"I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - 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: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." (/thread-23487.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: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." (/thread-23487.html)
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - gailtate - 09-26-2022
(09-26-2022, 03:45 PM)Alvin Wrote:(09-26-2022, 03:11 PM)oldalum Wrote:(09-26-2022, 02:15 PM)Alvin Wrote: There are minimum NCAA academic requirements for eligibility and transfer rules. How about we follow those rules and not try to fight with one arm tied behind our backs.Maybe because Stanford is primarily a university with a football team, not primarily a football team that is based on a university campus?
I have no problem with your statement. But then we should leave the Pac-12 and form a west coast Ivy League or discontinue the program indefinitely.
And how many dozen people are interested in watching a Stanford team even worse than we see today play Ivy League ball in the future? Maybe Paly High will open their facilities for it. Message: No big-time football = No big-time sports. It's the road to M.I.T.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - cardcrimson - 09-26-2022
(09-26-2022, 03:57 PM)McKenwood Wrote:(09-26-2022, 03:37 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Forget Clawson. Shaw's sloe mesh is modeled after what Clawson's installed at Wake. . . .
Did you see the WF-Clemson game? Clemson has a better defensive front than UW.
Yes, yes I did. And most of my comment was cynical sarcasm (sad to have to explain that). A desperate coach sees an offense he likes and installs it, apparently in the late summer, regardless of whether he has the players to make it work. Whether Clawson could recruit the talent it takes to run a slow mesh (sloe was an intended pun of sorts, too), is debatable. We clearly don't have the QB to make it work currently. And that's no slight to McKee.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - jacket3ree - 09-28-2022
(09-26-2022, 01:13 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Love the Yellow Jacket President. Shows some guts. Quite the golfer too, won his own Green Jacket several years back. . . .
Some on Tech sites are calling him the Angel of Death, I'm sure with the correct Spanish pronunciation.
Introducing the interim AD and interim coach, he basically said he would do whatever it takes to field a competitive football team everyone associated with GT would be proud of being associated. As an alumnus, husband of an alumnus, and father of an alumnus, it's personal. In a word, beat Georgia.
Talk is cheap, but he is the first president of GT in anyone's memory (and there are plenty of people posting who go back to the Dodd days) to even say something like this. And that presidential lineage includes a former All Big-8 receiver who basically didn't give a shit about athletics.
I didn't realize Shaw was in the same zip code of wins as program-craterer Collins. Yikes!
My son, who played football collegiately at Navy, abhors Shaw's coaching. To be fair he played for a coach who was a combat Marine for a Light Attack Helicopter Squadron in Iraq that saw heavy action. Pregame talks peppered with "There was no room, so I had to get out. No armor, just a flight helmet and an M-16. Lock and load, baby; it just got real." If you want a taste of his motivating style check at the clip below at 2:00. "Everybody off safe...."
Take 'em to the valley one more time
That's a high comparative bar, but he coached a bunch of aggressive guys aggressively. (Feels like the antithesis of Stanford football right now.) I'm not sure they carried a punter. What's the point? My son played four years and coached one. They lost three games total. Major Lake is retired and a photographer in Phoenix now, so if Stanford is looking.....DB for Bobby Bowden at FSU; MS in manpower analysis from the Naval Postgraduate School.
Soft-spoken guy that knows something about everything talking to parents at the post-game spread, but watch him inside a locker room or on the sidelines.....I wouldn't cross him.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - baycommuter - 09-28-2022
(09-26-2022, 03:52 PM)PAsportsfan Wrote: I agree with not having Shaw as AD. Maybe some role in Development or give him a random office in the AD building ala Montgomery and pawn him off to Kal when the time comes.
Remember Howie Dallmar? When losing and his drinking became too much of an embarrassment they put him in charge of intramurals.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Phogge - 09-28-2022
Stanford id not the place for a military man. And I wish it were. When Harballs left they should have picked the Lord of Defense. But as in everything the university does they play a PC game. Not talking about a black coach hire but Fangio was definitely "Not Stanford."
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - BostonCard - 09-28-2022
I mean, Fangio had a 19-30 record as head coach of Denver, and was basically let go after three seasons. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t successful; we’ll never get to see the counterfactual, but it is not glaringly obvious that we missed the boat by not making him head coach.
Some people are brilliant coordinators, but that doesn’t always translate to HC chops.
BC
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - old spanish trail - 09-28-2022
Fangio, great strategist...unusual personality. Not a head coach "type".
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - gailtate - 09-29-2022
(09-28-2022, 10:22 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Fangio, great strategist...unusual personality. Not a head coach "type".
I want a re-animated Denny Green who would want to stay at Stanford indefinitely. HE is my ideal "Stanford HC". Smart, tough motivator. Disruptive a-la EUTM but personable. Street smart. The current "comfy culture" must be annihilated. And yes, he was "Stanford".
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - msqueri - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 07:20 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-28-2022, 10:22 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Fangio, great strategist...unusual personality. Not a head coach "type".
I want a re-animated Denny Green who would want to stay at Stanford indefinitely. HE is my ideal "Stanford HC". Smart, tough motivator. Disruptive a-la EUTM but personable. Street smart. The current "comfy culture" must be annihilated. And yes, he was "Stanford".
But he didn't win a lot or recruit responsibly. His trajectory was awesome and maybe he would have sustained it, but we'll never know. Can't co-sign any suggestion he's a better model for us than Harbaugh.
Do agree with you about personality traits that are important. Multiple ways to skin a cat but at minimum, yes, comfy culture must be annihilated.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Ohiocard - 09-29-2022
I was listening to a podcast by The Athletic and they were speaking about what coaches have turned around programs recently and truly the only thing they had in common was that their #1 tool was the transfer portal.
Let's say we let Shaw go after the season, at an average CFB program we would see 15-25 players transfer out and at least 1/2 the recruiting class decommit, but lets say the Stanford degree gives us a better chance to keep players. I would probably put the number of transfers at 10-15 and 1/3 of the recruiting class gone.
With the schools admission standards, zero access to the portal, and non-existent NIL program (retention tool)...
How many years will it take a new coach to make up for those losses?
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - msqueri - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 07:58 AM)Ohiocard Wrote: I was listening to a podcast by The Athletic and they were speaking about what coaches have turned around programs recently and truly the only thing they had in common was that their #1 tool was the transfer portal.
Let's say we let Shaw go after the season, at an average CFB program we would see 15-25 players transfer out and at least 1/2 the recruiting class decommit, but lets say the Stanford degree gives us a better chance to keep players. I would probably put the number of transfers at 10-15 and 1/3 of the recruiting class gone.
With the schools admission standards, zero access to the portal, and non-existent NIL program (retention tool)...
How many years will it take a new coach to make up for those losses?
1. Years.
2. Less than the most pessimistic transfer portal naysayers think because there is an 85 scholarship limit for all teams and the more other team rely on the transfer portal the more that vacates the high school recruiting playing field to us. We could/should be able to dominate high school recruiting in the new landscape.
P.S. Why would half the recruiting class decommit when players are now coming to Stanford for academics rather than football? Shaw makes sure that nobody comes to Stanford because of David Shaw or Stanford football. Whether he'd put it that way or not, he's proud of it. It is likely that subsequent year recruiting being bolstered by a new coach's more credible ability to sell a rebuild would outweigh immediate losses of players bailing because Shaw is gone.
P.P.S. Entering day dreaming territory: there is a world in which Shaw moving on coincides with Stanford taking the plunge to big boy football in the Big 10 and the shot of energy those twin factors provide the program dramatically reshape the feel, energy, and appeal of Stanford football. There is also a world in which Shaw continues to fail and Stanford chooses to opt out/recede from major college football. It may be wishful thinking but I still think the exciting former is more likely than the depressing latter.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - gailtate - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 10:09 AM)msqueri Wrote:(09-29-2022, 07:58 AM)Ohiocard Wrote: I was listening to a podcast by The Athletic and they were speaking about what coaches have turned around programs recently and truly the only thing they had in common was that their #1 tool was the transfer portal.
Let's say we let Shaw go after the season, at an average CFB program we would see 15-25 players transfer out and at least 1/2 the recruiting class decommit, but lets say the Stanford degree gives us a better chance to keep players. I would probably put the number of transfers at 10-15 and 1/3 of the recruiting class gone.
With the schools admission standards, zero access to the portal, and non-existent NIL program (retention tool)...
How many years will it take a new coach to make up for those losses?
1. Years.
2. Less than the most pessimistic transfer portal naysayers think because there is an 85 scholarship limit for all teams and the more other team rely on the transfer portal the more that vacates the high school recruiting playing field to us. We could/should be able to dominate high school recruiting in the new landscape.
P.S. Why would half the recruiting class decommit when players are now coming to Stanford for academics rather than football? Shaw makes sure that nobody comes to Stanford because of David Shaw or Stanford football. Whether he'd put it that way or not, he's proud of it. It is likely that subsequent year recruiting being bolstered by a new coach's more credible ability to sell a rebuild would outweigh immediate losses of players bailing because Shaw is gone.
P.P.S. Entering day dreaming territory: there is a world in which Shaw moving on coincides with Stanford taking the plunge to big boy football in the Big 10 and the shot of energy those twin factors provide the program dramatically reshape the feel, energy, and appeal of Stanford football. There is also a world in which Shaw continues to fail and Stanford chooses to opt out/recede from major college football. It may be wishful thinking but I still think the exciting former is more likely than the depressing latter.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - lex24 - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 07:20 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-28-2022, 10:22 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Fangio, great strategist...unusual personality. Not a head coach "type".
I want a re-animated Denny Green who would want to stay at Stanford indefinitely. HE is my ideal "Stanford HC". Smart, tough motivator. Disruptive a-la EUTM but personable. Street smart. The current "comfy culture" must be annihilated. And yes, he was "Stanford".
Agree with you. I was a h.u.g.e. Denny Green fan. He was the first to employ a power football philosophy.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - gailtate - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 10:47 AM)gailtate Wrote:(09-29-2022, 10:09 AM)msqueri Wrote:(09-29-2022, 07:58 AM)Ohiocard Wrote: I was listening to a podcast by The Athletic and they were speaking about what coaches have turned around programs recently and truly the only thing they had in common was that their #1 tool was the transfer portal.
Let's say we let Shaw go after the season, at an average CFB program we would see 15-25 players transfer out and at least 1/2 the recruiting class decommit, but lets say the Stanford degree gives us a better chance to keep players. I would probably put the number of transfers at 10-15 and 1/3 of the recruiting class gone.
With the schools admission standards, zero access to the portal, and non-existent NIL program (retention tool)...
How many years will it take a new coach to make up for those losses?
1. Years.
2. Less than the most pessimistic transfer portal naysayers think because there is an 85 scholarship limit for all teams and the more other team rely on the transfer portal the more that vacates the high school recruiting playing field to us. We could/should be able to dominate high school recruiting in the new landscape.
P.S. Why would half the recruiting class decommit when players are now coming to Stanford for academics rather than football? Shaw makes sure that nobody comes to Stanford because of David Shaw or Stanford football. Whether he'd put it that way or not, he's proud of it. It is likely that subsequent year recruiting being bolstered by a new coach's more credible ability to sell a rebuild would outweigh immediate losses of players bailing because Shaw is gone.
P.P.S. Entering day dreaming territory: there is a world in which Shaw moving on coincides with Stanford taking the plunge to big boy football in the Big 10 and the shot of energy those twin factors provide the program dramatically reshape the feel, energy, and appeal of Stanford football. There is also a world in which Shaw continues to fail and Stanford chooses to opt out/recede from major college football. It may be wishful thinking but I still think the exciting former is more likely than the depressing latter.
"The depressing latter" is NOT an option for Stanford, no matter how much it galls the university's Anti-Big-Time-Sports lobby and how they howl and gnash their teeth. As my New York associates would say, "fuh-ged-aboud-it!" Of this, I am certain. The numbers will not work and neither will an incipient MIT of the West. In spite of this special-interest group's pipe dreams and yearnings.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Ohiocard - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 10:09 AM)msqueri Wrote:(09-29-2022, 07:58 AM)Ohiocard Wrote: I was listening to a podcast by The Athletic and they were speaking about what coaches have turned around programs recently and truly the only thing they had in common was that their #1 tool was the transfer portal.
Let's say we let Shaw go after the season, at an average CFB program we would see 15-25 players transfer out and at least 1/2 the recruiting class decommit, but lets say the Stanford degree gives us a better chance to keep players. I would probably put the number of transfers at 10-15 and 1/3 of the recruiting class gone.
With the schools admission standards, zero access to the portal, and non-existent NIL program (retention tool)...
How many years will it take a new coach to make up for those losses?
1. Years.
2. Less than the most pessimistic transfer portal naysayers think because there is an 85 scholarship limit for all teams and the more other team rely on the transfer portal the more that vacates the high school recruiting playing field to us. We could/should be able to dominate high school recruiting in the new landscape.
P.S. Why would half the recruiting class decommit when players are now coming to Stanford for academics rather than football? Shaw makes sure that nobody comes to Stanford because of David Shaw or Stanford football. Whether he'd put it that way or not, he's proud of it. It is likely that subsequent year recruiting being bolstered by a new coach's more credible ability to sell a rebuild would outweigh immediate losses of players bailing because Shaw is gone.
P.P.S. Entering day dreaming territory: there is a world in which Shaw moving on coincides with Stanford taking the plunge to big boy football in the Big 10 and the shot of energy those twin factors provide the program dramatically reshape the feel, energy, and appeal of Stanford football. There is also a world in which Shaw continues to fail and Stanford chooses to opt out/recede from major college football. It may be wishful thinking but I still think the exciting former is more likely than the depressing latter.
I would push back on your #2 point on the portal. The transfer portal is a two way street where programs take quality transfers to fill team needs while ushering out players who have not developed as they would hoped. Most programs still try and sign around 20 HS prospects.
That is why the portal and a major change in the program is going to hurt, Stanford is the only program in the country where the portal only points one way.
So, when we look at candidates like Lance Leipold and others who have turned programs around, one of the major questions must be "how much of the success was due to their ability to find the right players out of the portal?" Which is a brobdingnagian skill to have at nearly every other program other than Stanford
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - cardcrimson - 09-29-2022
So many people only assume the portal goes one way for Stanford. Why not try to exploit it?
Say we love a particular recruit. Perhaps they didn't quite make the cut academically as a freshman, so dangle the carrot to work hard at their college and perhaps we can still get them in as a sophomore, junior or senior. Of course that would take some pre-work with admissions to expand the transfer opportunities, as it's a new landscape out there.
Our coach should also be shouting from the rooftops that we'll take all the Patrick Fields out there. "Let us know, and we'll work with you to help you find a new home and a new diploma from Stanford."
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Mick - 09-29-2022
(09-28-2022, 07:17 PM)baycommuter Wrote:(09-26-2022, 03:52 PM)PAsportsfan Wrote: I agree with not having Shaw as AD. Maybe some role in Development or give him a random office in the AD building ala Montgomery and pawn him off to Kal when the time comes.
Remember Howie Dallmar? When losing and his drinking became too much of an embarrassment they put him in charge of intramurals.
I wonder if that caused his early departure from the NBA at the age of 26? I know it did for Joe Fulks. Two all star years at age 28 and 29, an ok year at 30, virtually gone at 31.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - Jamesy - 09-29-2022
Honest question: if football finishes 1-11, does Shaw get fired?
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - thunder_chik - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 02:31 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Honest question: if football finishes 1-11, does Shaw get fired?Might depend on the amount of his buyout...does anyone know? I think it more likely he will be required to "clean house", e.g., find a new OC and DC and possibly Special Teams coach. Maybe others. Just my hunch.
RE: "I'm Comfortable with Where We Are. . . ." - msqueri - 09-29-2022
(09-29-2022, 02:31 PM)Jamesy Wrote: Honest question: if football finishes 1-11, does Shaw get fired?
I think he might but, more likely, I think he might retire or find another graceful exit.
For what it's worth, his Tuesday press conference was one of the least visibly stressed I've seen him in a while. I think a real que sera sera has set in. I suppose that could lead to quit quitting and just running out the string without any real fire for as long as we'll have him, but equally plausible to me is Shaw deciding he gave it his best but the new era of college football isn't for him and he'll walk away, for now, with his incredible career win/loss record and the excuses of what COVID-19, spates of injuries, NIL, and transfer portal have done. In my dream world, as I've suggested, we are on the precipice of joining the Big 10 and Shaw can spin this as "I'm a Pac-12 guy and it's time for new blood for this new era but I'll always be a part of this team and there for the new coach however I can help."