TreeCast post-USC - 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: TreeCast post-USC (/thread-23445.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: TreeCast post-USC (/thread-23445.html)
RE: TreeCast post-USC - JohnR34231 - 09-22-2022
(09-22-2022, 08:16 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-22-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-21-2022, 05:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-21-2022, 07:57 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-20-2022, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote: If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.
My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.
While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.
The record shows that in terms of winning percentage of .671 (94-46) is better than Jim Harbaugh (.580), Walt Harris (.261), Buddy Teavens (.303), Tyrone Willingham (.549), Dennis Green (.471), Jack Elway (.464), Paul Wiggin (.364), Rod Dowhower (.500), Bill Walsh (.585), Jack Christiansen (.573), John Ralston (.601), Jack Curtice (.280), Chuck Taylor (.577), Marchmont Schwartz (.500), etc. the only coaches with a better record than Shaw were Clark Schaunessy, Pop Warner, and some pre-World War I coaches.
If that is mediocrity as a coach… so in order to justify that his record is mediocre, you have to point to the record in the last three years (but not the COVID year), and say that everything he accomplished before is attributable to his predecessor.
There is a legitimate danger that the recent trend will continue, and if it does, his winning percentage will plummet. And maybe in your mind, Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed (it was for Teevens and Harris, but they didn’t have nearly a decade of success before then). But if you are going to make sweeping statements about Shaw, give him the courtesy of evaluating his entire record.
BC
No doubt Shaw's overall record at Stanford has been exemplary.
However, for better or worse, college football coaching is very much a "what have you done for us lately" profession, and let's face it, two out of the last three years have sucked. I guess the question is how many more years does it have to suck before we conclude things have to change.
Hopefully Shaw will get things turned around so we won't have to address that question.
The idiom "hoping against hope" comes to readily to mind here: To hope very strongly that something will happen, although you know it is not likely. I would like to see what kind of winning percentages other 10-year-plus coaches achieved comparable to Shaw's body of work: Ten years of enviable results after inheriting a powerhouse program, then a drastic fall-off. How many of them returned to their winning ways?
Yeah, I think many Cardboarders have answered the question of how much longer do things have to suck before we conclude changes have to be made. Their answer is we should have already concluded it.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - msqueri - 09-22-2022
I'm not sure there has ever in a history been a turnaround like what some are imagining for Shaw. The closest all-time analogues are probably Bill Snyder, Joe Paterno, and Kirk Ferentz. I don't think any of them reached the depths of irrelevance we have though. At minimum, a turnaround would be an extreme historical rarity. Arguably it's unprecedented.
I think what Shawpologists must reckon with is that the decline is not just two of the last three years being bad. If you look out at the last four years or last five years it's not a good record. If you map records against talent, it's abjectly one of the three or four worst track records in America.
None of this is to discount the career achievements. But five years is not a short amount of time and the last five years are far more predictive of future performance than a more distant era.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - winflop - 09-22-2022
(09-22-2022, 08:37 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Yeah, I think many Cardboarders have answered the question of how much longer do things have to suck before we conclude changes have to be made. Their answer is we should have already concluded it.
If by "changes have to be made" you mean changes to the coaching staff then I think you're right. If you mean that Shaw needs to go I'm not sure too many of us are there. I'm not. As I've said previously, I think Shaw's overall record has earned him the right to fix the mess he's made. But if he's unwilling to fix it, and results don't improve then he needs to go.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - msqueri - 09-22-2022
(09-22-2022, 09:47 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-22-2022, 08:37 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Yeah, I think many Cardboarders have answered the question of how much longer do things have to suck before we conclude changes have to be made. Their answer is we should have already concluded it.
If by "changes have to be made" you mean changes to the coaching staff then I think you're right. If you mean that Shaw needs to go I'm not sure too many of us are there. I'm not. As I've said previously, I think Shaw's overall record has earned him the right to fix the mess he's made. But if he's unwilling to fix it, and results don't improve then he needs to go.
How can you say IF he's unwilling to fix it when Lance Anderson is still the defensive coordinator?
How long does that right to fix the mess he's made apply? Again, no Hall of Fame level (which I believe Shaw's track record warrants) coach to my knowledge has ever fallen to Shaw's depths and bounced back. I know it's dissonant with the early successes and also not something that's enjoyable to acknowledge, but it's incredible to me that any close observers of Stanford football could doubt that in 2022 David Shaw is one of the worst coaches in the nation. The evidence of losing is just overwhelming at this point. Unless we pull a big upset the next two weeks we're going to have gone 371 days without having beaten a single major college football team. Over a year!
RE: TreeCast post-USC - Treebound - 09-22-2022
For me, this is the inflection point year for Shaw, Stanford Football and the AD. Thanks to Shaw and Harbaugh, we have enjoyed some amazing years on the Farm. I'm thankful for those years. As many have pointed out over the last 4-5 years, the trend has reverted to the mean. My greatest concern was a lack of change, a lack of urgency coming from Shaw and his staff as the conference out coached and out recruited us. Complacency. I was shocked that no coaching changes were made after last year's dismal record.
With the transfer portal, NIL, Alston payments, potential conference realignment ($C and UCLA), and another realistic possibility of a losing season, I think this is a make or break year for Shaw, Muir and possibly those above them. Dissenting voices are growing louder, including some on the Board of Trustees. 36 Strong pushed back hard on the administration last year, and they listened. Season tickets and attendance continue to decline (for hoops as well) which puts more funding pressure on the University. While I was impressed that Shaw implemented the RPO as the first major change I have seen from this staff, I think HIS record will speak for itself this year. If it's another 3-4 win season, then changes need to be made. We've been patient, but now it's time to step up or start to consider some of the hard questions put forth in Maisel's article.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - PAsportsfan - 09-22-2022
Shaw has lost his greatest strength..."representing the university well"
RE: TreeCast post-USC - gailtate - 09-22-2022
The near-term prospects for Stanford football look like a s**t sandwich: stuck between Shaw and Muir. This adds up to very little to look forward to in the present and even less in the future. In the immortal words of Dean Wormer, "No way to go through life, son."
RE: TreeCast post-USC - murky - 09-22-2022
(09-22-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-21-2022, 05:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-21-2022, 07:57 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-20-2022, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-20-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Also you could make an argument that the Covid year should be thrown out and then it would be 35-29. Think what you wish, though.
If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.
My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.
While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.
The record shows that in terms of winning percentage of .671 (94-46) is better than Jim Harbaugh (.580), Walt Harris (.261), Buddy Teavens (.303), Tyrone Willingham (.549), Dennis Green (.471), Jack Elway (.464), Paul Wiggin (.364), Rod Dowhower (.500), Bill Walsh (.585), Jack Christiansen (.573), John Ralston (.601), Jack Curtice (.280), Chuck Taylor (.577), Marchmont Schwartz (.500), etc. the only coaches with a better record than Shaw were Clark Schaunessy, Pop Warner, and some pre-World War I coaches.
If that is mediocrity as a coach… so in order to justify that his record is mediocre, you have to point to the record in the last three years (but not the COVID year), and say that everything he accomplished before is attributable to his predecessor.
There is a legitimate danger that the recent trend will continue, and if it does, his winning percentage will plummet. And maybe in your mind, Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed (it was for Teevens and Harris, but they didn’t have nearly a decade of success before then). But if you are going to make sweeping statements about Shaw, give him the courtesy of evaluating his entire record.
BC
No doubt Shaw's overall record at Stanford has been exemplary.
However, for better or worse, college football coaching is very much a "what have you done for us lately" profession, and let's face it, two out of the last three years have sucked. I guess the question is how many more years does it have to suck before we conclude things have to change.
Hopefully Shaw will get things turned around so we won't have to address that question.
Which of Stanford's last 5 or 6 head coaches would you rather have instead of Shaw? Based on when they left Stanford.
Denny Green? Harbaugh?
Walsh II had a pretty miserable record after coasting the first year with the cards Green handed him. I assume you're in the camp that thinks Willingham was a lazy golfer who got lucky with the Rose Bowl season, and he didn't paint the field with glory after he left.
I'm paraphrasing, taking some license, my version of what I've gleaned from message boards from unhappy fans.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - msqueri - 09-22-2022
(09-22-2022, 01:53 PM)murky Wrote:(09-22-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-21-2022, 05:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-21-2022, 07:57 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-20-2022, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote: If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.
My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.
While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.
The record shows that in terms of winning percentage of .671 (94-46) is better than Jim Harbaugh (.580), Walt Harris (.261), Buddy Teavens (.303), Tyrone Willingham (.549), Dennis Green (.471), Jack Elway (.464), Paul Wiggin (.364), Rod Dowhower (.500), Bill Walsh (.585), Jack Christiansen (.573), John Ralston (.601), Jack Curtice (.280), Chuck Taylor (.577), Marchmont Schwartz (.500), etc. the only coaches with a better record than Shaw were Clark Schaunessy, Pop Warner, and some pre-World War I coaches.
If that is mediocrity as a coach… so in order to justify that his record is mediocre, you have to point to the record in the last three years (but not the COVID year), and say that everything he accomplished before is attributable to his predecessor.
There is a legitimate danger that the recent trend will continue, and if it does, his winning percentage will plummet. And maybe in your mind, Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed (it was for Teevens and Harris, but they didn’t have nearly a decade of success before then). But if you are going to make sweeping statements about Shaw, give him the courtesy of evaluating his entire record.
BC
No doubt Shaw's overall record at Stanford has been exemplary.
However, for better or worse, college football coaching is very much a "what have you done for us lately" profession, and let's face it, two out of the last three years have sucked. I guess the question is how many more years does it have to suck before we conclude things have to change.
Hopefully Shaw will get things turned around so we won't have to address that question.
Which of Stanford last 5 or 6 head coaches would you rather have instead of Shaw? Based on when they left Stanford.
Denny Green? Harbaugh?
Walsh II had a pretty miserable record after coasting the first year with the deck Green handed him. I assume you're in the camp that thinks Willingham was a lazy golfer who got lucky with the Rose Bowl season, and he didn't paint the field with glory after he left.
I'm paraphrasing, taking some license, my version of what I've gleaned from message boards from unhappy fans.
I assume you mean going forward, in which case...almost all of them?
I am very grateful for what Shaw did in his best years. I'll always give him credit for those. I'd vote for him for the Hall of Fame. But going forward, I'd take a replacement level coach over him in a heartbeat. I've done extremely detailed analyses in the past showing just how bad Shaw has been in recent years (and not a negligible number of years) and I'm happy to reproduce some of those if you'd like or if you have a particular refutation to the arguments against Shaw. But it's really stark. No coach in the country has as established a track record as Shaw of doing less with more and there are only a handful who lose as much over as many years period, regardless of talent. It adds up to a picture where I'd say among the last five Stanford coaches, with the benefit of hindsight, Harris is the only one of those five coaches I'd take a pass on compared to the current version of Shaw. I say with the benefit of hindsight because Harris was coming off a BCS bowl and failed for a complex range of reasons but on paper was a coach I'd rather have over today's Shaw too. But Harris sucked at Stanford, so no problem saying I'd rather have Shaw.
I'm sure you think this is hyperbole. I don't mean it to be. The level Shaw is coaching at these days is not one I think is difficult to reach. I know Shawpologists think this is hyperbole but computer rankings back it up: David Shaw today is no better a Stanford coach than Buddy Teevens was (objectively probably a bit worse). Willingham? Forget about it. Shaw recruits far better and far more responsibly, but what Shaw turns that talent into is no contest.
I'd rather have Tavita Pritchard as our head coach. I'd rather have Lance Anderson. I'd rather draw a random name out of a hat among the head coaches for the California Group of Five and FCS programs. Again, not hyperbole, painstakingly considered recognition of the level we've settled at for the last several years. Shaw is taking top 25 talent and producing a top 75 program. That's really, really hard to do.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - gailtate - 09-22-2022
(09-22-2022, 01:53 PM)murky Wrote:(09-22-2022, 07:53 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-21-2022, 05:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-21-2022, 07:57 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-20-2022, 08:51 AM)winflop Wrote: If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.
My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.
While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.
The record shows that in terms of winning percentage of .671 (94-46) is better than Jim Harbaugh (.580), Walt Harris (.261), Buddy Teavens (.303), Tyrone Willingham (.549), Dennis Green (.471), Jack Elway (.464), Paul Wiggin (.364), Rod Dowhower (.500), Bill Walsh (.585), Jack Christiansen (.573), John Ralston (.601), Jack Curtice (.280), Chuck Taylor (.577), Marchmont Schwartz (.500), etc. the only coaches with a better record than Shaw were Clark Schaunessy, Pop Warner, and some pre-World War I coaches.
If that is mediocrity as a coach… so in order to justify that his record is mediocre, you have to point to the record in the last three years (but not the COVID year), and say that everything he accomplished before is attributable to his predecessor.
There is a legitimate danger that the recent trend will continue, and if it does, his winning percentage will plummet. And maybe in your mind, Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed (it was for Teevens and Harris, but they didn’t have nearly a decade of success before then). But if you are going to make sweeping statements about Shaw, give him the courtesy of evaluating his entire record.
BC
No doubt Shaw's overall record at Stanford has been exemplary.
However, for better or worse, college football coaching is very much a "what have you done for us lately" profession, and let's face it, two out of the last three years have sucked. I guess the question is how many more years does it have to suck before we conclude things have to change.
Hopefully Shaw will get things turned around so we won't have to address that question.
Which of Stanford's last 5 or 6 head coaches would you rather have instead of Shaw? Based on when they left Stanford.
Denny Green? Harbaugh?
Walsh II had a pretty miserable record after coasting the first year with the cards Green handed him. I assume you're in the camp that thinks Willingham was a lazy golfer who got lucky with the Rose Bowl season, and he didn't paint the field with glory after he left.
I'm paraphrasing, taking some license, my version of what I've gleaned from message boards from unhappy fans.
I want the guy who's the next Green or the next Harbaugh who commits to bring Stanford all the way back to national, competitive relevance. I want the guy who'll get Stanford football out of the ditch it ran into (we ARE in a ditch, BTW, with the wheels spinning). I want the next HC who can attract top-talent football athletes desiring a serious education, not "Stanford" men who are run-of-the-mill football players. I want a guy who knows what Stanford is about, of course, AND who wants a football program consistent in stature and performance with the larger reputation of the university. We do not now have such a football program. It no longer occupies this high perch. It has fallen many rungs below where it once was. I want a guy who can get Stanford back up there and nothing less. If I didn't give a damn I'd be fine with where we are.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - winflop - 09-22-2022
(09-22-2022, 10:03 AM)msqueri Wrote:(09-22-2022, 09:47 AM)winflop Wrote:(09-22-2022, 08:37 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Yeah, I think many Cardboarders have answered the question of how much longer do things have to suck before we conclude changes have to be made. Their answer is we should have already concluded it.
If by "changes have to be made" you mean changes to the coaching staff then I think you're right. If you mean that Shaw needs to go I'm not sure too many of us are there. I'm not. As I've said previously, I think Shaw's overall record has earned him the right to fix the mess he's made. But if he's unwilling to fix it, and results don't improve then he needs to go.
How can you say IF he's unwilling to fix it when Lance Anderson is still the defensive coordinator?
How long does that right to fix the mess he's made apply?
This season. If it's not materially better (i.e., six wins or more) then either the majority of the coaching staff needs to be shown the door or Shaw does
(09-22-2022, 01:53 PM)murky Wrote: Which of Stanford's last 5 or 6 head coaches would you rather have instead of Shaw? Based on when they left Stanford.
I'd rather have Green, Harbaugh, or Willingham than the Shaw we have now. IN A HEARTBEAT. I might even prefer Walsh 2.0
RE: TreeCast post-USC - Spiny_Norman - 09-22-2022
I know what I want. I want the next Bob Bowlsby as Stanford's AD. A football-minded AD who thinks straight and talks straight. Let the football head coach follow from that.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - BostonCard - 09-22-2022
I think it is interesting that you (Matt) call out Shaw’s decent to good recruiting as a negative. If you are what your record says you are, does it matter that you got there by recruiting bad players and coaching them well or recruiting good players and coaching them poorly?
Because Shaw has shown he can coach good players to excellent results (2011 to 2017), I probably would be more concerned if the story was that after Harbaugh left, recruiting went in the toilet, and Shaw did the best he could with what he had, surviving for a few years on Harbaugh’s recruits before the poor recruiting caught up with him.
I have some issues with Shaw’s recruiting, especially in the years where we chronically recruited too few players for the trenches, leaving us vulnerable to injury or too dependent on one or two players. That seems to be better now, but I think many people, including yourself, have commented that while Shaw has recruited players that, from a ranking perspective look good on paper, that he has not recruited the intangibles well, and thus the culture of the team has suffered. It’s a plausible theory, but one that still relies on a subjective assessment of the number of “renaissance men” versus football-first players. So, I’m not 100% convinced that the players Shaw has recruited over the past few years are comparable in quality to those over his first 7 or so years, but I’m also not convinced that a generic replacement coach could do better. I think you have to go all the way back to Walsh II to find comparable quality recruiting if you base it on rankings, but I am willing to be convinced that a different coach would be better at “shaping” the team with his recruiting to enable success.
The alternative to a decline in recruiting is that what we’ve experienced is a decline in coaching the recruits we have (this includes player development and in game coaching) as an explanatory variable. I presume Shaw hasn’t forgotten how to coach, but I think a reasonable case can be made that the coaching staff, as a whole, is inferior, and, specifically, the transition from Derick Mason to Lance Anderson in 2014 has coincided with a substantial decline in the defense.
Obviously a new coach gets us a new DC, so if you believe that Shaw’s problem is his unwillingness to fire anyone, then this is a roundabout way to solve the problem.
BC
RE: TreeCast post-USC - Goose - 09-22-2022
(09-22-2022, 07:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Obviously a new coach gets us a new DC, so if you believe that Shaw’s problem is his unwillingness to fire anyone, then this is a roundabout way to solve the problem.IMHO it is probable that while Shaw (and just about any coach) doesn't relish firing assistants, Shaw's reluctance could be tied to his inability to attract anybody he thinks is better. While I think Shaw does try to be as "humane" as possible while coaching football, he hasn't seemed too reluctant to replace a player with another player if he believed it made the team better. While he may not always move as fast as some may prefer, he (or his staff) does move. Talk to Costello or Jones if you don't think so.
BC
Many on this site take the approach that Stanford has the money to attract any assistant (or head coach) we wish. I believe that while money helps, Stanford Football is a very tough sell for most coaches. They don't like the constraints and fear they can't succeed at Stanford. Many of them also don't "resonate" with the Stanford players. However, it is Shaw's responsibility to get assistants who can "get it done". The fact this may be hard doesn't let him off the hook. If Anderson can't deliver an effective defense, get somebody who can. Is Willie Shaw available :-)?
RE: TreeCast post-USC - winflop - 09-22-2022
(09-22-2022, 08:20 PM)Goose Wrote:(09-22-2022, 07:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Obviously a new coach gets us a new DC, so if you believe that Shaw’s problem is his unwillingness to fire anyone, then this is a roundabout way to solve the problem.IMHO it is probable that while Shaw (and just about any coach) doesn't relish firing assistants, Shaw's reluctance could be tied to his inability to attract anybody he thinks is better. While I think Shaw does try to be as "humane" as possible while coaching football, he hasn't seemed too reluctant to replace a player with another player if he believed it made the team better. While he may not always move as fast as some may prefer, he (or his staff) does move. Talk to Costello or Jones if you don't think so.
BC
Many on this site take the approach that Stanford has the money to attract any assistant (or head coach) we wish. I believe that while money helps, Stanford Football is a very tough sell for most coaches. They don't like the constraints and fear they can't succeed at Stanford. Many of them also don't "resonate" with the Stanford players. However, it is Shaw's responsibility to get assistants who can "get it done". The fact this may be hard doesn't let him off the hook. If Anderson can't deliver an effective defense, get somebody who can. Is Willie Shaw available :-)?
I don't believe for one second that Stanford is good for most coaches. But I also believe that if a position group is underperforming for more than a couple years, then you need to go get a new coach. Yes, it will be hard to replace those coaches, but that's the job of being the head coach at Stanford. If you can't hire good assistant coaches, then maybe it's time for someone else to do it...
RE: TreeCast post-USC - msqueri - 09-23-2022
(09-22-2022, 07:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is interesting that you (Matt) call out Shaw’s decent to good recruiting as a negative. If you are what your record says you are, does it matter that you got there by recruiting bad players and coaching them well or recruiting good players and coaching them poorly?
Because Shaw has shown he can coach good players to excellent results (2011 to 2017), I probably would be more concerned if the story was that after Harbaugh left, recruiting went in the toilet, and Shaw did the best he could with what he had, surviving for a few years on Harbaugh’s recruits before the poor recruiting caught up with him.
I have some issues with Shaw’s recruiting, especially in the years where we chronically recruited too few players for the trenches, leaving us vulnerable to injury or too dependent on one or two players. That seems to be better now, but I think many people, including yourself, have commented that while Shaw has recruited players that, from a ranking perspective look good on paper, that he has not recruited the intangibles well, and thus the culture of the team has suffered. It’s a plausible theory, but one that still relies on a subjective assessment of the number of “renaissance men” versus football-first players. So, I’m not 100% convinced that the players Shaw has recruited over the past few years are comparable in quality to those over his first 7 or so years, but I’m also not convinced that a generic replacement coach could do better. I think you have to go all the way back to Walsh II to find comparable quality recruiting if you base it on rankings, but I am willing to be convinced that a different coach would be better at “shaping” the team with his recruiting to enable success.
The alternative to a decline in recruiting is that what we’ve experienced is a decline in coaching the recruits we have (this includes player development and in game coaching) as an explanatory variable. I presume Shaw hasn’t forgotten how to coach, but I think a reasonable case can be made that the coaching staff, as a whole, is inferior, and, specifically, the transition from Derick Mason to Lance Anderson in 2014 has coincided with a substantial decline in the defense.
Obviously a new coach gets us a new DC, so if you believe that Shaw’s problem is his unwillingness to fire anyone, then this is a roundabout way to solve the problem.
BC
I don't mean to call Shaw recruiting better than Willingham a negative. Of course I agree with you that it doesn't matter if a coach recruits bad players and coaches them well or recruits good players and coaches them poorly if the record is the same. It's about results. The issue with Shaw is he's given himself the advantage of some of the best on-paper talent and depth in Stanford history and for numerous years stopped getting competitive results out of it. I cite recruiting/NFL draft selections/etc. to dramatize the under-performance but it's not the crux of the argument. The crux of the argument is the results.
Similarly, I may or may not be right about my various theories but it doesn't matter as they're not the crux of the issue, which is the on-field results. I believe several things:
* Shaw's football philosophy was much better suited to managing a bully and cold-bloodedly squeezing the will out of opponents than it is to building a contender from a position of irrelevance.
* Shaw's character, personality, style, areas of emphasis, prioritization of academics, and more all create a football-second culture.
* Said mix of philosophy and personal traits combined magically with what he inherited to give us the best results in Stanford history, which I don't believe many (any?) other coaches would have accomplished over so long a period.
* While Shaw has had several successful hires (Bloomgren, Akina, Kennedy), most of the coaching that really mattered most (Turley, Hart, Mason, even Anderson) was inherited from Harbaugh and, as you suggest, over time the coaching has declined (particularly the most critical jobs: strength and conditioning, coordinators, and lines).
* Recruiting in general but particularly defensive recruiting subtly declined over time and there have been fewer studs to work with the last few years than had been Shaw's norm.
* Shaw's style/prioritization of 40 year decisions, changes in the zeitgeist for Stanford players/college football players generally, changes in the rules for transfers and such, and the relatively joyless experience Stanford football has become all combined to make player retention much more difficult, which has really hurt us in the trenches, where the name of the game is getting players to their fifth or sixth year so you can cash in on the investments earlier in their careers.
These theories add up to a grand theory that Shaw was an excellent driver of a Ferrari but a lousy engineer of one once he had to fully own the product. Parts broke down and had to be replaced, paint had to be re-applied, changes in racing required new technology....and Shaw couldn't build the car like he had been able to drive it under 2011-2017 racing conditions.
Here's the thing: I may or may not be right about any of these individual theories or even the grand theory, but it doesn't matter. In this profession, at this level, with this compensation, you get judged by results. The results are unambiguous. Shaw 2018-2022 is one of the worst coaches in the nation and the most under-achieving relative to the talent he's recruited.
As a result, I think you are wrong not to be convinced a generic replacement coach could do better. Or, I should say since there's always uncertainty, wrong that a generic replacement coach wouldn't be a prudent bet. Between 2019-2021, the median Power Five football coach win percentages were Herman Edwards (Arizona State) at .600 and Dave Doeren (NC State) at .583. Before Shaw, the median win percentage among Ralston, Christiansen, Walsh, Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham, Teevens, Harris, and Harbaugh was .500. If you exclude Dowhower and Harris because they barely spent time at Stanford, it's .549.
A median, replacement level Power Five coach should be in the 50 to 60 percent win range. Since the last Sun Bowl, Shaw is at 37.5 percent. If you count the Sun Bowl year, Shaw is at 46.7 percent. If you count both the Sun Bowl and Alamo Bowl years (this cannot be a serious argument that these data points reflect the 2022 Shaw but I am stretching charity to make a point), even that is 50.8 percent. You can take Shaw's last SIX seasons and he's at below replacement level. Ok, let's make this really ridiculous - lump the 10-3 2016 Sun Bowl in there - a seven year stretch - 55.6 percent, right around the historical Shaw median and below the 2019-2021 Power Five median.
You shouldn't be scared of a generic replacement. Generic replacement would have a fair shot of doing better than Shaw and, if not, we'd get another bite at the apple in a few years as we did after Teevens and then again after Harris, striking gold on the third try. But the more we wait the less initiative we have to respond to changes in college football and, eventually, as an institution we may lose spirit for it or it may become too late.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - gailtate - 09-23-2022
(09-23-2022, 07:21 AM)msqueri Wrote:(09-22-2022, 07:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is interesting that you (Matt) call out Shaw’s decent to good recruiting as a negative. If you are what your record says you are, does it matter that you got there by recruiting bad players and coaching them well or recruiting good players and coaching them poorly?
Because Shaw has shown he can coach good players to excellent results (2011 to 2017), I probably would be more concerned if the story was that after Harbaugh left, recruiting went in the toilet, and Shaw did the best he could with what he had, surviving for a few years on Harbaugh’s recruits before the poor recruiting caught up with him.
I have some issues with Shaw’s recruiting, especially in the years where we chronically recruited too few players for the trenches, leaving us vulnerable to injury or too dependent on one or two players. That seems to be better now, but I think many people, including yourself, have commented that while Shaw has recruited players that, from a ranking perspective look good on paper, that he has not recruited the intangibles well, and thus the culture of the team has suffered. It’s a plausible theory, but one that still relies on a subjective assessment of the number of “renaissance men” versus football-first players. So, I’m not 100% convinced that the players Shaw has recruited over the past few years are comparable in quality to those over his first 7 or so years, but I’m also not convinced that a generic replacement coach could do better. I think you have to go all the way back to Walsh II to find comparable quality recruiting if you base it on rankings, but I am willing to be convinced that a different coach would be better at “shaping” the team with his recruiting to enable success.
The alternative to a decline in recruiting is that what we’ve experienced is a decline in coaching the recruits we have (this includes player development and in game coaching) as an explanatory variable. I presume Shaw hasn’t forgotten how to coach, but I think a reasonable case can be made that the coaching staff, as a whole, is inferior, and, specifically, the transition from Derick Mason to Lance Anderson in 2014 has coincided with a substantial decline in the defense.
Obviously a new coach gets us a new DC, so if you believe that Shaw’s problem is his unwillingness to fire anyone, then this is a roundabout way to solve the problem.
BC
I don't mean to call Shaw recruiting better than Willingham a negative. Of course I agree with you that it doesn't matter if a coach recruits bad players and coaches them well or recruits good players and coaches them poorly if the record is the same. It's about results. The issue with Shaw is he's given himself the advantage of some of the best on-paper talent and depth in Stanford history and for numerous years stopped getting competitive results out of it. I cite recruiting/NFL draft selections/etc. to dramatize the under-performance but it's not the crux of the argument. The crux of the argument is the results.
Similarly, I may or may not be right about my various theories but it doesn't matter as they're not the crux of the issue, which is the on-field results. I believe several things:
* Shaw's football philosophy was much better suited to managing a bully and cold-bloodedly squeezing the will out of opponents than it is to building a contender from a position of irrelevance.
* Shaw's character, personality, style, areas of emphasis, prioritization of academics, and more all create a football-second culture.
* Said mix of philosophy and personal traits combined magically with what he inherited to give us the best results in Stanford history, which I don't believe many (any?) other coaches would have accomplished over so long a period.
* While Shaw has had several successful hires (Bloomgren, Akina, Kennedy), most of the coaching that really mattered most (Turley, Hart, Mason, even Anderson) was inherited from Harbaugh and, as you suggest, over time the coaching has declined (particularly the most critical jobs: strength and conditioning, coordinators, and lines).
* Recruiting in general but particularly defensive recruiting subtly declined over time and there have been fewer studs to work with the last few years than had been Shaw's norm.
* Shaw's style/prioritization of 40 year decisions, changes in the zeitgeist for Stanford players/college football players generally, changes in the rules for transfers and such, and the relatively joyless experience Stanford football has become all combined to make player retention much more difficult, which has really hurt us in the trenches, where the name of the game is getting players to their fifth or sixth year so you can cash in on the investments earlier in their careers.
These theories add up to a grand theory that Shaw was an excellent driver of a Ferrari but a lousy engineer of one once he had to fully own the product. Parts broke down and had to be replaced, paint had to be re-applied, changes in racing required new technology....and Shaw couldn't build the car like he had been able to drive it under 2011-2017 racing conditions.
Here's the thing: I may or may not be right about any of these individual theories or even the grand theory, but it doesn't matter. In this profession, at this level, with this compensation, you get judged by results. The results are unambiguous. Shaw 2018-2022 is one of the worst coaches in the nation and the most under-achieving relative to the talent he's recruited.
As a result, I think you are wrong not to be convinced a generic replacement coach could do better. Or, I should say since there's always uncertainty, wrong that a generic replacement coach wouldn't be a prudent bet. Between 2019-2021, the median Power Five football coach win percentages were Herman Edwards (Arizona State) at .600 and Dave Doeren (NC State) at .583. Before Shaw, the median win percentage among Ralston, Christiansen, Walsh, Dowhower, Wiggin, Elway, Green, Willingham, Teevens, Harris, and Harbaugh was .500. If you exclude Dowhower and Harris because they barely spent time at Stanford, it's .549.
A median, replacement level Power Five coach should be in the 50 to 60 percent win range. Since the last Sun Bowl, Shaw is at 37.5 percent. If you count the Sun Bowl year, Shaw is at 46.7 percent. If you count both the Sun Bowl and Alamo Bowl years (this cannot be a serious argument that these data points reflect the 2022 Shaw but I am stretching charity to make a point), even that is 50.8 percent. You can take Shaw's last SIX seasons and he's at below replacement level. Ok, let's make this really ridiculous - lump the 10-3 2016 Sun Bowl in there - a seven year stretch - 55.6 percent, right around the historical Shaw median and below the 2019-2021 Power Five median.
You shouldn't be scared of a generic replacement. Generic replacement would have a fair shot of doing better than Shaw and, if not, we'd get another bite at the apple in a few years as we did after Teevens and then again after Harris, striking gold on the third try. But the more we wait the less initiative we have to respond to changes in college football and, eventually, as an institution we may lose spirit for it or it may become too late.
"But the more we wait the less initiative we have to respond to changes in college football and, eventually, as an institution we may lose spirit for it or it may become too late."
The sum of all fears.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - Goose - 09-23-2022
(09-23-2022, 07:21 AM)msqueri Wrote: You shouldn't be scared of a generic replacement. Generic replacement would have a fair shot of doing better than Shaw and, if not, we'd get another bite at the apple in a few years as we did after Teevens and then again after Harris, striking gold on the third try. But the more we wait the less initiative we have to respond to changes in college football and, eventually, as an institution we may lose spirit for it or it may become too late.The obvious problem with you argument for a "generic" replacement is one you use all the time (correctly IMHO). Things have changed in college football. These changes are almost entirely to Stanford's disadvantage. The "numbers" from past history no longer apply. The numbers for the PAC-12 or college football in general never did because Stanford isn't a "generic" school. Neither is Cal, neither is Oregon etc. The differences are not small either. Picking a coach is not a random variable with known distribution. Even if it was, the apparent assumption that one gets a Harbaugh with 33% probability is demonstrably wrong. Maybe every 40 years you get somebody in that general vicinity, looking at history. Given the many changes that are to Stanford's disadvantage, it would undoubtedly be less frequent going forward.
I think there are plenty of reasonable arguments that have been made on this board that replacing Shaw is a good idea, but the idea that a "generic" random choice would "probably" be better isn't one of those, IMHO.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - msqueri - 09-23-2022
(09-23-2022, 09:51 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-23-2022, 07:21 AM)msqueri Wrote: You shouldn't be scared of a generic replacement. Generic replacement would have a fair shot of doing better than Shaw and, if not, we'd get another bite at the apple in a few years as we did after Teevens and then again after Harris, striking gold on the third try. But the more we wait the less initiative we have to respond to changes in college football and, eventually, as an institution we may lose spirit for it or it may become too late.The obvious problem with you argument for a "generic" replacement is one you use all the time (correctly IMHO). Things have changed in college football. These changes are almost entirely to Stanford's disadvantage. The "numbers" from past history no longer apply. The numbers for the PAC-12 or college football in general never did because Stanford isn't a "generic" school. Neither is Cal, neither is Oregon etc. The differences are not small either. Picking a coach is not a random variable with known distribution. Even if it was, the apparent assumption that one gets a Harbaugh with 33% probability is demonstrably wrong. Maybe every 40 years you get somebody in that general vicinity, looking at history. Given the many changes that are to Stanford's disadvantage, it would undoubtedly be less frequent going forward.
I think there are plenty of reasonable arguments that have been made on this board that replacing Shaw is a good idea, but the idea that a "generic" random choice would "probably" be better isn't one of those, IMHO.
There's a brobdingnagian difference between a generic replacement and Harbaugh. We probably wouldn't hit the lottery like Harbaugh if we had a dozen cracks at a hire. But that's not the standard. The standard is the team getting better. Our current level - top 25 talent getting top 75 results - is easy to replace. Shaw has been so bad that judging by Sagarin 2002-2004 level Buddy Teevens would be preferable. You don't think we can hire something equal or greater to Buddy Teevens?
Look at Stanford's track record when moving on from a coach for cause (rather than because somebody got a better job elsewhere:
* Christiansen had a .573 winning percentage and was replaced by Walsh, who immediately uncorked a .708 winning percentage.
* Wiggin had a .364 winning percentage and was replaced by Elway, who had a .463 winning percentage.
* Elway had a .464 winning percentage and was replaced by Green, who had a .471 winning percentage.
* Walsh II (not exactly the same, but a terminal assignment so somewhat analogous) had a .500 winning percentage and was replaced by Willingham, who had a .549 winning percentage.
* Teevens had a .303 winning percentage and was replaced by Harris, who was our only example of being worse than they guy who got canned (though the first of Harris' two years was a .454 winning percentage (.261 over two years).
* Harris had a .261 winning percentage and was replaced by Harbaugh, who had a .580 winning percentage.
Not only is it not hard to replace somebody who is coaching at a failure level but we've actually done it every time except Harris. Personally, with Harris I think his personal drama/affair/divorce/whatever the hell was going on led to a dark place for him that produced the spiral and otherwise very well could have kept the pattern going. Regardless, the history is clear that it's super easy to replace somebody when they're winning at a rate like Shaw has.
To your point on times changing in ways disadvantageous for Stanford, it's a logical leap to go from there to say we can't compete at a median level. For one, you ignore the advantages Stanford has such as a national reputation and recruiting profile that allows us to stand apart from the Pac-12 (i.e., the Pac-12 becoming a worse conference should be good for us in a relative sense within the conference). Even more fundamentally, I think it is ahistorical and unnecessarily pessimistic to think that Stanford's place in the college football firmament is sub-median level. You're saying we can't be a top 35 football program (Power Five median, FBS median would be more like top 65)? That's too pessimistic for me.
In any case, we don't need the median, we just need better than Shaw's abject failure. Let's say we're in the bottom 25th percentile of Power Five football. The 25th percentile of most winning coaches 2019-2021 was Justin Wilcox (Cal) at .483. That's a damn sight better than Shaw. And Stanford is certainly a more winning/advantaged/competitive program in the historical college football firmament than Cal.
I stand by it and don't think it's even a close call: a generic replacement would be likely to do better than Shaw. The evidence is loud. The main reason for it is how bad Shaw has been. I am not saying it's easy to pick a great coach. I am saying it's hard not to pick a better coach than winning less than 38 percent of your games with top 25 talent.
RE: TreeCast post-USC - murky - 09-23-2022
I appreciate the discussion after my post asking which former coaches would be preferable - going forward.
I'm not surprised to see some prefer Green. The way Willingham was vilified, I am a little surprised that some prefer him, but maybe its the detachment of time and distance that allow a more favorable view in hindsight.
But it is stunning to suggest Teevens, especially if based on results.
In any case, its interesting to see the depths of disapproval and despair with Shaw.
My attachment to Stanford sports grew in a time that involved regular hope against hope, sometimes rewarded and then the more sweet for it. I was a student from 90-95 and our record over that period was just over 500.
The nadir for the program was Walt's last season, 1-11 after years of nothing but futility.
In my time we've had 2 coaches who've had more winning seasons than losing, and they both got heaps of crap from the fan boards.
Shaw, even while delivering winning seasons.
edit: As far as I'm concerned, and not just in hindsight, I give a near complete pass for what occurred during the Covid affected seasons. It's just an entirely different set of luck and skills that determines outcomes in such circumstances.