New Coach. CANDIDATES? - 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: New Coach. CANDIDATES? (/thread-22623.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: New Coach. CANDIDATES? (/thread-22623.html)
RE: lex24 - Giants - 11-21-2021
(11-21-2021, 04:25 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-21-2021, 04:15 PM)Giants Wrote:(11-21-2021, 03:58 PM)lex24 Wrote: Do you all enjoy beating your heads against a wall? Because I guarantee you, Shaw is not going to be fired.
Nor should he be…
However, he should take a long, hard look at his staff because some changes do need to be made at that level.
When making those changes, he should consider the direction the game is heading and act accordingly. Heck, even Nick Saban, after fighting against the concept of a hurry-up offense finally capitulated and installed a version of that offense.
Agree he should make changes. Disagree on hurry up etc. Stanford is always best when it is different. That was true with Ralston, when they were running a pro-style offense. With Walsh and the West Coadt. And with JH/Shaw with power oriented complimentary football. Why doesn’t Shaw look at Shanahans offense? Run oriented. Physical. But very creative.
Still, the big issue is recruiting. They have to do better.
Recruiting will always be the #1 issue. While the OL has been problematic all season, the lack of a top level RB was quite evident. It is rare to see a team outrush the opposition by over 300 yards.
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - winflop - 11-21-2021
(11-21-2021, 09:49 AM)Goose Wrote:(11-21-2021, 06:53 AM)winflop Wrote:OK, I could be down with that. Specifically who replaces each one and what does that person bring (other than not already being on staff) that will "fix" our deficiencies? Addition by subtraction can work, but probably not at this scale. You will need to replace these guys.(11-20-2021, 10:28 PM)Goose Wrote: I am not of the opinion that "cleaning house" necessarily helps anything. It may, but only if you have identified what the problems are and also identified guys who you think can address them. Getting a bunch of new names that have no better clue than the last guys did just buys the coach some time because it injects uncertainty regarding who is actually responsible. See Mora at UCLA and Helton at USC. New guys, new systems, new emphasis, same (or worse) results. This team has lots of problems. What is needed are solutions. Shaw needs solutions. He need not tell us what these solutions are, but if they don't take effect, whatever they are, he will have to go. I expect he is fully aware of that.
OK to be specific:
Anderson
Reynolds
Akina
Pritchard
Turner
Kennedy
Gould
Everyone other than Alamar who isn't in their first year goes.
I have no idea who the replacements should be. I probably couldn't come up with a very good list of HC replacements either. But that's not my job. I just know that the current slate of coaches needs to be wiped pretty clean. The last three weeks are the culmination of at least three years of decline, and I believe every coach I listed has been around at least that long.
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - Jamesy - 11-21-2021
(11-21-2021, 02:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: Perhaps the place kicking holder?Dallas Lloyd was a great holder in 2015.
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - TheSquatch - 11-21-2021
Aside from the actual coaching, I think part of the decline may be due to the loss of Turley. When he was here, no one manhandled either line and injuries were, well, near non existent (injuries like Tremayne's excluded). Just a small part, but a part I think shouldn't be overlooked. Just my 2 cents worth....
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - winflop - 11-21-2021
(11-21-2021, 08:48 PM)TheSquatch Wrote: Aside from the actual coaching, I think part of the decline may be due to the loss of Turley. When he was here, no one manhandled either line and injuries were, well, near non existent (injuries like Tremayne's excluded). Just a small part, but a part I think shouldn't be overlooked. Just my 2 cents worth....
S&C and training are part of coaching
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - TheSquatch - 11-21-2021
(11-21-2021, 09:06 PM)winflop Wrote:(11-21-2021, 08:48 PM)TheSquatch Wrote: Aside from the actual coaching, I think part of the decline may be due to the loss of Turley. When he was here, no one manhandled either line and injuries were, well, near non existent (injuries like Tremayne's excluded). Just a small part, but a part I think shouldn't be overlooked. Just my 2 cents worth....
S&C and training are part of coaching
Yes, I understand that. I meant on field position coaching, i.e. play calling, where to be, ect. I think you probably got my gist though.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 11-21-2021
(11-21-2021, 04:15 PM)Giants Wrote:(11-21-2021, 03:58 PM)lex24 Wrote: Do you all enjoy beating your heads against a wall? Because I guarantee you, Shaw is not going to be fired.
Nor should he be…
You, Giants, and anyone else who shares that view are part of the problem.
I know everyone here discredits my takes on Shaw because I'm viewed as a hater. Whatever. One of the most fact-based posters on TOS came up with another post-game analysis of where the program stands, copied below. I don't know how you can read the below and can still say, with a straight face, that Shaw should not be relieved of his duties:
+++++++++
1. This is a new low. The early 1960s were awful but they were in the context of a gradual upward improvement year-to-year. Aside from that we've never had a time when this program was so thoroughly established as this horrible. 1983 and 2006 were heinous but everybody knew those kind of results spelled doom for the coaches that allowed things to get to that point. We don't have that kind of confidence now. But any sense that Shaw's job is safe should have evaporated last night. Big Game should be the coup de grace. The last two times Stanford football has played in Stanford Stadium are very strong contenders for the two worst games in Stanford history.
2. After the Utah game, I pointed out that the yard per play differential (5.4) was not only the worst I was able to find in our history but 23 percent worse than the next worst (4.4 against Notre Dame in 2003). Last night the team was significantly more dominated than even that, a whopping 6.1 yard per differential. This is what I mean when I say possibly the two worst games in Stanford history. I don't know if I can emphasize enough how astounding a 6.1 yard per play differential is. A lot of folks watched Ohio State's 56-7 annihilation of Michigan State yesterday, right? 3.8 yard differential. When Stanford beat Rice 62-7 in Australia that was a 5.1 yard differential. You can't belong on a football field less than Stanford last night. AND THAT WAS AGAINST A FOUR WIN TEAM!
3. The biggest story is the incredible incompetence of the Stanford defense against an offense that came into the game with the #105 scoring offense in the nation. We gave up 10.1 yards per play allowed. Let me say that again: an average of a first down per play. 636 yards is the eighth most we've ever given up in a game (1981 Arizona State, 1999 Washington, 1998 Oregon, 2003 Oregon State, 2005 Notre Dame, 1982 UCLA, 1973 UCLA) but (as coaches of yesteryear didn't intentionally suck the energy out of the game and guarantee there would be so few plays by either team) I suspect it may be the case we've never given up so many yards on so few plays. The all-time worst performances for which stats are available weren't even close: the 1999 Washington game had 7.8 yards per play allowed, 2003 Oregon State was 7.4, and 2005 Notre Dame was 7.5. Hard to put into words how historic a first down allowed per play is. 41 points is a lot to give up too but it could have been much, much worse. The Wade-Perry forced fumble was an awesome, momentum-reversing individual play in which everybody else's failures and how many home runs Cal hit subsequently would have made that another likely Cal house call were it not for that play (and even if he made the tackle a touchdown drive would have of course been likely). And then McGill's interception in the end zone also took points off the board. Those are two of the biggest plays of the season for the Stanford defense and we still gave up 41 points. I just need to say again this was against Cal.
4. As usual, the nightmare mostly had to do with run defense. 10.4 yards per carry allowed is a new low point even for our run defense, even worse than the Utah performance (and Cal doesn't have a run game like Utah). The next best Cal has done against any non-Stanford FBS team in the last three seasons is 5.7 yards per carry against Nevada (the #92 run defense in the nation) earlier this year. That's another differential to just let sink in. I mentioned after Utah that I didn't have data sets robust enough to see if there have been worse performances historically and this one was even worse. I looked at the teams competing with Stanford for worst run defense in America (Kansas, Akron, Arkansas State) and none of them have broken the 10 yard barrier. Last year's North Texas team is the only team I can find that has in the last two years. Congratulations Cardinal defense! The pass defense was not the historic failure the run defense was but it was a bad game in that respect too: 161.32 passer rating and 9.8 yards per attempt allowed are the third and fourth worst of our season, respectively, and Cal's third best of the year on both counts.
5. The offense was also really bad but more just typically bad than historically bad. 4.0 yards per play is the second worst of the season and second worst anybody has done against Cal. It's even worse than Arizona did when half Cal's team had COVID. And we laid that egg despite having every starter and key reserve available except for Tremayne and Bragg. 43 yards rushing and 1.7 yards per carry is better than we did against Arizona State but in the same ballpark as against Kansas State. It is the seventh time in 11 games we've been held under 100 yards rushing. Only Colorado has done worse among Cal opponents. Most disappointing, though, was that it was a comprehensively bad game for the offense. Having McKee throwing to a pretty full complement of receivers for the first time now that Wilson is back was exciting, on paper, but in reality a 95.63 passer rating and 5.4 yards per attempt were both by far the worst we've had in any game McKee has played. His Total QBR was #94 of 123 QBs nationally. He's experiencing a very alarming trend, as his last two games have been his worst and his three worst games all came in the last four he's played. On the season he is #6 of 12 Pac-12 QBs in Total QBR - still quite good for a freshman but he's crashed to earth following the Oregon game.
6. [Paragraph giving props to Wilson and Yurosek].
7. [Paragraph praising McGill, Reid, Damuni (relatively speaking).]
8. [Paragraph praising Sanborn and noting rather meaningless]
9. There will be other posts to pile on when it comes to just how much Shaw needs to go but I'll say this for now: at this point of the spiral I think Shaw's brain is broken. [Examples of brainlocks in Big Game]. I think the vibes add up to a situation where losing the team is sadly on the table.
RE: lex24 - Giants - 11-21-2021
(11-21-2021, 09:44 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-21-2021, 04:15 PM)Giants Wrote:(11-21-2021, 03:58 PM)lex24 Wrote: Do you all enjoy beating your heads against a wall? Because I guarantee you, Shaw is not going to be fired.
Nor should he be…
You, Giants, and anyone else who shares that view are part of the problem.
I know everyone here discredits my takes on Shaw because I'm viewed as a hater. Whatever. One of the most fact-based posters on TOS came up with another post-game analysis of where the program stands, copied below. I don't know how you can read the below and can still say, with a straight face, that Shaw should not be relieved of his duties:
+++++++++
1. This is a new low. The early 1960s were awful but they were in the context of a gradual upward improvement year-to-year. Aside from that we've never had a time when this program was so thoroughly established as this horrible. 1983 and 2006 were heinous but everybody knew those kind of results spelled doom for the coaches that allowed things to get to that point. We don't have that kind of confidence now. But any sense that Shaw's job is safe should have evaporated last night. Big Game should be the coup de grace. The last two times Stanford football has played in Stanford Stadium are very strong contenders for the two worst games in Stanford history.
2. After the Utah game, I pointed out that the yard per play differential (5.4) was not only the worst I was able to find in our history but 23 percent worse than the next worst (4.4 against Notre Dame in 2003). Last night the team was significantly more dominated than even that, a whopping 6.1 yard per differential. This is what I mean when I say possibly the two worst games in Stanford history. I don't know if I can emphasize enough how astounding a 6.1 yard per play differential is. A lot of folks watched Ohio State's 56-7 annihilation of Michigan State yesterday, right? 3.8 yard differential. When Stanford beat Rice 62-7 in Australia that was a 5.1 yard differential. You can't belong on a football field less than Stanford last night. AND THAT WAS AGAINST A FOUR WIN TEAM!
3. The biggest story is the incredible incompetence of the Stanford defense against an offense that came into the game with the #105 scoring offense in the nation. We gave up 10.1 yards per play allowed. Let me say that again: an average of a first down per play. 636 yards is the eighth most we've ever given up in a game (1981 Arizona State, 1999 Washington, 1998 Oregon, 2003 Oregon State, 2005 Notre Dame, 1982 UCLA, 1973 UCLA) but (as coaches of yesteryear didn't intentionally suck the energy out of the game and guarantee there would be so few plays by either team) I suspect it may be the case we've never given up so many yards on so few plays. The all-time worst performances for which stats are available weren't even close: the 1999 Washington game had 7.8 yards per play allowed, 2003 Oregon State was 7.4, and 2005 Notre Dame was 7.5. Hard to put into words how historic a first down allowed per play is. 41 points is a lot to give up too but it could have been much, much worse. The Wade-Perry forced fumble was an awesome, momentum-reversing individual play in which everybody else's failures and how many home runs Cal hit subsequently would have made that another likely Cal house call were it not for that play (and even if he made the tackle a touchdown drive would have of course been likely). And then McGill's interception in the end zone also took points off the board. Those are two of the biggest plays of the season for the Stanford defense and we still gave up 41 points. I just need to say again this was against Cal.
4. As usual, the nightmare mostly had to do with run defense. 10.4 yards per carry allowed is a new low point even for our run defense, even worse than the Utah performance (and Cal doesn't have a run game like Utah). The next best Cal has done against any non-Stanford FBS team in the last three seasons is 5.7 yards per carry against Nevada (the #92 run defense in the nation) earlier this year. That's another differential to just let sink in. I mentioned after Utah that I didn't have data sets robust enough to see if there have been worse performances historically and this one was even worse. I looked at the teams competing with Stanford for worst run defense in America (Kansas, Akron, Arkansas State) and none of them have broken the 10 yard barrier. Last year's North Texas team is the only team I can find that has in the last two years. Congratulations Cardinal defense! The pass defense was not the historic failure the run defense was but it was a bad game in that respect too: 161.32 passer rating and 9.8 yards per attempt allowed are the third and fourth worst of our season, respectively, and Cal's third best of the year on both counts.
5. The offense was also really bad but more just typically bad than historically bad. 4.0 yards per play is the second worst of the season and second worst anybody has done against Cal. It's even worse than Arizona did when half Cal's team had COVID. And we laid that egg despite having every starter and key reserve available except for Tremayne and Bragg. 43 yards rushing and 1.7 yards per carry is better than we did against Arizona State but in the same ballpark as against Kansas State. It is the seventh time in 11 games we've been held under 100 yards rushing. Only Colorado has done worse among Cal opponents. Most disappointing, though, was that it was a comprehensively bad game for the offense. Having McKee throwing to a pretty full complement of receivers for the first time now that Wilson is back was exciting, on paper, but in reality a 95.63 passer rating and 5.4 yards per attempt were both by far the worst we've had in any game McKee has played. His Total QBR was #94 of 123 QBs nationally. He's experiencing a very alarming trend, as his last two games have been his worst and his three worst games all came in the last four he's played. On the season he is #6 of 12 Pac-12 QBs in Total QBR - still quite good for a freshman but he's crashed to earth following the Oregon game.
6. [Paragraph giving props to Wilson and Yurosek].
7. [Paragraph praising McGill, Reid, Damuni (relatively speaking).]
8. [Paragraph praising Sanborn and noting rather meaningless]
9. There will be other posts to pile on when it comes to just how much Shaw needs to go but I'll say this for now: at this point of the spiral I think Shaw's brain is broken. [Examples of brainlocks in Big Game]. I think the vibes add up to a situation where losing the team is sadly on the table.
OK, I think the poster made his point that the game was a disastrous mess. However, I don’t believe the outcome warrants throwing Shaw into the unemployment line. As I noted, I do believe that he should make some staff changes. However, Shaw’s overall record is exemplary. IMO, he has earned the right to lay an egg (and he did this year). I also believe he is a very smart guy. He knows that his goodwill can only stretch so far. I trust he will take the appropriate action to turn things around. If he does, good for him. If he doesn’t, it will be time to shake hands and move on.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 11-21-2021
(11-21-2021, 11:00 PM)Giants Wrote:(11-21-2021, 09:44 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-21-2021, 04:15 PM)Giants Wrote:(11-21-2021, 03:58 PM)lex24 Wrote: Do you all enjoy beating your heads against a wall? Because I guarantee you, Shaw is not going to be fired.
Nor should he be…
You, Giants, and anyone else who shares that view are part of the problem.
I know everyone here discredits my takes on Shaw because I'm viewed as a hater. Whatever. One of the most fact-based posters on TOS came up with another post-game analysis of where the program stands, copied below. I don't know how you can read the below and can still say, with a straight face, that Shaw should not be relieved of his duties:
+++++++++
1. This is a new low. The early 1960s were awful but they were in the context of a gradual upward improvement year-to-year. Aside from that we've never had a time when this program was so thoroughly established as this horrible. 1983 and 2006 were heinous but everybody knew those kind of results spelled doom for the coaches that allowed things to get to that point. We don't have that kind of confidence now. But any sense that Shaw's job is safe should have evaporated last night. Big Game should be the coup de grace. The last two times Stanford football has played in Stanford Stadium are very strong contenders for the two worst games in Stanford history.
2. After the Utah game, I pointed out that the yard per play differential (5.4) was not only the worst I was able to find in our history but 23 percent worse than the next worst (4.4 against Notre Dame in 2003). Last night the team was significantly more dominated than even that, a whopping 6.1 yard per differential. This is what I mean when I say possibly the two worst games in Stanford history. I don't know if I can emphasize enough how astounding a 6.1 yard per play differential is. A lot of folks watched Ohio State's 56-7 annihilation of Michigan State yesterday, right? 3.8 yard differential. When Stanford beat Rice 62-7 in Australia that was a 5.1 yard differential. You can't belong on a football field less than Stanford last night. AND THAT WAS AGAINST A FOUR WIN TEAM!
3. The biggest story is the incredible incompetence of the Stanford defense against an offense that came into the game with the #105 scoring offense in the nation. We gave up 10.1 yards per play allowed. Let me say that again: an average of a first down per play. 636 yards is the eighth most we've ever given up in a game (1981 Arizona State, 1999 Washington, 1998 Oregon, 2003 Oregon State, 2005 Notre Dame, 1982 UCLA, 1973 UCLA) but (as coaches of yesteryear didn't intentionally suck the energy out of the game and guarantee there would be so few plays by either team) I suspect it may be the case we've never given up so many yards on so few plays. The all-time worst performances for which stats are available weren't even close: the 1999 Washington game had 7.8 yards per play allowed, 2003 Oregon State was 7.4, and 2005 Notre Dame was 7.5. Hard to put into words how historic a first down allowed per play is. 41 points is a lot to give up too but it could have been much, much worse. The Wade-Perry forced fumble was an awesome, momentum-reversing individual play in which everybody else's failures and how many home runs Cal hit subsequently would have made that another likely Cal house call were it not for that play (and even if he made the tackle a touchdown drive would have of course been likely). And then McGill's interception in the end zone also took points off the board. Those are two of the biggest plays of the season for the Stanford defense and we still gave up 41 points. I just need to say again this was against Cal.
4. As usual, the nightmare mostly had to do with run defense. 10.4 yards per carry allowed is a new low point even for our run defense, even worse than the Utah performance (and Cal doesn't have a run game like Utah). The next best Cal has done against any non-Stanford FBS team in the last three seasons is 5.7 yards per carry against Nevada (the #92 run defense in the nation) earlier this year. That's another differential to just let sink in. I mentioned after Utah that I didn't have data sets robust enough to see if there have been worse performances historically and this one was even worse. I looked at the teams competing with Stanford for worst run defense in America (Kansas, Akron, Arkansas State) and none of them have broken the 10 yard barrier. Last year's North Texas team is the only team I can find that has in the last two years. Congratulations Cardinal defense! The pass defense was not the historic failure the run defense was but it was a bad game in that respect too: 161.32 passer rating and 9.8 yards per attempt allowed are the third and fourth worst of our season, respectively, and Cal's third best of the year on both counts.
5. The offense was also really bad but more just typically bad than historically bad. 4.0 yards per play is the second worst of the season and second worst anybody has done against Cal. It's even worse than Arizona did when half Cal's team had COVID. And we laid that egg despite having every starter and key reserve available except for Tremayne and Bragg. 43 yards rushing and 1.7 yards per carry is better than we did against Arizona State but in the same ballpark as against Kansas State. It is the seventh time in 11 games we've been held under 100 yards rushing. Only Colorado has done worse among Cal opponents. Most disappointing, though, was that it was a comprehensively bad game for the offense. Having McKee throwing to a pretty full complement of receivers for the first time now that Wilson is back was exciting, on paper, but in reality a 95.63 passer rating and 5.4 yards per attempt were both by far the worst we've had in any game McKee has played. His Total QBR was #94 of 123 QBs nationally. He's experiencing a very alarming trend, as his last two games have been his worst and his three worst games all came in the last four he's played. On the season he is #6 of 12 Pac-12 QBs in Total QBR - still quite good for a freshman but he's crashed to earth following the Oregon game.
6. [Paragraph giving props to Wilson and Yurosek].
7. [Paragraph praising McGill, Reid, Damuni (relatively speaking).]
8. [Paragraph praising Sanborn and noting rather meaningless]
9. There will be other posts to pile on when it comes to just how much Shaw needs to go but I'll say this for now: at this point of the spiral I think Shaw's brain is broken. [Examples of brainlocks in Big Game]. I think the vibes add up to a situation where losing the team is sadly on the table.
OK, I think the poster made his point that the game was a disastrous mess. However, I don’t believe the outcome warrants throwing Shaw into the unemployment line. As I noted, I do believe that he should make some staff changes. However, Shaw’s overall record is exemplary. IMO, he has earned the right to lay an egg (and he did this year). I also believe he is a very smart guy. He knows that his goodwill can only stretch so far. I trust he will take the appropriate action to turn things around. If he does, good for him. If he doesn’t, it will be time to shake hands and move on.
2019 wasn't an egg?
2020 wasn't an egg? (Don't let the lucky 4-2 record fool you: Sagarin in high 60s]
2021 is third egg in a row, and this one smells especially rotten.
[And tens of millions of dollars is more than a generous "thank you" for Shaw's alleged "exemplary" overall record].
But okay, Giants, you win (and you will win - Muir doesn't have the stones to can Shaw, even though it's so obvious that should be done].
Just promise me you'll turn out the lights. Cuz there's going to be no one else left to do it.
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - Giants - 11-21-2021
Not a problem. The lights will turn off automatically when everyone leaves the room. There are still a few of us here…..
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - JohnR34231 - 11-22-2021
I doubt if most Stanford fans would consider 2020 an egg, given the fact that we won four straight despite being on the road the entire time.
However I guess you could spin it that way if you wish, and I would expect the Shaw boo-birds to do just that.
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - Phogge - 11-22-2021
(11-21-2021, 11:45 PM)Giants Wrote: Not a problem. The lights will turn off automatically when everyone leaves the room. There are still a few of us here…..
Giants... do you get off on boring football? Just asking.
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - OutsiderFan - 11-22-2021
Dan Mullen is now available to take over as Stanford's Offensive Coordinator after being fired at Florida, a year after taking Gators to the SEC Championship and barely losing to Alabama.
The guy isn't going to be a Head Coach again for a while, and he is known to produce very good offenses.
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - JohnR34231 - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 06:56 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Dan Mullen is now available to take over as Stanford's Offensive Coordinator after being fired at Florida, a year after taking Gators to the SEC Championship and barely losing to Alabama.
The guy isn't going to be a Head Coach again for a while, and he is known to produce very good offenses.
I wonder how him doing that would affect his reported $12 million buyout?
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - Austroturf - 11-22-2021
(11-21-2021, 05:09 PM)winflop Wrote:(11-21-2021, 09:49 AM)Goose Wrote:(11-21-2021, 06:53 AM)winflop Wrote:OK, I could be down with that. Specifically who replaces each one and what does that person bring (other than not already being on staff) that will "fix" our deficiencies? Addition by subtraction can work, but probably not at this scale. You will need to replace these guys.(11-20-2021, 10:28 PM)Goose Wrote: I am not of the opinion that "cleaning house" necessarily helps anything. It may, but only if you have identified what the problems are and also identified guys who you think can address them. Getting a bunch of new names that have no better clue than the last guys did just buys the coach some time because it injects uncertainty regarding who is actually responsible. See Mora at UCLA and Helton at USC. New guys, new systems, new emphasis, same (or worse) results. This team has lots of problems. What is needed are solutions. Shaw needs solutions. He need not tell us what these solutions are, but if they don't take effect, whatever they are, he will have to go. I expect he is fully aware of that.
OK to be specific:
Anderson
Reynolds
Akina
Pritchard
Turner
Kennedy
Gould
Everyone other than Alamar who isn't in their first year goes.
I have no idea who the replacements should be. I probably couldn't come up with a very good list of HC replacements either. But that's not my job. I just know that the current slate of coaches needs to be wiped pretty clean. The last three weeks are the culmination of at least three years of decline, and I believe every coach I listed has been around at least that long.
I would contend that the decline, though less obvious, started even earlier. As has been pointed out by other Cardboard members, the largest single issue on the team today is soft and deficient line play. An erstwhile strength of the Stanford team identity has become a liability, as we are being regularly dominated in the trenches. This decline was already partially apparent in 2015, but really hit hard during the 2016 season. The 44-6 drubbing at the hands of the Dawgs in Seattle was primarily due to a complete failure of both lines -- an anemic performance that had never been seen before in the halcyon Harbaugh-Shaw days. McCaffrey (fresh off his Heis-man runner-up season) couldn't even crack 50 yards rushing. It was an embarrassment for the prior year's Rose Bowl champions and #7 team in the nation (at the time). Not coincidentally, it should be noted that this was two seasons after Turley's promotion (2014) to director of sports performance at Stanford, removing him from 100% dedication to the football program. This game made it clear that Stanford's days as bully of the block were over, at least temporarily: no more "intellectual brutality", or "revenge of the nerds", or "party in the backfield". The Dawgs picked our lines to pieces that day.
If there is one single statistic that best illustrates the decay in the prowess of both the O-line and our defensive front seven, it is the differential between rushing yards gained and rushing yards allowed. Whereas our best teams in the past dominated in this area, the current teams are being crushed. Here are the numbers since the inception of the Shaw era.
Stanford Opponent Diff.
2011.......210.6......84.4.......126.2
2012.......174.3......97.0.........77.3
2013.......207.4......89.7........117.7
2014.......158.8.....104.5........54.3
2015.......223.6.....139.3........84.3
2016.......208.9.....145.8........63.1
2017.......202.6.....169.4........33.2
2018.......107.9.....146.1.......-38.2
2019.......105.7.....150.8.......-45.1
2020.......133.2.....222.0.......-88.8
2021.........90.2.....243.8.....-153.6
2021 is almost a mirror image of 2011. These are the raw numbers and do not lie. I have no other explanation for this but complacency. Shaw is too smart not to have seen this year-by-year development. Latest in 2017, he should have been screaming at the athletic administration for a hand-picked S&C coach dedicated to the football program. And, yes, he should have been scouring the coaching ranks for top-flight line coaches. Also, not coincidentally, long-time D-line coach, Randy Hart, retired after the 2015 season. Shaw took no action, or none that was evident. The decay continued. And here we are.
Just for comparison, here are the numbers for Wlat's last year up to and including Harbaugh's last year.
Stanford Opponent Diff.
2006.........65.1.....210.5......-145.4
2007.......111.2.....169.3........-58.1
2008.......199.6.....152.9.........46.7
2009.......218.2.....137.9.........80.3
2010.......213.8.....120.8.........93.0
Anybody see a pattern?
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - Maple Leaf - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 07:30 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(11-21-2021, 05:09 PM)winflop Wrote:(11-21-2021, 09:49 AM)Goose Wrote:(11-21-2021, 06:53 AM)winflop Wrote:OK, I could be down with that. Specifically who replaces each one and what does that person bring (other than not already being on staff) that will "fix" our deficiencies? Addition by subtraction can work, but probably not at this scale. You will need to replace these guys.(11-20-2021, 10:28 PM)Goose Wrote: I am not of the opinion that "cleaning house" necessarily helps anything. It may, but only if you have identified what the problems are and also identified guys who you think can address them. Getting a bunch of new names that have no better clue than the last guys did just buys the coach some time because it injects uncertainty regarding who is actually responsible. See Mora at UCLA and Helton at USC. New guys, new systems, new emphasis, same (or worse) results. This team has lots of problems. What is needed are solutions. Shaw needs solutions. He need not tell us what these solutions are, but if they don't take effect, whatever they are, he will have to go. I expect he is fully aware of that.
OK to be specific:
Anderson
Reynolds
Akina
Pritchard
Turner
Kennedy
Gould
Everyone other than Alamar who isn't in their first year goes.
I have no idea who the replacements should be. I probably couldn't come up with a very good list of HC replacements either. But that's not my job. I just know that the current slate of coaches needs to be wiped pretty clean. The last three weeks are the culmination of at least three years of decline, and I believe every coach I listed has been around at least that long.
I would contend that the decline, though less obvious, started even earlier. As has been pointed out by other Cardboard members, the largest single issue on the team today is soft and deficient line play. An erstwhile strength of the Stanford team identity has become a liability, as we are being regularly dominated in the trenches. This decline was already partially apparent in 2015, but really hit hard during the 2016 season. The 44-6 drubbing at the hands of the Dawgs in Seattle was primarily due to a complete failure of both lines -- an anemic performance that had never been seen before in the halcyon Harbaugh-Shaw days. McCaffrey (fresh off his Heis-man runner-up season) couldn't even crack 50 yards rushing. It was an embarrassment for the prior year's Rose Bowl champions and #7 team in the nation (at the time). Not coincidentally, it should be noted that this was two seasons after Turley's promotion (2014) to director of sports performance at Stanford, removing him from 100% dedication to the football program. This game made it clear that Stanford's days as bully of the block were over, at least temporarily: no more "intellectual brutality", or "revenge of the nerds", or "party in the backfield". The Dawgs picked our lines to pieces that day.
If there is one single statistic that best illustrates the decay in the prowess of both the O-line and our defensive front seven, it is the differential between rushing yards gained and rushing yards allowed. Whereas our best teams in the past dominated in this area, the current teams are being crushed. Here are the numbers since the inception of the Shaw era.
Stanford Opponent Diff.
2011.......210.6......84.4.......126.2
2012.......174.3......97.0.........77.3
2013.......207.4......89.7........117.7
2014.......158.8.....104.5........54.3
2015.......223.6.....139.3........84.3
2016.......208.9.....145.8........63.1
2017.......202.6.....169.4........33.2
2018.......107.9.....146.1.......-38.2
2019.......105.7.....150.8.......-45.1
2020.......133.2.....222.0.......-88.8
2021.........90.2.....243.8.....-153.6
2021 is almost a mirror image of 2011. These are the raw numbers and do not lie. I have no other explanation for this but complacency. Shaw is too smart not to have seen this year-by-year development. Latest in 2017, he should have been screaming at the athletic administration for a hand-picked S&C coach dedicated to the football program. And, yes, he should have been scouring the coaching ranks for top-flight line coaches. Also, not coincidentally, long-time D-line coach, Randy Hart, retired after the 2015 season. Shaw took no action, or none that was evident. The decay continued. And here we are.
Just for comparison, here are the numbers for Wlat's last year up to and including Harbaugh's last year.
Stanford Opponent Diff.
2006.........65.1.....210.5......-145.4
2007.......111.2.....169.3........-58.1
2008.......199.6.....152.9.........46.7
2009.......218.2.....137.9.........80.3
2010.......213.8.....120.8.........93.0
Anybody see a pattern?
With the domers coming to the Farm those 2021 numbers are subject to change and not in a good way!
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - DC 86 - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 06:56 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Dan Mullen is now available to take over as Stanford's Offensive Coordinator after being fired at Florida, a year after taking Gators to the SEC Championship and barely losing to Alabama.
The guy isn't going to be a Head Coach again for a while, and he is known to produce very good offenses.
Mullen will be a head coach again as soon as he wants to be one, the only OC job he's going to take is at Alabama if BOB moves on.
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - Bruce Wang - 11-22-2021
We should do what the Celtics did. Fire Muir and "promote" Shaw to Athletic Director. The alum as a coach model works because an alum sells the school to recruits better than anybody else. It's too bad that Shaw is such a bad play caller. So my suggestion for a new head coach is Troy Walters.
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - Jamesy - 11-22-2021
(11-22-2021, 07:30 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(11-21-2021, 05:09 PM)winflop Wrote:(11-21-2021, 09:49 AM)Goose Wrote:(11-21-2021, 06:53 AM)winflop Wrote:OK, I could be down with that. Specifically who replaces each one and what does that person bring (other than not already being on staff) that will "fix" our deficiencies? Addition by subtraction can work, but probably not at this scale. You will need to replace these guys.(11-20-2021, 10:28 PM)Goose Wrote: I am not of the opinion that "cleaning house" necessarily helps anything. It may, but only if you have identified what the problems are and also identified guys who you think can address them. Getting a bunch of new names that have no better clue than the last guys did just buys the coach some time because it injects uncertainty regarding who is actually responsible. See Mora at UCLA and Helton at USC. New guys, new systems, new emphasis, same (or worse) results. This team has lots of problems. What is needed are solutions. Shaw needs solutions. He need not tell us what these solutions are, but if they don't take effect, whatever they are, he will have to go. I expect he is fully aware of that.
OK to be specific:
Anderson
Reynolds
Akina
Pritchard
Turner
Kennedy
Gould
Everyone other than Alamar who isn't in their first year goes.
I have no idea who the replacements should be. I probably couldn't come up with a very good list of HC replacements either. But that's not my job. I just know that the current slate of coaches needs to be wiped pretty clean. The last three weeks are the culmination of at least three years of decline, and I believe every coach I listed has been around at least that long.
I would contend that the decline, though less obvious, started even earlier. As has been pointed out by other Cardboard members, the largest single issue on the team today is soft and deficient line play. An erstwhile strength of the Stanford team identity has become a liability, as we are being regularly dominated in the trenches. This decline was already partially apparent in 2015, but really hit hard during the 2016 season. The 44-6 drubbing at the hands of the Dawgs in Seattle was primarily due to a complete failure of both lines -- an anemic performance that had never been seen before in the halcyon Harbaugh-Shaw days. McCaffrey (fresh off his Heis-man runner-up season) couldn't even crack 50 yards rushing. It was an embarrassment for the prior year's Rose Bowl champions and #7 team in the nation (at the time). Not coincidentally, it should be noted that this was two seasons after Turley's promotion (2014) to director of sports performance at Stanford, removing him from 100% dedication to the football program. This game made it clear that Stanford's days as bully of the block were over, at least temporarily: no more "intellectual brutality", or "revenge of the nerds", or "party in the backfield". The Dawgs picked our lines to pieces that day.
If there is one single statistic that best illustrates the decay in the prowess of both the O-line and our defensive front seven, it is the differential between rushing yards gained and rushing yards allowed. Whereas our best teams in the past dominated in this area, the current teams are being crushed. Here are the numbers since the inception of the Shaw era.
Stanford Opponent Diff.
2011.......210.6......84.4.......126.2
2012.......174.3......97.0.........77.3
2013.......207.4......89.7........117.7
2014.......158.8.....104.5........54.3
2015.......223.6.....139.3........84.3
2016.......208.9.....145.8........63.1
2017.......202.6.....169.4........33.2
2018.......107.9.....146.1.......-38.2
2019.......105.7.....150.8.......-45.1
2020.......133.2.....222.0.......-88.8
2021.........90.2.....243.8.....-153.6
2021 is almost a mirror image of 2011. These are the raw numbers and do not lie. I have no other explanation for this but complacency. Shaw is too smart not to have seen this year-by-year development. Latest in 2017, he should have been screaming at the athletic administration for a hand-picked S&C coach dedicated to the football program. And, yes, he should have been scouring the coaching ranks for top-flight line coaches. Also, not coincidentally, long-time D-line coach, Randy Hart, retired after the 2015 season. Shaw took no action, or none that was evident. The decay continued. And here we are.
Just for comparison, here are the numbers for Wlat's last year up to and including Harbaugh's last year.
Stanford Opponent Diff.
2006.........65.1.....210.5......-145.4
2007.......111.2.....169.3........-58.1
2008.......199.6.....152.9.........46.7
2009.......218.2.....137.9.........80.3
2010.......213.8.....120.8.........93.0
Anybody see a pattern?
Turley's promotion to Director of Sports Performance was more in name only and had no impact on his time commitment to the football team.
RE: New Coach. CANDIDATES? - thunder_chik - 11-22-2021
My question is this: Why is Shaw the 4th highest paid coach in all of FBS? According to USA Today, only Saban, Orgeron (on the way out) and Swinney make more.
According to an October article by Jon Wilner in the San Jose Mercury, Shaw is by far the highest paid Pac-12 coach. FYI, in descending order:
Shaw, 8.9 million
UCLA/Kelly, 5.2
Utah/Whittingham, 5.2
Helton was making 4.8
Oregon, 4.4
ASU/Herm, 3.9
CAL, 3.6
CO, 3.2
WA/Lake (gone), 3.0
Wazzu (gone), 3.0
AZ, 2.7
Oregon State, 2.4
Can anyone tell me what justifies Shaw getting such a tremendous increase that far outstrips his contemporaries in the Pac 12?
Link to Mercury article Pac-12 football salaries: Which coaches are underpaid and overpaid? (mercurynews.com)