why anyone would think that's possible, let alone likely.
What about the fact that he built it to begin with?
Built? What did he build? He moved into a luxury penthouse and let it fall into disrepair. Property still holds value but, for the most part, you really wouldn't want to live there until it's had some deep cleaning. And new plumbing. Housekeeper won't return.
(11-15-2021, 09:33 AM)McKenwood Wrote:(11-15-2021, 12:47 AM)76lsjumb Wrote:(11-14-2021, 09:17 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-14-2021, 08:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote: One, no, this is not as bad as the dark times.
Two, there is no more evidence that this is sea level for Shaw than, say, 2017, when we won the PAC-12 north. In order to make it “sea level” for Shaw, you have to manufacture a situation where everything up until 2018 was due to Harbaugh, and the lingering benefits from the program, 7 full years after Harbaugh left the program. It is at least as likely that “sea level” for Shaw is something like 2018, when we finished 9-4 and went to a Sun Bowl, and that what we’ve seen is a combination of subpar recruiting classes due to changes that in the recruiting calendar that were disadvantageous to Stanford, the effect of the pandemic, and some bad injury luck. Time will tell, but it is worth noting that this year’s recruiting class is comparable in quality to the recruiting classes of the 2010-15 period that you claim benefitted from the roster he inherited in 2011/12. If you think it doesn’t take some coaching chops to build upon a previous coach’s program, look no further than Jimmy Lake, fired two years into his term after squandering that which was left to him by Chris Petersen, or what Lane Kiffin did in the wake of Pete Carroll (to be fair to Kiffin, Carroll also left him NCAA sanctions).
I think we forget how much variability there is in college football, unless you are a Nick Saban level coach. Good coaches go through rough stretches, where their teams look like crap. Shaw is going through one such stretch, but I don’t think that should define him. Sure, it is entirely possible that Shaw has entered a vicious cycle that he will never be able to fix, but I think that is less likely than the possibility that Shaw is a better coach than you are giving him credit for, and that a few years from now, things will be looking somewhat different.
BC
From a Sagarin standpoint we ARE as bad as we've ever been in the last 3 years (despite meaningless 4-2 Covid record, where our Sagarin rating sucked, too). And inside the stadium, the atmosphere is indubitably at an all-time low (a reflection of dull-as-death schemes employed by O and D).
What makes you think that Shaw can reverse the destruction of the Stanford football program that occurred under his watch?
That is fundamentally the question to be answered. I can think of no reason to believe that Shaw can rebuild what he toppled. I have yet to hear a real reason why anyone would think that's possible, let alone likely.
What about the fact that he built it to begin with?
What did Shaw build? Was he head man in 2007? Was he the offensive coordinator in 2010? He took a powerhouse program and got to the Rose Bowl more than once, which he should get a of immense proportions amount of credit for. But he was not in charge for the build back rebuild that Harbaugh led in 2007-10. This type of rebuild takes a much different mindset than Shaw currently has. When he starts cycling through coordinators/assistants to find better ones I'll believe that he understands the gravity of the situation. Right now he leads the hubris and complacency brigade within Stanford's AD.
Truly, Muir is a figurative "Bernie" (post-demise), as in the 1989 film.
RE: Apathy - 76lsjumb - 11-15-2021
Someone in another thread said that an informed, critical thread with better analytical content would be a worthwhile forum for discussing the football program. Sounds reasonable to me.
Whatever such a thread might include, however, it presumably would NOT be mentions of luxury penthouses, plumbing, “hubris and complacency brigades”, motion pictures, or, for that matter, Ferraris, Yugos, or other hackneyed analogies.
RE: Apathy - OutsiderFan - 11-15-2021
Oregon fired Mark Helfrich a couple years after he got Oregon into National Title game because it was obvious he wasn't capable of keeping the program going at a high level. Larry Coker at Miami was similar. He basically took what Butch Davis had built up after Miami suffered sanctions, won a a title, and then proved he couldn't sustain anything.
The fact there are so many examples of coaches who "lose it" and get fired should be proof positive David Shaw is in deep trouble.
It's so disappointing how behind the curve Shaw is on everything. He is legacy system at a place that is all about disruptive technology.
RE: Apathy - McKenwood - 11-15-2021
(11-15-2021, 10:32 AM)76lsjumb Wrote: Someone in another thread said that an informed, critical thread with better analytical content would be a worthwhile forum for discussing the football program. Sounds reasonable to me.
Whatever such a thread might include, however, it presumably would NOT be mentions of luxury penthouses, plumbing, “hubris and complacency brigades”, motion pictures, or, for that matter, Ferraris, Yugos, or other hackneyed analogies.
I'm happy to engage. One line responses about Shaw having done it don't help create an informed, critical thread. Nor does cherry picking terms from other posts make for a viable discussion.
I would like an in-depth discussion of where Stanford goes from here with its football program. Shaw boosters, of which you appear to be one, would be valuable for that discussion. But I have not seen anyone put forth a cogent case for staying the course other than he had some good seasons five years ago.
RE: Apathy - teejers1 - 11-15-2021
(11-15-2021, 12:47 AM)76lsjumb Wrote:(11-14-2021, 09:17 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-14-2021, 08:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote: One, no, this is not as bad as the dark times.
Two, there is no more evidence that this is sea level for Shaw than, say, 2017, when we won the PAC-12 north. In order to make it “sea level” for Shaw, you have to manufacture a situation where everything up until 2018 was due to Harbaugh, and the lingering benefits from the program, 7 full years after Harbaugh left the program. It is at least as likely that “sea level” for Shaw is something like 2018, when we finished 9-4 and went to a Sun Bowl, and that what we’ve seen is a combination of subpar recruiting classes due to changes that in the recruiting calendar that were disadvantageous to Stanford, the effect of the pandemic, and some bad injury luck. Time will tell, but it is worth noting that this year’s recruiting class is comparable in quality to the recruiting classes of the 2010-15 period that you claim benefitted from the roster he inherited in 2011/12. If you think it doesn’t take some coaching chops to build upon a previous coach’s program, look no further than Jimmy Lake, fired two years into his term after squandering that which was left to him by Chris Petersen, or what Lane Kiffin did in the wake of Pete Carroll (to be fair to Kiffin, Carroll also left him NCAA sanctions).
I think we forget how much variability there is in college football, unless you are a Nick Saban level coach. Good coaches go through rough stretches, where their teams look like crap. Shaw is going through one such stretch, but I don’t think that should define him. Sure, it is entirely possible that Shaw has entered a vicious cycle that he will never be able to fix, but I think that is less likely than the possibility that Shaw is a better coach than you are giving him credit for, and that a few years from now, things will be looking somewhat different.
BC
From a Sagarin standpoint we ARE as bad as we've ever been in the last 3 years (despite meaningless 4-2 Covid record, where our Sagarin rating sucked, too). And inside the stadium, the atmosphere is indubitably at an all-time low (a reflection of dull-as-death schemes employed by O and D).
What makes you think that Shaw can reverse the destruction of the Stanford football program that occurred under his watch?
That is fundamentally the question to be answered. I can think of no reason to believe that Shaw can rebuild what he toppled. I have yet to hear a real reason why anyone would think that's possible, let alone likely.
What about the fact that he built it to begin with?
Now you're just trolling.
RE: Apathy - 76lsjumb - 11-15-2021
C'mon, teejers. You know me better than that.
What has always bothered me about this whole discussion is the fact that Shaw's pretty good record [indeed, arguably the best over a several year period of any Stanford coach ever] prior to the past few years is just as much SHAW's record as the inarguably dismal record over this season [and, I'll even concede the past two seasons as well]. That pretty good record was NOT Harbaugh's record. Harbaugh left. Harbaugh didn't coach those teams -- Shaw did. Shaw had several double digit win seasons. Shaw "built" that record; Harbaugh didn't, any more than Teevens and Harris "built" Harbaugh's record. Harbaugh chose to leave Stanford, which, of course, he had every right to do. More power to him. But, since he decided on his own [and wasn't forced] to leave Stanford, I can't understand the continuing almost fanatical devotion to him - particularly in the face of a program that for many thereafter, under Shaw' guidance, managed to accomplish a number of goals that Harbaugh's teams didn't.
As for the future, it might very well be time for new leadership. Of course, were we having this discussion a few years ago, I've little doubt that the Shaw critics on the Board would be going crazy for the obvious choice: Scott Frost [whose doing a pretty good Jerrod Haase impression in a different venue].
That's all I've got. See you at the game tonight? :-)
RE: Apathy - Eucalyptus72 - 11-15-2021
I think it helps to separate the defense from the offense. Somebody, presumably Harbaugh, had the wherewithal to install a new defense going into 2010. That included bringing in Randy Hart (defensive line coach) who stayed through 2015. As good as Stanford's defense was in 2010, it was even better 2012-2014. The defensive magic started to fade already with the 2015 team and it's been almost a straight line downhill since then. Another thing is that Stanford's defense once had a reputation for not missing tackles, not least the 2012 team. Missed tackles was a theme the defensive coaches wanted to fix a few years ago but I'm not sure that ever happened.
RE: Apathy - teejers1 - 11-15-2021
(11-15-2021, 12:28 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: C'mon, teejers. You know me better than that.
What has always bothered me about this whole discussion is the fact that Shaw's pretty good record [indeed, arguably the best over a several year period of any Stanford coach ever] prior to the past few years is just as much SHAW's record as the inarguably dismal record over this season [and, I'll even concede the past two seasons as well]. That pretty good record was NOT Harbaugh's record. Harbaugh left. Harbaugh didn't coach those teams -- Shaw did. Shaw had several double digit win seasons. Shaw "built" that record; Harbaugh didn't, any more than Teevens and Harris "built" Harbaugh's record. Harbaugh chose to leave Stanford, which, of course, he had every right to do. More power to him. But, since he decided on his own [and wasn't forced] to leave Stanford, I can't understand the continuing almost fanatical devotion to him - particularly in the face of a program that for many thereafter, under Shaw' guidance, managed to accomplish a number of goals that Harbaugh's teams didn't.
As for the future, it might very well be time for new leadership. Of course, were we having this discussion a few years ago, I've little doubt that the Shaw critics on the Board would be going crazy for the obvious choice: Scott Frost [whose doing a pretty good Jerrod Haase impression in a different venue].
That's all I've got. See you at the game tonight? :-)
I don't have the energy to repeat all the reasons why Shaw's W/L record from 2011 to 2020 is not fully "his" or "what he built."
Suffice it to say that the further you get out from Harbaugh's actual recruits (that played until 2014, at least); AND the recruits that Shaw was able to land with the FULLY LOADED roster Shaw inherited and won with in 2010 and 2011 (do you not think that powerhouse roster allowed Shaw to project Stanford as a NY6 Bowl contender?) - which takes you to 2015/2016 - the closer you get to Shaw at his sea level and what he "built."
And my working assumption is that Shaw underperforms to talent, regardless of roster strength, which is certainly bolstered by recent performance, per prior post on recruiting rankings.
Or you can always ask yourselves these questions:
How does this regime recruit 4 and 5 stars?
How does this regime do in recruiting diamonds in the rough?
How does this regime do in coaching up all those they recruit?
How does this regime compare with the above as against the prior regime?
You know my answers to those questions.
You may think that's a "fanatical devotion" to a long-gone coach, which is decidedly NOT the case (good riddance to Harbaugh - he lost me when he left Stanford for Kansas). Rather, it's an acknowledgement that despite the W/L record, the flaws in this coach are manifold and have been evident for years. Now that the STUD recruits no longer consider Stanford (because Stanford is no longer a NY6 team, thanks to Shaw), we see lesser players not maximally coached up, and the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. And it's really ugly.
And btw, Stanford will always (or did always, anyway) have a baseline appeal to certain football high-academic ballers. The question is, to what extent can they draw in those not so-inclined? How do you think Shaw is doing on that front?
Last point on performance vs. recruiting rankings. If a coach is good at finding the diamonds, and the roster left for the next coach has said diamonds, then next coach will reap the benefits of that in any comparison of "performance vs. recruiting rankings." That is also a consideration in any recruiting vs. performance analysis.
RE: Apathy - CowboyIndian - 11-15-2021
(11-14-2021, 09:17 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I have yet to hear a real reason why anyone would think that's possible, let alone likely.
Not sure about likelihood but this year's recruiting class is a significant cut above recent ones. That doesn't answer all the issues but it seems like a basis for optimism. Also...your bete noir, the "dull, unimaginative offense" is far down the list of reasons for empty seats in the stadium.
(11-15-2021, 09:49 AM)gailtate Wrote: He moved into a luxury penthouse and let it fall into disrepair. Property still holds value but, for the most part, you really wouldn't want to live there until it's had some deep cleaning. And new plumbing. Housekeeper won't return.
You sure know how to wrestle a metaphor into submission.
RE: Apathy - BostonCard - 11-15-2021
It’s possible because it has been done before. Tyrone Willingham’s record worsened each of his first four years at Stanford, going from 7-4-1 with the recruits he inherited from Bill Walsh in 1995 to 3-8 in 1998. 1999 started inauspiciously with a 69-17 beat down that, let’s face it, was worse than any stinker Shaw put up. You know how the season ended up, and in fact, cite that team’s offense in contrast to Shaw’s. I wonder if the Teejers who is convinced that Shaw’s coaching is irreparable and the team incapable of righting itself gave Tyrone Willingham much of a chance to go to the 2000 Rose Bowl.
As humans we put too much weight on easily describable trends, when a lot of what happens in the world is noise. A few lucky breaks one year have things looking better than they are (you yourself cite last year as an example of a team that lucked into a better record than it deserved). Conversely, a few bad breaks can leave you convinced that you are in a pit that you will never get out of. Things don’t look good now, and it is possible that Shaw won’t be able to figure out how to fix it. But you are much more certain of this than is warranted.
BC
RE: Apathy - JohnR34231 - 11-16-2021
(11-15-2021, 10:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: It’s possible because it has been done before. Tyrone Willingham’s record worsened each of his first four years at Stanford, going from 7-4-1 with the recruits he inherited from Bill Walsh in 1995 to 3-8 in 1998. 1999 started inauspiciously with a 69-17 beat down that, let’s face it, was worse than any stinker Shaw put up. You know how the season ended up, and in fact, cite that team’s offense in contrast to Shaw’s. I wonder if the Teejers who is convinced that Shaw’s coaching is irreparable and the team incapable of righting itself gave Tyrone Willingham much of a chance to go to the 2000 Rose Bowl.
As humans we put too much weight on easily describable trends, when a lot of what happens in the world is noise. A few lucky breaks one year have things looking better than they are (you yourself cite last year as an example of a team that lucked into a better record than it deserved). Conversely, a few bad breaks can leave you convinced that you are in a pit that you will never get out of. Things don’t look good now, and it is possible that Shaw won’t be able to figure out how to fix it. But you are much more certain of this than is warranted.
BC
As a matter of fact this board now is a clone of 1998, with our old buddy LongWinded playing the part of the current crop of Shaw boo-birds.
There was no doubt in LW's mind that Willingham was the worst coach to have ever patrolled a sideline.
A cynic might say we were extremely lucky to get to the Rose Bowl after the 1999 season. We backed ln when Washington lost a late season squeaker to UCLA. We ended up the season with exactly one win against a team that had a winning record for the year.