Oregon St. Game Thread - 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: Oregon St. Game Thread (/thread-21156.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: Oregon St. Game Thread (/thread-21156.html)
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - CowboyIndian - 12-14-2020
(12-14-2020, 07:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote: ... on fourth down OSU will definitely call a timeout to preserve clock for their final drive. If you do it on second down - Colorado may be burning a TO without any guarantee of getting the ball back.
Now I'm confused. Of course, it's difficult to get the ball all the way from Corvallis to Boulder during a timeout.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - teejers1 - 12-15-2020
(12-14-2020, 11:42 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(12-14-2020, 07:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote: ... on fourth down OSU will definitely call a timeout to preserve clock for their final drive. If you do it on second down - Colorado may be burning a TO without any guarantee of getting the ball back.
Now I'm confused. Of course, it's difficult to get the ball all the way from Corvallis to Boulder during a timeout.
Like clockwork.
I'll go back and correct the error for those, like you, who may be "confused" by the typo . . .
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - martyup - 12-15-2020
There are so many brilliant coaches that never make the wrong decision . . . on internet bulletin boards.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - teejers1 - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 10:39 AM)martyup Wrote: There are so many brilliant coaches that never make the wrong decision . . . on internet bulletin boards.
Ah yes, the Internet Coach retort.
So I'll ask you the same question I asked CI - when watching a Stanford football game, do you just sit there and watch events unfold and react after the fact? Or, while watching, are you thinking Stanford should do X? Or Stanford shouldn't do Y? I am in the latter camp and just assumed that most fans are the same. But perhaps not.
Regardless, I recognize that in most situations there are no right or smart calls, especially early when feel for the game has not been established in any way. And whether a play "works" or not is not determinative as to whether it was the smart/correct call because (a) sometimes there is no right/wrong, and (b) sometimes there are execution errors. But there are times when very basic things are apparent . . . at least to me. And it's only those in the latter category that I comment on, and only on situations where I have a conviction real time as to what Stanford should or should not do. Shaw has come up short on the basics a number of times. You disagree. Fine. But I really wonder if you watch the game with any kind of critical eye, or just say "Hey, Shaw's record overall is ______; that's great by Stanford standards; all is therefore well."
Plus, this is a fan board . . . where a certain degree of fanatic commentary is expected.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - martyup - 12-15-2020
I have no problem with fanaticism. I just would never presume to know more about football decisionmaking than any D1 coach, let alone the most successful one in Stanford history.
Having played the sport, I know that on the chalk board every offensive play leads to a TD. However, rarely do the 11 players on the field execute the play as scripted. One missed block and a TD run becomes a TFL. Same goes on defense.
That being said, you have every right to be a hindsight head coach, just as I have every right to identify your assumed title.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Phogge - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 02:13 PM)martyup Wrote: I have no problem with fanaticism. I just would never presume to know more about football decisionmaking than any D1 coach, let alone the most successful one in Stanford history.
Having played the sport, I know that on the chalk board every offensive play leads to a TD. However, rarely do the 11 players on the field execute the play as scripted. One missed block and a TD run becomes a TFL. Same goes on defense.
That being said, you have every right to be a hindsight head coach, just as I have every right to identify your assumed title.
Actually based on percentage Pop Warner at .781 outperforms Shaw at .717. Plus he recruited the guys who help make Tiny Thornhill's first three years the only time Stanford appeared in three consecutive Rose Bowls.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Papa John - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 02:56 PM)Phogge Wrote: Actually based on percentage Pop Warner at .781 outperforms Shaw at .717. Plus he recruited the guys who help make Tiny Thornhill's first three years the only time Stanford appeared in three consecutive Rose Bowls.
That's a great point, Phogge. Per Wikipedia, the top five coaches by winning percentage are:
Pop Bliss, .944
James Lanagan, .862
Carl Clemans, .857
Clark Shaughnessy, .842
George Brooke, .800
I've heard of one of those guys.
But if we restrict it to a four-year minimum, we get:
Pop Warner, .781, Stanford record the year before he started was 7-2
David Shaw, .759 (so far), Stanford record the year before he started was 12-1
John Ralston, .601, Stanford record the year before he started was 5-5
Bill Walsh, .585, Stanford records the year before he started were 6-5 (Walsh I) and 8-4
Jim Harbaugh, .580, Stanford record the year before he started was 1-11.
That's a great list, and I would rank them Warner, Harbaugh, Shaw, Ralston, Walsh.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - teejers1 - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 02:13 PM)martyup Wrote: I have no problem with fanaticism. I just would never presume to know more about football decisionmaking than any D1 coach, let alone the most successful one in Stanford history.
Having played the sport, I know that on the chalk board every offensive play leads to a TD. However, rarely do the 11 players on the field execute the play as scripted. One missed block and a TD run becomes a TFL. Same goes on defense.
That being said, you have every right to be a hindsight head coach, just as I have every right to identify your assumed title.
1. The bolded part is a non-sequitur, but I'm happy to agree with it.
2. The remainder, well, I have a right to say that your description of "hindsight head coach" is total BS. At least have the decency to not misstate the "assumed title," when you should know better.
BTW, I also note that you declined to answer the question. So I take it you watch the game passively, and just assume Coach Shaw is making the best calls possible. Bully for you. To each his own. But I suggest you try thinking while you're watching and test your assumption that Shaw is making sound decisions throughout the game.
I find it surprising that you actually believe that, but whatever . . .
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - qwerty49 - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 03:42 PM)Papa John Wrote: But if we restrict it to a four-year minimum, we get:
Pop Warner, .781, Stanford record the year before he started was 7-2
David Shaw, .759 (so far), Stanford record the year before he started was 12-1
John Ralston, .601, Stanford record the year before he started was 5-5
Bill Walsh, .585, Stanford records the year before he started were 6-5 (Walsh I) and 8-4
Jim Harbaugh, .580, Stanford record the year before he started was 1-11.
That's a great list, and I would rank them Warner, Harbaugh, Shaw, Ralston, Walsh.
I can't comment on Warner but I think context, (which you noted) is way more important than the W-L stats when "ranking" these coaches.
Ralston inherited a mediocre program and brought a pro pocket passing attack and eventually had the right guys, Plunkett and Bunce, to run it. He also had great talent all around, particularly on D with the T-Chickens. And his asst coaches (Walsh, Vermeil, etc) really succeeded later in their careers.
Walsh, rightfully dubbed The Genius, brought an innovative offense and got way more out of his (relatively limited) athletes as a result.
Harbaugh had easy acts to follow in Buddy and Wlat, and brought attitude that simply wasn't there before, and which was needed to run a merciless ground game with the TWU.
Shaw inherited a 12-1 team, so in some ways there was nowhere to go but down, statistically. I'm sure he brought an important recruiting advantage to reach the families of A-A recruits, but I'm having trouble seeing what else he brought to the table.
Bottom line is that I can't see ranking Shaw higher than the other 3, but the criteria are not crystal clear anyway.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - BostonCard - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 05:10 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(12-15-2020, 03:42 PM)Papa John Wrote: But if we restrict it to a four-year minimum, we get:
Pop Warner, .781, Stanford record the year before he started was 7-2
David Shaw, .759 (so far), Stanford record the year before he started was 12-1
John Ralston, .601, Stanford record the year before he started was 5-5
Bill Walsh, .585, Stanford records the year before he started were 6-5 (Walsh I) and 8-4
Jim Harbaugh, .580, Stanford record the year before he started was 1-11.
That's a great list, and I would rank them Warner, Harbaugh, Shaw, Ralston, Walsh.
I can't comment on Warner but I think context, (which you noted) is way more important than the W-L stats when "ranking" these coaches.
Ralston inherited a mediocre program and brought a pro pocket passing attack and had the right guys, Plunkett and Bunce, to run it. He also had great talent all around, particularly on D with the T-Chickens. And his asst coaches (Walsh, Vermeil, etc) really succeeded later in their careers.
Walsh, rightfully dubbed The Genius, brought an innovative offense and got way more out of his (relatively limited) athletes as a result.
Harbaugh had easy acts to follow in Buddy and Wlat, and brought attitude that simply wasn't there before, and which was needed to run a merciless ground game with the TWU.
Shaw inherited a 12-1 team, so in some ways there was nowhere to go but down, statistically. I'm sure he brought an important recruiting advantage to reach the families of A-A recruits, but I'm having trouble seeing what else he brought to the table.
Bottom line is that I can't see ranking Shaw higher than the other 3, but the criteria are not crystal clear anyway.
Three conference championships, 3 Rose Bowls (2 wins), 4 BCS bowls, 4 Pac-12 North championships, 8 Bowl games, and 8 consecutive winning seasons is pretty impressive for a guy who "didn't bring much else to the table", even allowing for him inheriting a 12-1 season. What he brought to the table was sustained consistence and excellence (something I don't think we've ever had) without flirting with the NFL or another college football program every few years (something else we've never had).
BC
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Goose - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 05:10 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Ralston inherited a mediocre program and brought a pro pocket passing attack and eventually had the right guys, Plunkett and Bunce, to run it. He also had great talent all around, particularly on D with the T-Chickens.Some of this is not quite accurate. Bunce was not at all a pro pocket passer. He and Plunkett were very different. Bunce was a rugby player who could throw the ball. It makes Ralston look better, because he could win with both guys. We were all expecting disaster when Plunkett graduated. As far as Ralston having "great talent all around", no, he didn't. He had a few very great players and many other guys who played better than they were. Randy Vataha wasn't a "prototypical" wide receiver and would never be a 5 star HS athlete. John Sande was actually too small to play center and had to work like hell to make weight. Jack Schultz was a running back converted to a safety because there was nobody else (sound familiar?). The only defensive player drafted from the 1971 team was Dave Tipton. Ralston had to win with what he had, which was far from perfect.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Mick - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 03:42 PM)Papa John Wrote:(12-15-2020, 02:56 PM)Phogge Wrote: Actually based on percentage Pop Warner at .781 outperforms Shaw at .717. Plus he recruited the guys who help make Tiny Thornhill's first three years the only time Stanford appeared in three consecutive Rose Bowls.
That's a great point, Phogge. Per Wikipedia, the top five coaches by winning percentage are:
Pop Bliss, .944
So "Pop" Bliss is our best coach, with an 8-0-1 record in 1893, sandwiched between Walter Camp's 1892 1-0-2 season (Camp had two other wins which Stanford does not count) and Camp's 1894 6-3 season.
Bliss was interesting. A Yale grad, he only coached for three years at three different schools. From 8-0-1 at Stanford to 0-5 at Haverford in 1894 (Haverford is now DIII, and gave up football after the 1971 season), to a 7-1 record at Missouri in 1895. Missouri went 4-3 and 7-5 in the years just before and just after Coach Bliss, so he knew something about football.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - qwerty49 - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 06:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(12-15-2020, 05:10 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Ralston inherited a mediocre program and brought a pro pocket passing attack and eventually had the right guys, Plunkett and Bunce, to run it. He also had great talent all around, particularly on D with the T-Chickens.Some of this is not quite accurate. Bunce was not at all a pro pocket passer. He and Plunkett were very different. Bunce was a rugby player who could throw the ball. It makes Ralston look better, because he could win with both guys. We were all expecting disaster when Plunkett graduated. As far as Ralston having "great talent all around", no, he didn't. He had a few very great players and many other guys who played better than they were. Randy Vataha wasn't a "prototypical" wide receiver and would never be a 5 star HS athlete. John Sande was actually too small to play center and had to work like hell to make weight. Jack Schultz was a running back converted to a safety because there was nobody else (sound familiar?). The only defensive player drafted from the 1971 team was Dave Tipton. Ralston had to win with what he had, which was far from perfect.
You're right on Bunce. And yeah, I met John Sande in CTG a few years ago and he looked to be about 180. All the more impressive that he put Jim Stillwagon on his keester for a whole game.
Maybe I've got my years confused but regardless of being drafted, I think more than a few guys from Ralston's two Rose Bowl teams played in the NFL. The year after Tipton left we had Laz, Butler, Sampson. Jeff Siemon of course and even Mike Simone played for Denver IIRC. Benny Barnes for Dallas. Bob Moore. Including Plunkett that's 8 that I can think of off the top of my head. Not to mention Jim Kauffman who for his size may have been the best athlete on the team and who personally caught OJ from behind at least twice the year Juice completed that desperation 4th down pass to Dan Scott.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - CowboyIndian - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 12:41 AM)teejers1 Wrote: I'll go back and correct the error for those, like you, who may be "confused" by the typo . . .
TSU is a typo. OST is a typo. OTU is a typo. Colorado isn't a typo.
(12-15-2020, 08:04 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Not to mention Jim Kauffman who for his size may have been the best athlete on the team and who personally caught OJ from behind at least twice the year Juice completed that desperation 4th down pass to Dan Scott.
RIP, Jimmy!
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - teejers1 - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 08:05 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(12-15-2020, 12:41 AM)teejers1 Wrote: I'll go back and correct the error for those, like you, who may be "confused" by the typo . . .
TSU is a typo. OST is a typo. OTU is a typo. Colorado isn't a typo.
Whatever you want to call it, I was happy to correct it so you wouldn't be confused.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Phogge - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 06:04 PM)Goose Wrote:(12-15-2020, 05:10 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Ralston inherited a mediocre program and brought a pro pocket passing attack and eventually had the right guys, Plunkett and Bunce, to run it. He also had great talent all around, particularly on D with the T-Chickens.Some of this is not quite accurate. Bunce was not at all a pro pocket passer. He and Plunkett were very different. Bunce was a rugby player who could throw the ball. It makes Ralston look better, because he could win with both guys. We were all expecting disaster when Plunkett graduated. As far as Ralston having "great talent all around", no, he didn't. He had a few very great players and many other guys who played better than they were. Randy Vataha wasn't a "prototypical" wide receiver and would never be a 5 star HS athlete. John Sande was actually too small to play center and had to work like hell to make weight. Jack Schultz was a running back converted to a safety because there was nobody else (sound familiar?). The only defensive player drafted from the 1971 team was Dave Tipton. Ralston had to win with what he had, which was far from perfect.
Au contraire sir. DT Greg Sampson drafted 6th overall and shifted to OT. Jeff Siemon drafted 10th overall to play MLB for the Vikings right off the bat. Barnes played seven or eight years starting in the Cowboy secondary.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Goose - 12-15-2020
(12-15-2020, 09:27 PM)Phogge Wrote:Year issue. I should have said 1971 Rose Bowl Team. That was Tipton's year. The 1972 Rose Bowl Team had Sampson, Siemon, Lazetich and Butler drafted off the defense. Barnes was not drafted, but had a great career. Interestingly enough, he could back pedal much much faster than I could run forward. That was truly humbling.(12-15-2020, 06:04 PM)Goose Wrote: Some of this is not quite accurate. Bunce was not at all a pro pocket passer. He and Plunkett were very different. Bunce was a rugby player who could throw the ball. It makes Ralston look better, because he could win with both guys. We were all expecting disaster when Plunkett graduated. As far as Ralston having "great talent all around", no, he didn't. He had a few very great players and many other guys who played better than they were. Randy Vataha wasn't a "prototypical" wide receiver and would never be a 5 star HS athlete. John Sande was actually too small to play center and had to work like hell to make weight. Jack Schultz was a running back converted to a safety because there was nobody else (sound familiar?). The only defensive player drafted from the 1971 team was Dave Tipton. Ralston had to win with what he had, which was far from perfect.
Au contraire sir. DT Greg Sampson drafted 6th overall and shifted to OT. Jeff Siemon drafted 10th overall to play MLB for the Vikings right off the bat. Barnes played seven or eight years starting in the Cowboy secondary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Stanford_Indians_football_team
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Stanford_Indians_football_team
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Papa John - 12-16-2020
(12-15-2020, 05:10 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(12-15-2020, 03:42 PM)Papa John Wrote: But if we restrict it to a four-year minimum, we get:
Pop Warner, .781, Stanford record the year before he started was 7-2
David Shaw, .759 (so far), Stanford record the year before he started was 12-1
John Ralston, .601, Stanford record the year before he started was 5-5
Bill Walsh, .585, Stanford records the year before he started were 6-5 (Walsh I) and 8-4
Jim Harbaugh, .580, Stanford record the year before he started was 1-11.
That's a great list, and I would rank them Warner, Harbaugh, Shaw, Ralston, Walsh.
I can't comment on Warner but I think context, (which you noted) is way more important than the W-L stats when "ranking" these coaches.
<snip>
Bottom line is that I can't see ranking Shaw higher than the other 3, but the criteria are not crystal clear anyway.
Good point, qwerty49. I didn't have time to complete my rationalize in my earlier post. I was also considering peak performance during the coach's tenure and how the team did for the couple of years after each coach left.
Warner's 1926 team was undefeated and tied Alabama in the Rose Bowl. Stanford was recognized as mythical national champion by something called the Dickinson system and co-champion (with Bama) by Helms Athletic Foundation, National Championship Foundation, and Jeff Sagarin. The 1927 team won the Rose Bowl versus Pitt. As someone else mentioned, Tiny Thornhill followed Warner and took Stanford to the Rose Bowl his first three years before the metaphorical wheels fell off the wagon--his last four years, Thornhill's teams went a collective 10-21-5!
Harbaugh, as noted elsewhere, took over Stanford after one of the worst years in its football history. His team peaked in 2010 with a resounding victory over Va Tech, a 12-1 record and #4 in the final AP poll. After Harbaugh handed the reins to Shaw, Stanford continued its winning ways with trips to the Fiesta and Rose x2 Bowls.
Shaw's best season was 2015. The team finished as conference champions, 12-2 overall, destroyed Iowa in the Rose Bowl and finished #3 in the final AP poll. This is the highest final AP ranking (I think AP started ranking teams in the 1930s) for Stanford with the exception of Shaughnessy's 10-0 Rose Bowl winning team in 1940--that team finished #2 in the AP poll. We'll see if Shaw ends his career more like Warner or more like Thornhill.
Ralston's best season was 1970, which featured Stanford's only H e i s m a n winner, a 9-3 record, Rose Bowl win over heavily-favored tOSU and a final AP ranking of #8. After winning a second Rose Bowl in 1971, Ralston was followed by Jack Christiansen, whose three-year record was 18-12-3 but never finished with a ranked team.
Walsh's best season was 1992, with a 10-3 record, a resounding win over Penn State in the Blockbuster Bowl and #9 final AP ranking. During Walsh I, Stanford won the Sun and Bluebonnet Bowls and finished ranked #15 and #17 in 1977-78. Walsh I was followed by Ron Dowhower (one season) and Paul Wiggin who collectively finished below .500. Walsh II was followed Ty Willingham, who took Stanford to the Liberty and Sun Bowl in his first two seasons.
So in terms of best seasons among the select five, we have:
Warner
Shaw
Harbaugh
Ralston
Walsh II
In terms of how the team fared after they left, we have:
Warner
Harbaugh
Shaw
Ralston
Walsh II
Overall, the ten best seasons for Stanford football in terms of winning percentage are:
1940, 10-0, Shaugnessy
1926, 10-0-1, Warner
2010, 12-1, Harbaugh
1935, 8-1, Thornhill
1934, 9-1-1, Thornhill
1930, 9-1-1, Warner
2015, 12-2, Shaw
2012, 12-2, Shaw
2011, 11-2, Shaw
1924, 7-1-1, Warner
Stanford has been ranked by the AP in its final poll 20 times, but note that there were no AP rankings during the Warner era. The top final AP ranking are:
1940 #2, Shaughnessy
2015 #3, Shaw
2010 #4, Harbaugh
1951 #7, Taylor
2011 #7, Shaw
2012 #7, Shaw
1970 #8, Ralston
1992 #9, Walsh
1971 #10, Ralston
2013 #11, Shaw
So these were my criteria for my rankings of the five winningest coaches at Stanford, given the four-year minimum. I don't think anyone is quibbling with Pop Warner at #1. I put Harbaugh at #2 because of what he inherited and what he built. #3 Shaw gets some credit as a member of Harbaugh's staff and the main recruiter of Andrew Luck, but Harbaugh gets some credit for the first few years of Shaw's success. I consider 2015 to be Shaw's creation. Harbaugh had been gone for at least two years before most of those players signed with Stanford. On the other hand, Harbaugh's teams improved every year. We all know about the disastrous 2019 season under Shaw. #4 Ralston's career started slowly but improved and maintained a high level from 1968 on. Walsh II started very promisingly but ended with two losing seasons.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Hulk01 - 12-16-2020
Ralston's two Rose Bowl teams were very different.
The Plunkett team was Plunkett-focused, deep-ball driven, much like a Sid Gilliam offense. Plunk was a very effective runner if the throw wasn't there.
The Bunce team didn't have much on offense, other than the sublime John Winesberry, but had , Lazetich and the Thunder Chickens, Jeff Siemon, and very good defensive backs. Maybe the best Stanford defense ever, ~12 points allowed per game.
RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Papa John - 12-16-2020
Curious for your opinion, Hulk. How would you rank Harbaugh, Ralston, Shaw, Walsh and Warner?