Just 3 things . . . - 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: Just 3 things . . . (/thread-22525.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: Just 3 things . . . (/thread-22525.html)
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Phogge - 11-08-2021
Physically dominant in 1971. Three shutouts. The Chickens, Barnes, Siemon, Simone et al. Bunch could throw but it was run first. Brown, Shockley until he left the team, Winesberry on reverses and in a Power I at TB, Bunch keepers. Ralston for two years had tough guys like Harballs had in 2010 and gave to Shaw.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Row80Critic - 11-08-2021
(11-08-2021, 12:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-08-2021, 10:55 AM)Goose Wrote:(11-07-2021, 10:42 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I'd kill for that kind of offensive "balance" and effectiveness. The problem with those teams was D, plain and simple.Sorry Teejers1 but I watched it, and no, it wasn't a good offense. It was John Elway. He would go out there and do things nobody else could do. Yes, it was a blast to watch. You also knew that as long as he was out there, we could win, no matter how bad the defense was playing. Again, great to watch.
I swear, I think the mind-numbingly dull Stanford offenses under Shaw have wiped away the fans' collective remembrances of what a good offensive football team looks like. Hint: it's not power running in a phone booth. PPG and YPG were all so much better in most prior regimes. The number of sub-350 yard total offense; sub-300 yard total offense; sub 250 yard total offense under this regime is shocking, given the recruited talent on O. Shockingly bad. Snap out of it, people!
However, the results were poor. Yes, the of immense proportions problem was the defense. However, I can't call an offense a "good" offense when it relies on one player doing unbelievable things . Face it, the opposition knew that if they gave Elway any time at all he would destroy them. They had seen it happen to other quite good teams. You had to rush the hell out of Elway and at the same time play great pass defense. Running against a defense totally committed to stopping Elway wasn't too hard. However, our opponents counted Stanford running as a plus, because that meant Elway wasn't on a roll and eating them up.
The fact is we wasted three years of John Elway because we had no defense. The coaching staff recognized that we needed to keep our defense off the field so they tried (particularly in 1981) to run the ball a lot more. They did that and we lost more games. Would it have made sense to play phone booth football if your QB is John Elway and your running back is Darrin Nelson? No, it wouldn't. However, at the end of the day an offense that requires John Elway to function is not a "good" offense IMHO.
I disagree with your entire take and recollection on those offenses. The running game - with Darrin freaking Nelson, V-Dub, Dot, and others - was at least respectable. The passing game explosive. We don't have anything approaching either right now. Again, the fans in these parts have been beaten down by the dreck we've seen, thinking this kind of plodding O is "the way it has to be at Stanford." That's just so not true.
Apologies for not reading all the posts, but if anyone is suggesting the Elway/Nelson years were similar and/or remotely as bad as what Stanford has now, then I have to assume they never saw those teams in person. Nelson was truly incredible. And Elway -- forget about it. Luck was a fantastic first round franchise QB, but Elway literally did everything better -- stronger arm, better eyes, way more mobile -- one of the very best to play QB anywhere, ever. And by the way, those guys were wildly entertaining to watch. Comparing those teams to what we are seeing right now is like comparing apples and squirrels.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - jacket3ree - 11-08-2021
Hey everyone, it's been a while. (Apologies/salute to Nan3cy since I stole her best posting name idea ever to honor Tom Lehrer, but I had to resort to something to dislodge a sticky Catch22 IT thing apparently going on, and it is all I could think of doing. But mostly a salute to Nan3cy. And Tom.)
During my time of fandom (since the '85 season), Stanford has seen three positive sea changes in performance. See, there is a theme here:
1. Denny Green takes over from Elway. Emphasizes the OL and basically Big 10 (Iowa) run-first football with West Coast offense layered in there. At first the OL was sort of big and slow (SJSU danced around them in one game), but they started with some (wow!) upsets (ND the day of my wedding), and by the time the Vikings called to crown his ass, they were bludgeoning people. Not everyone, but enough.
2. Tyrone Willingham takes over from Walsh. Emphasized discipline from what I recall and a solid staff. Improvements over the prior regime that had run out of Green fumes. Player development. I think Coach Walsh had sort of let go of the rope and the new energy was needed. The offense was a little more vertical than West Coast, but was dynamic and won games, mostly, and the defense was capable of occasionally rising to the occasion, like in the Rose Bowl. (A bad defense lets Ron Daaaaaayne run wild and gives up 42 points. When we got back up north, I read in the paper comments from Wisconsin players to the effect that Stanford hit like a Big 10 team.) That '01 team was really close to doing something special.
3. Jim Harbaugh takes over from Harris. Emphasized physicality and stopped any pretense about not recruiting football-first (or football-equal) players. This is Schembechler Big10 football with Bill Walsh sprinkled in and plenty of fireworks. Maniacally held on to all the ropes. Yeah man, what is your deal? Harbaugh-Shaw from 2009 - 2015 is in my opinion the best stretch of Stanford football I recall or read about. (If Pop Warner threw 35-0 down in a Rose Bowl in less than a half, I'll give it up to him.) What made it the best, however, was not just the brutality on offense or running Power, or watching from the stands as Harbaugh greased Marinelli's eyes with someone's blood, but the equal brutality on defense. Shane effing Skov. Monsters that were fundamentally sound and pretty close to unbeatable. And could do calculus if they had to. Great football teams are built from the center and nose tackle out, and then back. Period. Throw some speed on the edges, Andrew Luck, Kevin Hogan, Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney, McCaffery, Love, et al on top of that and you spin gold.
Playing Big 10 football when no one in the Big 10 outside of Madison plays Big 10 football, is a winning formula. (Wisconsin runs go routes too; it's not boring.) A winning formula if you want to make Oregon cry on national TV, that is. THAT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO......
The scheme isn't as important as the line of scrimmage. Find the players that really enjoy the combat it is, can face a Top 5 schedule year in and year out and relish that, and appreciate the educational opportunity. In that order. Then worry about the playbook.
It's not good when you bail on Stanford and find Loudermilk on Prime after the Warriors game because Stanford gives you two options: go on blood thinners or stop caring. An angry call from my now Stateside son woke me up Saturday for our Gameday ritual. He's stationed in Virginia and stayed up late to watch that freak show. He's done with Shaw, but in fairness he played college football for a combat Marine who flew helo missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Major Lake was intense when he needed to be intense. He also walked on for Bobby Bowden at FSU.
I feel like Shaw has let go of the rope. Coaching must be absolutely exhausting and getting this train back on track is going to take extreme effort and some really uncomfortable conversations and decisions. But I have those all the time and I don't pull in $6 million per annum with $3 million considered loose deferment change. Either jump into the task, or let someone else willing to do it, do it.
I've been to exactly one game in Palo Alto (Oregon) and exactly one game in Berkeley (Colorado) this year. Someone somewhere needs to do a monumentally futile and stupid gesture to paddle Bay Area college football back to life before it dies forever. (With apologies to the dude down at Sparta.)
And remember that someone always has it better (sorry Jim, it's better in Athens and that makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little), and someone always has it worse. My son and I follow three teams on a weekly basis: Stanford, Georgia Tech, and Navy. Even when he was deployed to places we can't disclose, he figured out how to follow games and shoot me an off-hour text or two during the season. His first text this season put the O/U on combined winds at ten. We both took the under. Looking good sitting at 8 with another win from anybody really iffy at this point..... Can you imagine having all three of your teams lose to Notre Dame in the same season?
RE: Just 3 things . . . - BostonCard - 11-08-2021
No one said being a fan was easy, but mad respect for you and your son. You should post more often.
BC
RE: Just 3 things . . . - JohnR34231 - 11-09-2021
(11-08-2021, 08:30 PM)Row80Critic Wrote:(11-08-2021, 12:08 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-08-2021, 10:55 AM)Goose Wrote:(11-07-2021, 10:42 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I'd kill for that kind of offensive "balance" and effectiveness. The problem with those teams was D, plain and simple.Sorry Teejers1 but I watched it, and no, it wasn't a good offense. It was John Elway. He would go out there and do things nobody else could do. Yes, it was a blast to watch. You also knew that as long as he was out there, we could win, no matter how bad the defense was playing. Again, great to watch.
I swear, I think the mind-numbingly dull Stanford offenses under Shaw have wiped away the fans' collective remembrances of what a good offensive football team looks like. Hint: it's not power running in a phone booth. PPG and YPG were all so much better in most prior regimes. The number of sub-350 yard total offense; sub-300 yard total offense; sub 250 yard total offense under this regime is shocking, given the recruited talent on O. Shockingly bad. Snap out of it, people!
However, the results were poor. Yes, the of immense proportions problem was the defense. However, I can't call an offense a "good" offense when it relies on one player doing unbelievable things . Face it, the opposition knew that if they gave Elway any time at all he would destroy them. They had seen it happen to other quite good teams. You had to rush the hell out of Elway and at the same time play great pass defense. Running against a defense totally committed to stopping Elway wasn't too hard. However, our opponents counted Stanford running as a plus, because that meant Elway wasn't on a roll and eating them up.
The fact is we wasted three years of John Elway because we had no defense. The coaching staff recognized that we needed to keep our defense off the field so they tried (particularly in 1981) to run the ball a lot more. They did that and we lost more games. Would it have made sense to play phone booth football if your QB is John Elway and your running back is Darrin Nelson? No, it wouldn't. However, at the end of the day an offense that requires John Elway to function is not a "good" offense IMHO.
I disagree with your entire take and recollection on those offenses. The running game - with Darrin freaking Nelson, V-Dub, Dot, and others - was at least respectable. The passing game explosive. We don't have anything approaching either right now. Again, the fans in these parts have been beaten down by the dreck we've seen, thinking this kind of plodding O is "the way it has to be at Stanford." That's just so not true.
Apologies for not reading all the posts, but if anyone is suggesting the Elway/Nelson years were similar and/or remotely as bad as what Stanford has now, then I have to assume they never saw those teams in person. Nelson was truly incredible. And Elway -- forget about it. Luck was a fantastic first round franchise QB, but Elway literally did everything better -- stronger arm, better eyes, way more mobile -- one of the very best to play QB anywhere, ever. And by the way, those guys were wildly entertaining to watch. Comparing those teams to what we are seeing right now is like comparing apples and squirrels.
I think there is a bit of a "way we were" attitude toward the Elway years. Elway was no doubt a great player, but can you imagine how nuts this board would have gone in 1981 when we were 1-7 before making it slightly better by beating three teams that had a combined five wins between them. Or 1980, our only winning year at 6-5, when we blew a bowl invitation by losing to a Kal team that had two wins up to that point. Or 1982, for that matter, when we lost the last three games to turn what looked like a decent season into another losing one. Speaking for myself, I found them more frustrating than "wildly entertaining", despite the play of Elway and Nelson.
lex24 - lex24 - 11-09-2021
(11-08-2021, 08:57 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Hey everyone, it's been a while. (Apologies/salute to Nan3cy since I stole her best posting name idea ever to honor Tom Lehrer, but I had to resort to something to dislodge a sticky Catch22 IT thing apparently going on, and it is all I could think of doing. But mostly a salute to Nan3cy. And Tom.)
During my time of fandom (since the '85 season), Stanford has seen three positive sea changes in performance. See, there is a theme here:
1. Denny Green takes over from Elway. Emphasizes the OL and basically Big 10 (Iowa) run-first football with West Coast offense layered in there. At first the OL was sort of big and slow (SJSU danced around them in one game), but they started with some (wow!) upsets (ND the day of my wedding), and by the time the Vikings called to crown his ass, they were bludgeoning people. Not everyone, but enough.
2. Tyrone Willingham takes over from Walsh. Emphasized discipline from what I recall and a solid staff. Improvements over the prior regime that had run out of Green fumes. Player development. I think Coach Walsh had sort of let go of the rope and the new energy was needed. The offense was a little more vertical than West Coast, but was dynamic and won games, mostly, and the defense was capable of occasionally rising to the occasion, like in the Rose Bowl. (A bad defense lets Ron Daaaaaayne run wild and gives up 42 points. When we got back up north, I read in the paper comments from Wisconsin players to the effect that Stanford hit like a Big 10 team.) That '01 team was really close to doing something special.
3. Jim Harbaugh takes over from Harris. Emphasized physicality and stopped any pretense about not recruiting football-first (or football-equal) players. This is Schembechler Big10 football with Bill Walsh sprinkled in and plenty of fireworks. Maniacally held on to all the ropes. Yeah man, what is your deal? Harbaugh-Shaw from 2009 - 2015 is in my opinion the best stretch of Stanford football I recall or read about. (If Pop Warner threw 35-0 down in a Rose Bowl in less than a half, I'll give it up to him.) What made it the best, however, was not just the brutality on offense or running Power, or watching from the stands as Harbaugh greased Marinelli's eyes with someone's blood, but the equal brutality on defense. Shane effing Skov. Monsters that were fundamentally sound and pretty close to unbeatable. And could do calculus if they had to. Great football teams are built from the center and nose tackle out, and then back. Period. Throw some speed on the edges, Andrew Luck, Kevin Hogan, Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney, McCaffery, Love, et al on top of that and you spin gold.
Playing Big 10 football when no one in the Big 10 outside of Madison plays Big 10 football, is a winning formula. (Wisconsin runs go routes too; it's not boring.) A winning formula if you want to make Oregon cry on national TV, that is. THAT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO......
The scheme isn't as important as the line of scrimmage. Find the players that really enjoy the combat it is, can face a Top 5 schedule year in and year out and relish that, and appreciate the educational opportunity. In that order. Then worry about the playbook.
It's not good when you bail on Stanford and find Loudermilk on Prime after the Warriors game because Stanford gives you two options: go on blood thinners or stop caring. An angry call from my now Stateside son woke me up Saturday for our Gameday ritual. He's stationed in Virginia and stayed up late to watch that freak show. He's done with Shaw, but in fairness he played college football for a combat Marine who flew helo missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Major Lake was intense when he needed to be intense. He also walked on for Bobby Bowden at FSU.
I feel like Shaw has let go of the rope. Coaching must be absolutely exhausting and getting this train back on track is going to take extreme effort and some really uncomfortable conversations and decisions. But I have those all the time and I don't pull in $6 million per annum with $3 million considered loose deferment change. Either jump into the task, or let someone else willing to do it, do it.
I've been to exactly one game in Palo Alto (Oregon) and exactly one game in Berkeley (Colorado) this year. Someone somewhere needs to do a monumentally futile and stupid gesture to paddle Bay Area college football back to life before it dies forever. (With apologies to the dude down at Sparta.)
And remember that someone always has it better (sorry Jim, it's better in Athens and that makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little), and someone always has it worse. My son and I follow three teams on a weekly basis: Stanford, Georgia Tech, and Navy. Even when he was deployed to places we can't disclose, he figured out how to follow games and shoot me an off-hour text or two during the season. His first text this season put the O/U on combined winds at ten. We both took the under. Looking good sitting at 8 with another win from anybody really iffy at this point..... Can you imagine having all three of your teams lose to Notre Dame in the same season?
Good to hear from you. Well reasoned post. Denny Green Stanford’s most underrated HC.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Brickcity - 11-09-2021
(11-08-2021, 08:57 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Hey everyone, it's been a while. (Apologies/salute to Nan3cy since I stole her best posting name idea ever to honor Tom Lehrer, but I had to resort to something to dislodge a sticky Catch22 IT thing apparently going on, and it is all I could think of doing. But mostly a salute to Nan3cy. And Tom.)
During my time of fandom (since the '85 season), Stanford has seen three positive sea changes in performance. See, there is a theme here:
1. Denny Green takes over from Elway. Emphasizes the OL and basically Big 10 (Iowa) run-first football with West Coast offense layered in there. At first the OL was sort of big and slow (SJSU danced around them in one game), but they started with some (wow!) upsets (ND the day of my wedding), and by the time the Vikings called to crown his ass, they were bludgeoning people. Not everyone, but enough.
2. Tyrone Willingham takes over from Walsh. Emphasized discipline from what I recall and a solid staff. Improvements over the prior regime that had run out of Green fumes. Player development. I think Coach Walsh had sort of let go of the rope and the new energy was needed. The offense was a little more vertical than West Coast, but was dynamic and won games, mostly, and the defense was capable of occasionally rising to the occasion, like in the Rose Bowl. (A bad defense lets Ron Daaaaaayne run wild and gives up 42 points. When we got back up north, I read in the paper comments from Wisconsin players to the effect that Stanford hit like a Big 10 team.) That '01 team was really close to doing something special.
3. Jim Harbaugh takes over from Harris. Emphasized physicality and stopped any pretense about not recruiting football-first (or football-equal) players. This is Schembechler Big10 football with Bill Walsh sprinkled in and plenty of fireworks. Maniacally held on to all the ropes. Yeah man, what is your deal? Harbaugh-Shaw from 2009 - 2015 is in my opinion the best stretch of Stanford football I recall or read about. (If Pop Warner threw 35-0 down in a Rose Bowl in less than a half, I'll give it up to him.) What made it the best, however, was not just the brutality on offense or running Power, or watching from the stands as Harbaugh greased Marinelli's eyes with someone's blood, but the equal brutality on defense. Shane effing Skov. Monsters that were fundamentally sound and pretty close to unbeatable. And could do calculus if they had to. Great football teams are built from the center and nose tackle out, and then back. Period. Throw some speed on the edges, Andrew Luck, Kevin Hogan, Gerhart, Taylor, Gaffney, McCaffery, Love, et al on top of that and you spin gold.
Playing Big 10 football when no one in the Big 10 outside of Madison plays Big 10 football, is a winning formula. (Wisconsin runs go routes too; it's not boring.) A winning formula if you want to make Oregon cry on national TV, that is. THAT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO......
The scheme isn't as important as the line of scrimmage. Find the players that really enjoy the combat it is, can face a Top 5 schedule year in and year out and relish that, and appreciate the educational opportunity. In that order. Then worry about the playbook.
It's not good when you bail on Stanford and find Loudermilk on Prime after the Warriors game because Stanford gives you two options: go on blood thinners or stop caring. An angry call from my now Stateside son woke me up Saturday for our Gameday ritual. He's stationed in Virginia and stayed up late to watch that freak show. He's done with Shaw, but in fairness he played college football for a combat Marine who flew helo missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Major Lake was intense when he needed to be intense. He also walked on for Bobby Bowden at FSU.
I feel like Shaw has let go of the rope. Coaching must be absolutely exhausting and getting this train back on track is going to take extreme effort and some really uncomfortable conversations and decisions. But I have those all the time and I don't pull in $6 million per annum with $3 million considered loose deferment change. Either jump into the task, or let someone else willing to do it, do it.
I've been to exactly one game in Palo Alto (Oregon) and exactly one game in Berkeley (Colorado) this year. Someone somewhere needs to do a monumentally futile and stupid gesture to paddle Bay Area college football back to life before it dies forever. (With apologies to the dude down at Sparta.)
And remember that someone always has it better (sorry Jim, it's better in Athens and that makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little), and someone always has it worse. My son and I follow three teams on a weekly basis: Stanford, Georgia Tech, and Navy. Even when he was deployed to places we can't disclose, he figured out how to follow games and shoot me an off-hour text or two during the season. His first text this season put the O/U on combined winds at ten. We both took the under. Looking good sitting at 8 with another win from anybody really iffy at this point..... Can you imagine having all three of your teams lose to Notre Dame in the same season?
Great post. One correction: Stanford gave up 17 points to Wisconsin in the 2000 Rose Bowl (not 42.) Ron Dayne did run wild though that wasn't Stanford's main problem that day. The bigger issue was only scoring 9 points, though much of that had to do with Troy Walters having a broken hand and our all-conference center playing very gimpy that day.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - teejers1 - 11-09-2021
(11-08-2021, 03:56 PM)Red80 Wrote:(11-08-2021, 03:26 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-08-2021, 02:20 PM)Red80 Wrote: Speaking of Oregon and Aliotti, two of the greatest wins in Stanford football history were against Oregon in '12 and '13. UO was ranked #1 when SU beat them in Eugene, 17-14. One year later, #3 Oregon, averaging 55 points and 600 yards per game, was bludgeoned to death on national TV by a Stanford offense that held the ball for an astonishing 43 minutes. One of my all-time favorite Stanford football memories was watching virtually all of the many Oregon fans exiting the stadium by the end of the 3rd quarter.IMHO David Shaw would bring back that offense if he could. He can't, because the players don't exist anymore, or to the extent they do they are not going to attend Stanford. High School football has gone toward the spread option and the passing game. The rules have done the same. There aren't a lot of big power backs out there. Offensive coordinators don't want to run that system because there is no glory in it, no big name and no NFL/Head
Coach job. Players don't want to play in that system because it is viewed as a dead end. What happened 10 years ago is not available to Stanford and more. I think Shaw actively prefers that style (obviously I haven't been able to ask him myself). He has been forced to change over the last 6 or so years not necessarily because he wanted to but because he had to.
Everything above could have been stated 10 years ago, and Shaw proved it wrong. And there are plenty of "Thumpers'" out there, big backs who would love to run downhill 30+ times a game. To say that Power O doesn't translate to the NFL is not true. There are elements of the offense that are used by just about every NFL team. The Power O system, however stigmatized, is more nuanced and has elements of finesse that the average fan is not aware of. The main reason(s) Shaw has drifted away from the Power O are injuries, recruiting mistakes, and lazy-a$$ recruiting. There's no good reason why it can't return. I'm all for tweaking the offense, especially if the right personnel comes along, but the at the crux has to be a punishing ground game that controls the clock, tempo, and assists Stanford's defense by keeping them off the field.
Shaw has only proven that with superior players handed to him he can win playing his plodding style of offense. THAT is what he has proven.
Well, that and that he has an uncanny ability to make some of the worst game management decisions in Stanford history.
He has shown no ability to sustain anything, particularly with his own players; he has shown no ability to out-coach an opponent. The Oregon game mentioned above is the closest thing to that, but I believe that was necessity, as opposed to some deep/clever thinking. Indeed, in that game Stanford had no choice. It had no other kind of offense other than slamming a RB into the line play after play after play. Did I support it at the time? Yes, absolutely, because it gave Stanford its best chance to win. 3+ yards a carry for 40+ minutes. Remarkable. Do I think it was a great offensive scheme? No. Same holds for the season Bryce Love went wild on 50+ yard TD scampers. Handing the ball off to Bryce and hoping he makes a house call is not a great offensive scheme. And when Bryce went down with (a predictable injury), we saw what remained of that offensive scheme. Give me the guy running the O show at Purdue (or maybe even Wake). Do they have superior athletes. Do they rely on a generational talent to win games? The point is that there are lots of "non-gimmicky" coaches out there who can install a real offense and understand game management far better than the current guy. And oh yeah, it might . . . just might encourage fans to show up and watch (though that horse may have left the barn too long ago to retrieve).
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Goose - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 11:18 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Shaw has only proven that with superior players handed to him he can win playing his plodding style of offense. THAT is what he has proven.Actually I think you have clearly demonstrated that Shaw has done the rational thing with the players he had. Do I like the offense with Love being home run or loss of one? In the abstract, maybe not, but given that you have the generational talent (and not much else) that makes as much sense as pounding the ball against Oregon did. As you point out, when Love got hurt, they didn't have much else. I also think the offense under KJ was not a good one. It relied far too much on receivers winning the physical battle for the ball. But that is what we had, so that is what we did.
Well, that and that he has an uncanny ability to make some of the worst game management decisions in Stanford history.
He has shown no ability to sustain anything, particularly with his own players; he has shown no ability to out-coach an opponent. The Oregon game mentioned above is the closest thing to that, but I believe that was necessity, as opposed to some deep/clever thinking. Indeed, in that game Stanford had no choice. It had no other kind of offense other than slamming a RB into the line play after play after play. Did I support it at the time? Yes, absolutely, because it gave Stanford its best chance to win. 3+ yards a carry for 40+ minutes. Remarkable. Do I think it was a great offensive scheme? No. Same holds for the season Bryce Love went wild on 50+ yard TD scampers. Handing the ball off to Bryce and hoping he makes a house call is not a great offensive scheme. And when Bryce went down with (a predictable injury), we saw what remained of that offensive scheme. Give me the guy running the O show at Purdue (or maybe even Wake). Do they have superior athletes. Do they rely on a generational talent to win games? The point is that there are lots of "non-gimmicky" coaches out there who can install a real offense and understand game management far better than the current guy. And oh yeah, it might . . . just might encourage fans to show up and watch (though that horse may have left the barn too long ago to retrieve).
It is true that there are lots of coaches out there (probably a majority actually) that can install a "non-gimmicky" offense that is pretty balanced if they have an appropriate set of players. Not great players, but "good enough". You get a Purdue team that is not bad and might win the B1G west. Probably won't though. Generally a pretty "average" team. I will be impressed when they beat tOSU and win the B1G. Shaw has at least won when he had generational talents. Was he just real lucky that happened to him? Yes. I don't think anybody can say they expected either CMac or BL to be as good as they turned out to be. It seems you agree he utilized them pretty well.
If one wants to criticize Shaw, I would support the idea expressed by others that he hasn't had a good OL for quite a few (probably 5 at least) years. No matter what offense you run, without a good OL it won't work. You have to be able to run the ball at least competently. When you can't, you don't win. In public, this hasn't be acknowledged. Not surprising, you don't want to throw anybody under the bus. However, the question is how much the Shaw et al realize this problem and how they intend to fix it. This issue requires action. It is not obvious (at least to me) that it is a problem with not getting the "right" players. It may be we have over-emphasized size vs. speed. Given that, one would expect that we could blow people off the line but would have problems with blitzes and quick DLs. Well, we do have problems with quick defenses, which is bad. We can't blow anybody off the line which is worse.
The problems with the DL are of even longer standing. In that case it has been, at a minimum, lack of bodies. It appears that recruiting has stepped up in this area, which is a good thing. Now we need to see positive results from that step before it can be expected that problem is "solved".
I don't see David Shaw standing pat and claiming "No problem here, nothing to see here". The question remains how effective his fixes may be.
lex24 - lex24 - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 12:28 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-09-2021, 11:18 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Shaw has only proven that with superior players handed to him he can win playing his plodding style of offense. THAT is what he has proven.Actually I think you have clearly demonstrated that Shaw has done the rational thing with the players he had. Do I like the offense with Love being home run or loss of one? In the abstract, maybe not, but given that you have the generational talent (and not much else) that makes as much sense as pounding the ball against Oregon did. As you point out, when Love got hurt, they didn't have much else. I also think the offense under KJ was not a good one. It relied far too much on receivers winning the physical battle for the ball. But that is what we had, so that is what we did.
Well, that and that he has an uncanny ability to make some of the worst game management decisions in Stanford history.
He has shown no ability to sustain anything, particularly with his own players; he has shown no ability to out-coach an opponent. The Oregon game mentioned above is the closest thing to that, but I believe that was necessity, as opposed to some deep/clever thinking. Indeed, in that game Stanford had no choice. It had no other kind of offense other than slamming a RB into the line play after play after play. Did I support it at the time? Yes, absolutely, because it gave Stanford its best chance to win. 3+ yards a carry for 40+ minutes. Remarkable. Do I think it was a great offensive scheme? No. Same holds for the season Bryce Love went wild on 50+ yard TD scampers. Handing the ball off to Bryce and hoping he makes a house call is not a great offensive scheme. And when Bryce went down with (a predictable injury), we saw what remained of that offensive scheme. Give me the guy running the O show at Purdue (or maybe even Wake). Do they have superior athletes. Do they rely on a generational talent to win games? The point is that there are lots of "non-gimmicky" coaches out there who can install a real offense and understand game management far better than the current guy. And oh yeah, it might . . . just might encourage fans to show up and watch (though that horse may have left the barn too long ago to retrieve).
It is true that there are lots of coaches out there (probably a majority actually) that can install a "non-gimmicky" offense that is pretty balanced if they have an appropriate set of players. Not great players, but "good enough". You get a Purdue team that is not bad and might win the B1G west. Probably won't though. Generally a pretty "average" team. I will be impressed when they beat tOSU and win the B1G. Shaw has at least won when he had generational talents. Was he just real lucky that happened to him? Yes. I don't think anybody can say they expected either CMac or BL to be as good as they turned out to be. It seems you agree he utilized them pretty well.
If one wants to criticize Shaw, I would support the idea expressed by others that he hasn't had a good OL for quite a few (probably 5 at least) years. No matter what offense you run, without a good OL it won't work. You have to be able to run the ball at least competently. When you can't, you don't win. In public, this hasn't be acknowledged. Not surprising, you don't want to throw anybody under the bus. However, the question is how much the Shaw et al realize this problem and how they intend to fix it. This issue requires action. It is not obvious (at least to me) that it is a problem with not getting the "right" players. It may be we have over-emphasized size vs. speed. Given that, one would expect that we could blow people off the line but would have problems with blitzes and quick DLs. Well, we do have problems with quick defenses, which is bad. We can't blow anybody off the line which is worse.
The problems with the DL are of even longer standing. In that case it has been, at a minimum, lack of bodies. It appears that recruiting has stepped up in this area, which is a good thing. Now we need to see positive results from that step before it can be expected that problem is "solved".
I don't see David Shaw standing pat and claiming "No problem here, nothing to see here". The question remains how effective his fixes may be.
I always love the “flavor of the month”. It was Scott Frost and Troy Walters a few years back. Then Wilcox…. Not so much now.
Now I see it’s Jeff Brohm from Purdue. Been there since ‘17. Record:
17- 7-6
18- 6-7
‘19. 4-8
‘20 2-4
My math is poor. But I think that is 19-25. On the far weaker side of the Big 14.
He’s 6-3 this year with a couple big wins. So now he is “it” I guess. Great…..
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 01:25 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-09-2021, 12:28 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-09-2021, 11:18 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Shaw has only proven that with superior players handed to him he can win playing his plodding style of offense. THAT is what he has proven.Actually I think you have clearly demonstrated that Shaw has done the rational thing with the players he had. Do I like the offense with Love being home run or loss of one? In the abstract, maybe not, but given that you have the generational talent (and not much else) that makes as much sense as pounding the ball against Oregon did. As you point out, when Love got hurt, they didn't have much else. I also think the offense under KJ was not a good one. It relied far too much on receivers winning the physical battle for the ball. But that is what we had, so that is what we did.
Well, that and that he has an uncanny ability to make some of the worst game management decisions in Stanford history.
He has shown no ability to sustain anything, particularly with his own players; he has shown no ability to out-coach an opponent. The Oregon game mentioned above is the closest thing to that, but I believe that was necessity, as opposed to some deep/clever thinking. Indeed, in that game Stanford had no choice. It had no other kind of offense other than slamming a RB into the line play after play after play. Did I support it at the time? Yes, absolutely, because it gave Stanford its best chance to win. 3+ yards a carry for 40+ minutes. Remarkable. Do I think it was a great offensive scheme? No. Same holds for the season Bryce Love went wild on 50+ yard TD scampers. Handing the ball off to Bryce and hoping he makes a house call is not a great offensive scheme. And when Bryce went down with (a predictable injury), we saw what remained of that offensive scheme. Give me the guy running the O show at Purdue (or maybe even Wake). Do they have superior athletes. Do they rely on a generational talent to win games? The point is that there are lots of "non-gimmicky" coaches out there who can install a real offense and understand game management far better than the current guy. And oh yeah, it might . . . just might encourage fans to show up and watch (though that horse may have left the barn too long ago to retrieve).
It is true that there are lots of coaches out there (probably a majority actually) that can install a "non-gimmicky" offense that is pretty balanced if they have an appropriate set of players. Not great players, but "good enough". You get a Purdue team that is not bad and might win the B1G west. Probably won't though. Generally a pretty "average" team. I will be impressed when they beat tOSU and win the B1G. Shaw has at least won when he had generational talents. Was he just real lucky that happened to him? Yes. I don't think anybody can say they expected either CMac or BL to be as good as they turned out to be. It seems you agree he utilized them pretty well.
If one wants to criticize Shaw, I would support the idea expressed by others that he hasn't had a good OL for quite a few (probably 5 at least) years. No matter what offense you run, without a good OL it won't work. You have to be able to run the ball at least competently. When you can't, you don't win. In public, this hasn't be acknowledged. Not surprising, you don't want to throw anybody under the bus. However, the question is how much the Shaw et al realize this problem and how they intend to fix it. This issue requires action. It is not obvious (at least to me) that it is a problem with not getting the "right" players. It may be we have over-emphasized size vs. speed. Given that, one would expect that we could blow people off the line but would have problems with blitzes and quick DLs. Well, we do have problems with quick defenses, which is bad. We can't blow anybody off the line which is worse.
The problems with the DL are of even longer standing. In that case it has been, at a minimum, lack of bodies. It appears that recruiting has stepped up in this area, which is a good thing. Now we need to see positive results from that step before it can be expected that problem is "solved".
I don't see David Shaw standing pat and claiming "No problem here, nothing to see here". The question remains how effective his fixes may be.
I always love the “flavor of the month”. It was Scott Frost and Troy Walters a few years back. Then Wilcox…. Not so much now.
Now I see it’s Jeff Brohm from Purdue. Been there since ‘17. Record:
17- 7-6
18- 6-7
‘19. 4-8
‘20 2-4
My math is poor. But I think that is 19-25. On the far weaker side of the Big 14.
He’s 6-3 this year with a couple big wins. So now he is “it” I guess. Great…..
Do you think Brohm has a more talented roster than Stanford?
Do you think they play softer/easier opponents than Stanford?
As for Wilcox . . . well, he has been disappointing. But I'll say this: the City of Berkeley's regulators may be the only bunch more draconian/capricious than Santa Clara County's Health Officer. 24 players - many of whom had 2 negative tests in a row - were prohibited from traveling to AZ for the game against the Wildcats. And Cal is a bit harder to recruit to than is Stanford. Remember how everyone here shat on Dykes at Cal? Well, he's doing all right for himself now (and pre-Cal). Maybe the problems are institutional in Berkeley. That I don't know.
I've never been an advocate for Frost or Walters, though I do think Frost has shown more than our guy. At least Frost built something himself and won in grand fashion.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - murky - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 11:18 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-08-2021, 03:56 PM)Red80 Wrote:(11-08-2021, 03:26 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-08-2021, 02:20 PM)Red80 Wrote: Speaking of Oregon and Aliotti, two of the greatest wins in Stanford football history were against Oregon in '12 and '13. UO was ranked #1 when SU beat them in Eugene, 17-14. One year later, #3 Oregon, averaging 55 points and 600 yards per game, was bludgeoned to death on national TV by a Stanford offense that held the ball for an astonishing 43 minutes. One of my all-time favorite Stanford football memories was watching virtually all of the many Oregon fans exiting the stadium by the end of the 3rd quarter.IMHO David Shaw would bring back that offense if he could. He can't, because the players don't exist anymore, or to the extent they do they are not going to attend Stanford. High School football has gone toward the spread option and the passing game. The rules have done the same. There aren't a lot of big power backs out there. Offensive coordinators don't want to run that system because there is no glory in it, no big name and no NFL/Head
Coach job. Players don't want to play in that system because it is viewed as a dead end. What happened 10 years ago is not available to Stanford and more. I think Shaw actively prefers that style (obviously I haven't been able to ask him myself). He has been forced to change over the last 6 or so years not necessarily because he wanted to but because he had to.
Everything above could have been stated 10 years ago, and Shaw proved it wrong. And there are plenty of "Thumpers'" out there, big backs who would love to run downhill 30+ times a game. To say that Power O doesn't translate to the NFL is not true. There are elements of the offense that are used by just about every NFL team. The Power O system, however stigmatized, is more nuanced and has elements of finesse that the average fan is not aware of. The main reason(s) Shaw has drifted away from the Power O are injuries, recruiting mistakes, and lazy-a$$ recruiting. There's no good reason why it can't return. I'm all for tweaking the offense, especially if the right personnel comes along, but the at the crux has to be a punishing ground game that controls the clock, tempo, and assists Stanford's defense by keeping them off the field.
Shaw has only proven that with superior players handed to him he can win playing his plodding style of offense. THAT is what he has proven.
Well, that and that he has an uncanny ability to make some of the worst game management decisions in Stanford history.
He has shown no ability to sustain anything, particularly with his own players; he has shown no ability to out-coach an opponent. The Oregon game mentioned above is the closest thing to that, but I believe that was necessity, as opposed to some deep/clever thinking. Indeed, in that game Stanford had no choice. It had no other kind of offense other than slamming a RB into the line play after play after play. Did I support it at the time? Yes, absolutely, because it gave Stanford its best chance to win. 3+ yards a carry for 40+ minutes. Remarkable. Do I think it was a great offensive scheme? No. Same holds for the season Bryce Love went wild on 50+ yard TD scampers. Handing the ball off to Bryce and hoping he makes a house call is not a great offensive scheme. And when Bryce went down with (a predictable injury), we saw what remained of that offensive scheme. Give me the guy running the O show at Purdue (or maybe even Wake). Do they have superior athletes. Do they rely on a generational talent to win games? The point is that there are lots of "non-gimmicky" coaches out there who can install a real offense and understand game management far better than the current guy. And oh yeah, it might . . . just might encourage fans to show up and watch (though that horse may have left the barn too long ago to retrieve).
From 2015-2018, 5 years removed from the previous head coach, Stanford averaged 10 wins per season under Shaw over those 4 years. Who handed him those players?
lex24 - lex24 - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 01:53 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-09-2021, 01:25 PM)lex24 Wrote:(11-09-2021, 12:28 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-09-2021, 11:18 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Shaw has only proven that with superior players handed to him he can win playing his plodding style of offense. THAT is what he has proven.Actually I think you have clearly demonstrated that Shaw has done the rational thing with the players he had. Do I like the offense with Love being home run or loss of one? In the abstract, maybe not, but given that you have the generational talent (and not much else) that makes as much sense as pounding the ball against Oregon did. As you point out, when Love got hurt, they didn't have much else. I also think the offense under KJ was not a good one. It relied far too much on receivers winning the physical battle for the ball. But that is what we had, so that is what we did.
Well, that and that he has an uncanny ability to make some of the worst game management decisions in Stanford history.
He has shown no ability to sustain anything, particularly with his own players; he has shown no ability to out-coach an opponent. The Oregon game mentioned above is the closest thing to that, but I believe that was necessity, as opposed to some deep/clever thinking. Indeed, in that game Stanford had no choice. It had no other kind of offense other than slamming a RB into the line play after play after play. Did I support it at the time? Yes, absolutely, because it gave Stanford its best chance to win. 3+ yards a carry for 40+ minutes. Remarkable. Do I think it was a great offensive scheme? No. Same holds for the season Bryce Love went wild on 50+ yard TD scampers. Handing the ball off to Bryce and hoping he makes a house call is not a great offensive scheme. And when Bryce went down with (a predictable injury), we saw what remained of that offensive scheme. Give me the guy running the O show at Purdue (or maybe even Wake). Do they have superior athletes. Do they rely on a generational talent to win games? The point is that there are lots of "non-gimmicky" coaches out there who can install a real offense and understand game management far better than the current guy. And oh yeah, it might . . . just might encourage fans to show up and watch (though that horse may have left the barn too long ago to retrieve).
It is true that there are lots of coaches out there (probably a majority actually) that can install a "non-gimmicky" offense that is pretty balanced if they have an appropriate set of players. Not great players, but "good enough". You get a Purdue team that is not bad and might win the B1G west. Probably won't though. Generally a pretty "average" team. I will be impressed when they beat tOSU and win the B1G. Shaw has at least won when he had generational talents. Was he just real lucky that happened to him? Yes. I don't think anybody can say they expected either CMac or BL to be as good as they turned out to be. It seems you agree he utilized them pretty well.
If one wants to criticize Shaw, I would support the idea expressed by others that he hasn't had a good OL for quite a few (probably 5 at least) years. No matter what offense you run, without a good OL it won't work. You have to be able to run the ball at least competently. When you can't, you don't win. In public, this hasn't be acknowledged. Not surprising, you don't want to throw anybody under the bus. However, the question is how much the Shaw et al realize this problem and how they intend to fix it. This issue requires action. It is not obvious (at least to me) that it is a problem with not getting the "right" players. It may be we have over-emphasized size vs. speed. Given that, one would expect that we could blow people off the line but would have problems with blitzes and quick DLs. Well, we do have problems with quick defenses, which is bad. We can't blow anybody off the line which is worse.
The problems with the DL are of even longer standing. In that case it has been, at a minimum, lack of bodies. It appears that recruiting has stepped up in this area, which is a good thing. Now we need to see positive results from that step before it can be expected that problem is "solved".
I don't see David Shaw standing pat and claiming "No problem here, nothing to see here". The question remains how effective his fixes may be.
I always love the “flavor of the month”. It was Scott Frost and Troy Walters a few years back. Then Wilcox…. Not so much now.
Now I see it’s Jeff Brohm from Purdue. Been there since ‘17. Record:
17- 7-6
18- 6-7
‘19. 4-8
‘20 2-4
My math is poor. But I think that is 19-25. On the far weaker side of the Big 14.
He’s 6-3 this year with a couple big wins. So now he is “it” I guess. Great…..
Do you think Brohm has a more talented roster than Stanford?
Do you think they play softer/easier opponents than Stanford?
As for Wilcox . . . well, he has been disappointing. But I'll say this: the City of Berkeley's regulators may be the only bunch more draconian/capricious than Santa Clara County's Health Officer. 24 players - many of whom had 2 negative tests in a row - were prohibited from traveling to AZ for the game against the Wildcats. And Cal is a bit harder to recruit to than is Stanford. Remember how everyone here shat on Dykes at Cal? Well, he's doing all right for himself now (and pre-Cal). Maybe the problems are institutional in Berkeley. That I don't know.
I've never been an advocate for Frost or Walters, though I do think Frost has shown more than our guy. At least Frost built something himself and won in grand fashion.
Not comparing to Shaw. Just stating the facts. If you truly want to poach a Big 14 coach, go for Chryst. Since 2015 he’s 62-22. Does it by using a power running game with a hell of a lot of creativity thrown in. Lots of misdirection. They never have a great QB. But they always have terrific lines.
I don’t care who coaches Stanford at this point. I’ve grown cold to the Shaw Wars. Which have been ongoing since the moment he took over the team. But whoever is at the helm, in my opinion, should focus on physical. That so-called plodding style that was simply the best period in Stanford history. Give me top flight lines. And go from there.
Schemes are wonderful. Bill Walsh was one of the greatest offensive minds of all time. And one of the greatest Head Coaches. His Stanford teams managed 7 points in two games vs SC. Why? You think John Robinson “out-schemed” Walsh? Or do you think SC was vastly superior physically?
One of the best things that has happened in the PAC 12 is SC deciding it needs to run the Air Raid. They have gone from being the bullies on the block to extended mediocrity. Let’s hope they keep their beautiful “scheme”.
EDIT- I’ll continue to sh-t on Dykes. He’s where he belongs. Second tier conference. I put Dykes right up with Teevens/Wlat as worst hires in Cal/Stanford football….
EDIT 2. Balance. Here are numbers under Shaw. (I leave out 11. Luck.). Passing first
12. 200/174
13. 198/207
14. 229/158
15. 211/223
16. 158/208
17. 186/202
Impressive balance. And then…
18. 273/107
19. 262/105
20. 287/133
21. 230/90.
Can’t run. Won’t win. Simple as that…..
RE: lex24 - Goose - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 02:05 PM)lex24 Wrote: 12. 200/174Amen! These numbers also show Shaw is perfectly happy to run when he has the backs and OL to do it. Since 2017 he hasn't had that. There is exactly the problem. CMac actually covered up the problem for two years because he was so good he could turn a crease into yardage reliably. Love couldn't really do that as well and the line was still on a downward slope when he took over from CMac. The 2016 Colorado game was a view of the future. By then the running game was on borrowed time. Even a great back like Love couldn't preserve it.
13. 198/207
14. 229/158
15. 211/223
16. 158/208
17. 186/202
Impressive balance. And then…
18. 273/107
19. 262/105
20. 287/133
21. 230/90.
Can’t run. Won’t win. Simple as that…..
RE: Just 3 things . . . - teejers1 - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 01:55 PM)murky Wrote:(11-09-2021, 11:18 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Shaw has only proven that with superior players handed to him he can win playing his plodding style of offense. THAT is what he has proven.
Well, that and that he has an uncanny ability to make some of the worst game management decisions in Stanford history.
He has shown no ability to sustain anything, particularly with his own players; he has shown no ability to out-coach an opponent. The Oregon game mentioned above is the closest thing to that, but I believe that was necessity, as opposed to some deep/clever thinking. Indeed, in that game Stanford had no choice. It had no other kind of offense other than slamming a RB into the line play after play after play. Did I support it at the time? Yes, absolutely, because it gave Stanford its best chance to win. 3+ yards a carry for 40+ minutes. Remarkable. Do I think it was a great offensive scheme? No. Same holds for the season Bryce Love went wild on 50+ yard TD scampers. Handing the ball off to Bryce and hoping he makes a house call is not a great offensive scheme. And when Bryce went down with (a predictable injury), we saw what remained of that offensive scheme. Give me the guy running the O show at Purdue (or maybe even Wake). Do they have superior athletes. Do they rely on a generational talent to win games? The point is that there are lots of "non-gimmicky" coaches out there who can install a real offense and understand game management far better than the current guy. And oh yeah, it might . . . just might encourage fans to show up and watch (though that horse may have left the barn too long ago to retrieve).
From 2015-2018, 5 years removed from the previous head coach, Stanford averaged 10 wins per season under Shaw over those 4 years. Who handed him those players?
C'mon. THIS is Shaw qua Shaw as head coach - with no lingering benefits or penalties from prior regime.
But to answer your question, Shaw won in 2011, 2012, and 2013 (at minimum), with players recruited by Harbaugh. Given those players (the number of NFL players is pretty astounding, really), the record is no surprise. Given the record AND Stanford's natural pull, Shaw was able to recruit very well early in his tenure. And those good classes carried him through most/all the period you highlight.
But guess what? Over time, Shaw has lost the residual benefits from prior regime. He has to recruit now on his record and his players only, and that's been the case for several years now. And the decline is very noticeable. According to a well-versed poster on TOS, the last 3 years (including the 4-2 Covid year), Stanford has been rated in 60s/70s per Sagarin. Our recruiting rankings aren't that bad, which confirms my belief that Shaw's teams underperform to talent (always have, even the years with good or very good records).
As I stated at outset of the season, we may just now be seeing what Shaw at "sea level" really is.
If you think that unfairly detracts from credit that Shaw should rightfully get, ask yourself these questions:
1. do you think McCaffrey would sign with Stanford today?
2. how do you explain the difficulties Stanford has had on recruiting trail of late, particularly in light of the reality that Stanford remains the "it" school for so, so many kids and parents?
I think the answers are (i) "no," and (ii) the football-first kids no longer want to enroll at Stanford because the football program is no longer a NY6 program (or maybe not even a regular bowl participant program). And it's harder to win without the football first DUDES.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - old spanish trail - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 04:59 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(11-09-2021, 01:55 PM)murky Wrote:(11-09-2021, 11:18 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Shaw has only proven that with superior players handed to him he can win playing his plodding style of offense. THAT is what he has proven.
Well, that and that he has an uncanny ability to make some of the worst game management decisions in Stanford history.
He has shown no ability to sustain anything, particularly with his own players; he has shown no ability to out-coach an opponent. The Oregon game mentioned above is the closest thing to that, but I believe that was necessity, as opposed to some deep/clever thinking. Indeed, in that game Stanford had no choice. It had no other kind of offense other than slamming a RB into the line play after play after play. Did I support it at the time? Yes, absolutely, because it gave Stanford its best chance to win. 3+ yards a carry for 40+ minutes. Remarkable. Do I think it was a great offensive scheme? No. Same holds for the season Bryce Love went wild on 50+ yard TD scampers. Handing the ball off to Bryce and hoping he makes a house call is not a great offensive scheme. And when Bryce went down with (a predictable injury), we saw what remained of that offensive scheme. Give me the guy running the O show at Purdue (or maybe even Wake). Do they have superior athletes. Do they rely on a generational talent to win games? The point is that there are lots of "non-gimmicky" coaches out there who can install a real offense and understand game management far better than the current guy. And oh yeah, it might . . . just might encourage fans to show up and watch (though that horse may have left the barn too long ago to retrieve).
From 2015-2018, 5 years removed from the previous head coach, Stanford averaged 10 wins per season under Shaw over those 4 years. Who handed him those players?
C'mon. THIS is Shaw qua Shaw as head coach - with no lingering benefits or penalties from prior regime.
But to answer your question, Shaw won in 2011, 2012, and 2013 (at minimum), with players recruited by Harbaugh. Given those players (the number of NFL players is pretty astounding, really), the record is no surprise. Given the record AND Stanford's natural pull, Shaw was able to recruit very well early in his tenure. And those good classes carried him through most/all the period you highlight.
But guess what? Over time, Shaw has lost the residual benefits from prior regime. He has to recruit now on his record and his players only, and that's been the case for several years now. And the decline is very noticeable. According to a well-versed poster on TOS, the last 3 years (including the 4-2 Covid year), Stanford has been rated in 60s/70s per Sagarin. Our recruiting rankings aren't that bad, which confirms my belief that Shaw's teams underperform to talent (always have, even the years with good or very good records).
As I stated at outset of the season, we may just now be seeing what Shaw at "sea level" really is.
I'm a big Shaw supporter, but there's alot of truth here.
RE: lex24 - mutoo1 - 11-09-2021
lex: "I don’t care who the HC is. But I firmly believe (and did before JH and Shaw proved it) that Stanford can consistent recruit and win by focusing on and recruiting power more than with trying to recruit for speed."
one brobdingnagian reason for harbaugh's & shaw's success was that for a significant time period, we were getting enough players with both power and speed. or perhaps enough players with speed/quickness to catch up to oregon's speed/quickness. or perhaps it is more appropriate to say that turley developed the power with a strength & conditioning program that was ahead of its competition (at least, most of the competition). whatever the equation, we don't currently seem to have enough players with either or both attributes.
for those misremembering or not fully appreciating the elway years, the offense was very talented and was very rarely boring. the walsh/west coast offense run by dowhower, green & fassel was still innovative and adaptive (qb & receiver reading defense on any given pass play & changing/adjusting routes during play) to whatever the hell the defense threw at you. darrin nelson was a unique & game-breaking talent. there are always some aberrations but it was a relatively high scoring offense (except in '79).
shaw knows more about offensive philosophy & play calling in his little finger than just about anyone else on this board, as does pritchard. i agree with those who have recognized how much shaw has adapted to the talent he has from year to year; arguably, too much because i long for a return to running power down the trojans' and others' throats while still being able to air it out a-la-kevin hogan's proficiency throwing deep his first full year as starter.
but for whatever reason, we are not getting enough players with speed and our competitors have caught up with or passed us with their strength programs. a little decastro nastiness would help, too.
and, our offensive line coaching has been lousy for, what, 4 years now?
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Stanfordindians1again - 11-09-2021
All I know is when I turn on and watch say a Virginia and BYU game...it is watchable and fun because the offenses are good. Or UNC. Or Baylor is fun. Lots of teams are enjoyable. Not because of the athletes but because of scheme and routs, misdirection etc. The Stanford offense is like watching paint dry. Boooooringggggg. Snoozefest.
I have better things to do or other games to watch regrettably. I don't think I can watch another game like the Utah game.
RE: Just 3 things . . . - Row80Critic - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 12:28 PM)Goose Wrote: The question remains how effective his fixes may be.
Does that question remain? He went 4-8 in 2019 and is 11-18 since the last time a Hizeman runner-up was on the team. Seem to me like that question's been answered.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 11-09-2021
(11-09-2021, 05:22 PM)mutoo1 Wrote: lex: "I don’t care who the HC is. But I firmly believe (and did before JH and Shaw proved it) that Stanford can consistent recruit and win by focusing on and recruiting power more than with trying to recruit for speed."
one of immense proportions reason for harbaugh's & shaw's success was that for a significant time period, we were getting enough players with both power and speed. or perhaps enough players with speed/quickness to catch up to oregon's speed/quickness. or perhaps it is more appropriate to say that turley developed the power with a strength & conditioning program that was ahead of its competition (at least, most of the competition). whatever the equation, we don't currently seem to have enough players with either or both attributes.
for those misremembering or not fully appreciating the elway years, the offense was very talented and was very rarely boring. the walsh/west coast offense run by dowhower, green & fassel was still innovative and adaptive (qb & receiver reading defense on any given pass play & changing/adjusting routes during play) to whatever the hell the defense threw at you. darrin nelson was a unique & game-breaking talent. there are always some aberrations but it was a relatively high scoring offense (except in '79).
shaw knows more about offensive philosophy & play calling in his little finger than just about anyone else on this board, as does pritchard. i agree with those who have recognized how much shaw has adapted to the talent he has from year to year; arguably, too much because i long for a return to running power down the trojans' and others' throats while still being able to air it out a-la-kevin hogan's proficiency throwing deep his first full year as starter.
but for whatever reason, we are not getting enough players with speed and our competitors have caught up with or passed us with their strength programs. a little decastro nastiness would help, too.
and, our offensive line coaching has been lousy for, what, 4 years now?
Certainly true with respect to me (can't speak for others on the Board).
But that doesn't mean Shaw is a good head football coach or coordinator (you do know what happened to him during Harbaugh tenure, right?).
And what do your eyes tell you about Stanford's offenses under this guy? StanfordIndians1 absolutely nails it. Is there a worse, more boring offense in all of college football than Stanford's right now? Stanford has to be "up/down there" on any such list. It's sad and depressing as hell.