[JustAnotherFan]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

[JustAnotherFan]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

[Phogge]

Has there been any calling out Coach as a person? Don’t remember anything like that. Otherwise there are some around here who have played and have insight. At least one other works in the football industry.

Criticism happens. Opinions differ. Even Roger Deakins with all his Oscar nominations has made a mistake or two.

Coaches need thick skin. So should fans. Shaw is not apologizing and if the critics keep away from personal attack they shouldn’t either.

[Phogge]

Has there been any calling out Coach as a person? Don’t remember anything like that. Otherwise there are some around here who have played and have insight. At least one other works in the football industry.

Criticism happens. Opinions differ. Even Roger Deakins with all his Oscar nominations has made a mistake or two.

Coaches need thick skin. So should fans. Shaw is not apologizing and if the critics keep away from personal attack they shouldn’t either.

[fullmetal]

I want David Shaw here for the next few decades as long as he's capable of doing the job.  

But lately, I think I've been seeing more and more room for improvement.  He must avoid the Mack Brown slide into the cellar (the signs are there unfortunately), and he needs to take some lessons in talent management from the GSB...

We need him to be a better coach, asap.  There are too many troubling signs.

[fullmetal]

I want David Shaw here for the next few decades as long as he's capable of doing the job.  

But lately, I think I've been seeing more and more room for improvement.  He must avoid the Mack Brown slide into the cellar (the signs are there unfortunately), and he needs to take some lessons in talent management from the GSB...

We need him to be a better coach, asap.  There are too many troubling signs.

[BostonCard]

Mac Brown’s slide into the cellar consisted of exactly one losing season in 16 years as head coach at Texas.  In his last five years as head coach, he went two four bowl games, including one national title game, two Alamo bowl games, and one holiday bowl game, and a 43-22 record.  In the five seasons since then, Texas has had two coaches and three losing seasons; until this 10-4 season, the best they could boast was a 7-6 season and a win in the Texas bowl.

So yeah, if Shaw or any Stanford coach can match Mac Brown’s .767 winning percentage over 16 years, one national title, two title game appearances, six conference championships, and 15 bowl games, I will happily tolerate being in the “cellar” for a few years at the end of his career,as you describe the end of Mac Brown’s tenure in Texas. Especially when as recently as two coaches ago, Stanford found itself in the cellar as it is commonly understood: last in the PAC-10 with a 1-11 record.

BC

[BostonCard]

Mac Brown’s slide into the cellar consisted of exactly one losing season in 16 years as head coach at Texas.  In his last five years as head coach, he went two four bowl games, including one national title game, two Alamo bowl games, and one holiday bowl game, and a 43-22 record.  In the five seasons since then, Texas has had two coaches and three losing seasons; until this 10-4 season, the best they could boast was a 7-6 season and a win in the Texas bowl.

So yeah, if Shaw or any Stanford coach can match Mac Brown’s .767 winning percentage over 16 years, one national title, two title game appearances, six conference championships, and 15 bowl games, I will happily tolerate being in the “cellar” for a few years at the end of his career,as you describe the end of Mac Brown’s tenure in Texas. Especially when as recently as two coaches ago, Stanford found itself in the cellar as it is commonly understood: last in the PAC-10 with a 1-11 record.

BC

[cardcrimson]

And let's not get started on rivalry games because Shaw has never, ever lost to Cal. 



</rant>

Don't think Tyronne's teams lost to Cal, either. Does that make him a great coach that we would want back?

As for Shaw, I'm glad he's our coach. That said, even among the best, there is always room for improvement. Over the last few years, is it not fair to question:

Unused scholarships?
Clock management?
Play calling?  (though, finally near the end of this year, there seemed to be improved creativity)
Looking outside the box with assistants?

Just wondering. . . .

[cardcrimson]

And let's not get started on rivalry games because Shaw has never, ever lost to Cal. 



</rant>

Don't think Tyronne's teams lost to Cal, either. Does that make him a great coach that we would want back?

As for Shaw, I'm glad he's our coach. That said, even among the best, there is always room for improvement. Over the last few years, is it not fair to question:

Unused scholarships?
Clock management?
Play calling?  (though, finally near the end of this year, there seemed to be improved creativity)
Looking outside the box with assistants?

Just wondering. . . .

[stupac2]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

...Wut? When has this been an issue? Unless you include "burning TOs early to avoid delay of game" in which case that's fair, I suppose, but not really a time management issue.





I think I've made this comparison before, but whenever this topic comes up I'm always reminded of discussions about local politics (and especially BART). There's a lot of griping about problems, but often very little grappling about what causes those problems, if they're fixable, or how the knee-jerk "fire the bums" would actually help. In order to really evaluate performance you need to be able to run counterfactuals, which is impossible here. Sure, there are some isolated cases (such as the above DoG issues, or some cases of incorrect decision-making on 4th down) where you can say "this is objectively the wrong decision", but every coach does that sometimes (this weekend wunderkind Sean McVay kicked a field goal on 4th and inches when it was very obviously the wrong decision!). But in general taking a look at the whole program and evaluating whether we're exceeding, meeting, or failing to meet expectations is difficult-to-impossible for the average uninformed fan unless things are very far off to one side (Walt was terrible, the early part of Shaw's tenure phenomenal).

So what are we to do? Personally I prefer to stick to things where there are very sound arguments for doing it one way (ie always recruit a QB, always fill the scholarships, don't punt on 4th and short from opponent's territory, etc). For one thing those are the spaces where criticism might actually effect change. For another, we can actually have informed discussion about whether the correct decision was made, especially now with the various win probability models, etc. But things like staffing decisions? How many people in here think they can honestly judge whether an OL coach is doing a good job? Could identify a good gameplan for attacking next week's opponent? Is it even one? Sure, there will be cases where long periods of subpar results justify action (KC firing Bob Sutton was pretty justifiable), but are we actually seeing subpar results?

Perhaps I'm excessively cautious. After all, this talk is mostly harmless, it's not like the AD cares about the whiners on message boards. But I do wish people would take a second to think "do I actually know what I'm talking about here?" before posting vitriol. (I also wish I could win the lottery, which actually has a chance of happening.)

I think that's part of why I appreciate this place so much, for the most part opinions are considered. For the most part people do admit that they don't admit everything. It's refreshing.

[stupac2]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

...Wut? When has this been an issue? Unless you include "burning TOs early to avoid delay of game" in which case that's fair, I suppose, but not really a time management issue.





I think I've made this comparison before, but whenever this topic comes up I'm always reminded of discussions about local politics (and especially BART). There's a lot of griping about problems, but often very little grappling about what causes those problems, if they're fixable, or how the knee-jerk "fire the bums" would actually help. In order to really evaluate performance you need to be able to run counterfactuals, which is impossible here. Sure, there are some isolated cases (such as the above DoG issues, or some cases of incorrect decision-making on 4th down) where you can say "this is objectively the wrong decision", but every coach does that sometimes (this weekend wunderkind Sean McVay kicked a field goal on 4th and inches when it was very obviously the wrong decision!). But in general taking a look at the whole program and evaluating whether we're exceeding, meeting, or failing to meet expectations is difficult-to-impossible for the average uninformed fan unless things are very far off to one side (Walt was terrible, the early part of Shaw's tenure phenomenal).

So what are we to do? Personally I prefer to stick to things where there are very sound arguments for doing it one way (ie always recruit a QB, always fill the scholarships, don't punt on 4th and short from opponent's territory, etc). For one thing those are the spaces where criticism might actually effect change. For another, we can actually have informed discussion about whether the correct decision was made, especially now with the various win probability models, etc. But things like staffing decisions? How many people in here think they can honestly judge whether an OL coach is doing a good job? Could identify a good gameplan for attacking next week's opponent? Is it even one? Sure, there will be cases where long periods of subpar results justify action (KC firing Bob Sutton was pretty justifiable), but are we actually seeing subpar results?

Perhaps I'm excessively cautious. After all, this talk is mostly harmless, it's not like the AD cares about the whiners on message boards. But I do wish people would take a second to think "do I actually know what I'm talking about here?" before posting vitriol. (I also wish I could win the lottery, which actually has a chance of happening.)

I think that's part of why I appreciate this place so much, for the most part opinions are considered. For the most part people do admit that they don't admit everything. It's refreshing.

[Hank 91]

First of all, thank you so much, Yvonne. I agree with all of it.

As for Harbaugh, I've always felt like he was the perfect coach at that time. Only a force of nature like Harbaugh could've turned things around. But like some here, 2009 Big Game still stings, and it's precisely why I prefer a conservative approach. No one was stopping Toby at that point. If he had scored that touchdown -- which would've been his FIFTH -- the momentum gained would've carried over the top for the Voldemort. Five touchdowns, including the game-winner, in a rivalry game would've been the perfect final line on his résumé. Just awful.

Finally, a note about play calling. Anyone watch the NFC championship game on Sunday? I know everyone's still fixated on the blown PI call that supposedly cost New Orleans the game, but I've got another take. If Shaw had been on the sidelines, that would never have happened. He'd have run the ball, burned the clock, kicked the field goal at the gun, and moved on to the Super Bowl. Sure it's fun to throw the ball all over the field, but winning is fun also.

[Hank 91]

First of all, thank you so much, Yvonne. I agree with all of it.

As for Harbaugh, I've always felt like he was the perfect coach at that time. Only a force of nature like Harbaugh could've turned things around. But like some here, 2009 Big Game still stings, and it's precisely why I prefer a conservative approach. No one was stopping Toby at that point. If he had scored that touchdown -- which would've been his FIFTH -- the momentum gained would've carried over the top for the Voldemort. Five touchdowns, including the game-winner, in a rivalry game would've been the perfect final line on his résumé. Just awful.

Finally, a note about play calling. Anyone watch the NFC championship game on Sunday? I know everyone's still fixated on the blown PI call that supposedly cost New Orleans the game, but I've got another take. If Shaw had been on the sidelines, that would never have happened. He'd have run the ball, burned the clock, kicked the field goal at the gun, and moved on to the Super Bowl. Sure it's fun to throw the ball all over the field, but winning is fun also.

[stupac2]

Finally, a note about play calling. Anyone watch the NFC championship game on Sunday? I know everyone's still fixated on the blown PI call that supposedly cost New Orleans the game, but I've got another take. If Shaw had been on the sidelines, that would never have happened. He'd have run the ball, burned the clock, kicked the field goal at the gun, and moved on to the Super Bowl. Sure it's fun to throw the ball all over the field, but winning is fun also.

I've seen this mentioned a lot, actually. It's worth noting that the initial playcall on 1st and 10 should've been fairly conservative, it was a slant to a wide-open All Pro receiver who caught something absurd like 85% of his targets this year, thrown by the most accurate QB of all time. It's a pretty winning proposition. The problem is that Brees threw the ball into the dirt (something is wrong with him and has been for a few months, I wonder if we'll ever find out what).

[stupac2]

Finally, a note about play calling. Anyone watch the NFC championship game on Sunday? I know everyone's still fixated on the blown PI call that supposedly cost New Orleans the game, but I've got another take. If Shaw had been on the sidelines, that would never have happened. He'd have run the ball, burned the clock, kicked the field goal at the gun, and moved on to the Super Bowl. Sure it's fun to throw the ball all over the field, but winning is fun also.

I've seen this mentioned a lot, actually. It's worth noting that the initial playcall on 1st and 10 should've been fairly conservative, it was a slant to a wide-open All Pro receiver who caught something absurd like 85% of his targets this year, thrown by the most accurate QB of all time. It's a pretty winning proposition. The problem is that Brees threw the ball into the dirt (something is wrong with him and has been for a few months, I wonder if we'll ever find out what).

[BostonCard]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

...Wut? When has this been an issue? Unless you include "burning TOs early to avoid delay of game" in which case that's fair, I suppose, but not really a time management issue.





I think I've made this comparison before, but whenever this topic comes up I'm always reminded of discussions about local politics (and especially BART). There's a lot of griping about problems, but often very little grappling about what causes those problems, if they're fixable, or how the knee-jerk "fire the bums" would actually help. In order to really evaluate performance you need to be able to run counterfactuals, which is impossible here. Sure, there are some isolated cases (such as the above DoG issues, or some cases of incorrect decision-making on 4th down) where you can say "this is objectively the wrong decision", but every coach does that sometimes (this weekend wunderkind Sean McVay kicked a field goal on 4th and inches when it was very obviously the wrong decision!). But in general taking a look at the whole program and evaluating whether we're exceeding, meeting, or failing to meet expectations is difficult-to-impossible for the average uninformed fan unless things are very far off to one side (Walt was terrible, the early part of Shaw's tenure phenomenal).

So what are we to do? Personally I prefer to stick to things where there are very sound arguments for doing it one way (ie always recruit a QB, always fill the scholarships, don't punt on 4th and short from opponent's territory, etc). For one thing those are the spaces where criticism might actually effect change. For another, we can actually have informed discussion about whether the correct decision was made, especially now with the various win probability models, etc. But things like staffing decisions? How many people in here think they can honestly judge whether an OL coach is doing a good job? Could identify a good gameplan for attacking next week's opponent? Is it even one? Sure, there will be cases where long periods of subpar results justify action (KC firing Bob Sutton was pretty justifiable), but are we actually seeing subpar results?

Perhaps I'm excessively cautious. After all, this talk is mostly harmless, it's not like the AD cares about the whiners on message boards. But I do wish people would take a second to think "do I actually know what I'm talking about here?" before posting vitriol. (I also wish I could win the lottery, which actually has a chance of happening.)

I think that's part of why I appreciate this place so much, for the most part opinions are considered. For the most part people do admit that they don't admit everything. It's refreshing.

While it's an over the top complaint (in the list of ten things where there is room for improvement for Shaw, this would rank at or near the bottom), but I think you can fairly point to a couple of circumstances when clock management has been left wanting outside of burned times-out or delays-of-game (which, by the way, if anyone was looking, improved substantially once Costello got some experience).

But you can reasonably complain about substituting during the two minute drill, which burned clock off against UW, and forced a desperation pass from the UW 34 with time running out.  Considering the drive started with 2:05 remaining on the clock, and we only ran 8 plays (plus one spike), I think it is reasonable to conclude that clock management could have been better.  Specifically, there was at least one time when the team substituted with the clock running, resulting in UW being able to substitute and force us to tick precious seconds off the clock.  Looking at the play-by-play, there is a 31 second gap between our second and ten completion to Weddington and our third and one Bryce Love run for first down, a 26 second gap between our first and ten pass from Costello to Love for eight yards and our second down pass to Wilson, and then a 31 second gap between that play and the ensuing first down pass to Weddington (all the worse because the first down paused the game clock while the chains moved).

I think Shaw could have managed that situation better.  But I think the comment decrying the situation was a bit over-the-top.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

...Wut? When has this been an issue? Unless you include "burning TOs early to avoid delay of game" in which case that's fair, I suppose, but not really a time management issue.





I think I've made this comparison before, but whenever this topic comes up I'm always reminded of discussions about local politics (and especially BART). There's a lot of griping about problems, but often very little grappling about what causes those problems, if they're fixable, or how the knee-jerk "fire the bums" would actually help. In order to really evaluate performance you need to be able to run counterfactuals, which is impossible here. Sure, there are some isolated cases (such as the above DoG issues, or some cases of incorrect decision-making on 4th down) where you can say "this is objectively the wrong decision", but every coach does that sometimes (this weekend wunderkind Sean McVay kicked a field goal on 4th and inches when it was very obviously the wrong decision!). But in general taking a look at the whole program and evaluating whether we're exceeding, meeting, or failing to meet expectations is difficult-to-impossible for the average uninformed fan unless things are very far off to one side (Walt was terrible, the early part of Shaw's tenure phenomenal).

So what are we to do? Personally I prefer to stick to things where there are very sound arguments for doing it one way (ie always recruit a QB, always fill the scholarships, don't punt on 4th and short from opponent's territory, etc). For one thing those are the spaces where criticism might actually effect change. For another, we can actually have informed discussion about whether the correct decision was made, especially now with the various win probability models, etc. But things like staffing decisions? How many people in here think they can honestly judge whether an OL coach is doing a good job? Could identify a good gameplan for attacking next week's opponent? Is it even one? Sure, there will be cases where long periods of subpar results justify action (KC firing Bob Sutton was pretty justifiable), but are we actually seeing subpar results?

Perhaps I'm excessively cautious. After all, this talk is mostly harmless, it's not like the AD cares about the whiners on message boards. But I do wish people would take a second to think "do I actually know what I'm talking about here?" before posting vitriol. (I also wish I could win the lottery, which actually has a chance of happening.)

I think that's part of why I appreciate this place so much, for the most part opinions are considered. For the most part people do admit that they don't admit everything. It's refreshing.

While it's an over the top complaint (in the list of ten things where there is room for improvement for Shaw, this would rank at or near the bottom), but I think you can fairly point to a couple of circumstances when clock management has been left wanting outside of burned times-out or delays-of-game (which, by the way, if anyone was looking, improved substantially once Costello got some experience).

But you can reasonably complain about substituting during the two minute drill, which burned clock off against UW, and forced a desperation pass from the UW 34 with time running out.  Considering the drive started with 2:05 remaining on the clock, and we only ran 8 plays (plus one spike), I think it is reasonable to conclude that clock management could have been better.  Specifically, there was at least one time when the team substituted with the clock running, resulting in UW being able to substitute and force us to tick precious seconds off the clock.  Looking at the play-by-play, there is a 31 second gap between our second and ten completion to Weddington and our third and one Bryce Love run for first down, a 26 second gap between our first and ten pass from Costello to Love for eight yards and our second down pass to Wilson, and then a 31 second gap between that play and the ensuing first down pass to Weddington (all the worse because the first down paused the game clock while the chains moved).

I think Shaw could have managed that situation better.  But I think the comment decrying the situation was a bit over-the-top.

BC

[cardcrimson]

Finally, a note about play calling. Anyone watch the NFC championship game on Sunday? I know everyone's still fixated on the blown PI call that supposedly cost New Orleans the game, but I've got another take. If Shaw had been on the sidelines, that would never have happened. He'd have run the ball, burned the clock, kicked the field goal at the gun, and moved on to the Super Bowl. Sure it's fun to throw the ball all over the field, but winning is fun also.

If Shaw had indeed been on the sidelines, you're correct, it would never had happened. A half dozen plays earlier, the clock would have expired as we changed personnel again and again, while the refs stood over the ball waiting for the defense to adjust. Happened on multiple occasions during our season.

As for Harbaugh, he lost me at "I wanted to put fifty on them" when explaining his two point conversion attempt during a beat down of SC and Petey. While probably deserving, not quite Stanford level sportsmanship.

And while you mentioned the H e i s man, Toby could have score ten touchdowns and he wouldn't have won the award that year. The SEC SEC chants were too loud. On the flip side however, even Shaw admitted, that if he had been more aggressive with his passing attack, Luck would have won the award at least once.

[cardcrimson]

Finally, a note about play calling. Anyone watch the NFC championship game on Sunday? I know everyone's still fixated on the blown PI call that supposedly cost New Orleans the game, but I've got another take. If Shaw had been on the sidelines, that would never have happened. He'd have run the ball, burned the clock, kicked the field goal at the gun, and moved on to the Super Bowl. Sure it's fun to throw the ball all over the field, but winning is fun also.

If Shaw had indeed been on the sidelines, you're correct, it would never had happened. A half dozen plays earlier, the clock would have expired as we changed personnel again and again, while the refs stood over the ball waiting for the defense to adjust. Happened on multiple occasions during our season.

As for Harbaugh, he lost me at "I wanted to put fifty on them" when explaining his two point conversion attempt during a beat down of SC and Petey. While probably deserving, not quite Stanford level sportsmanship.

And while you mentioned the H e i s man, Toby could have score ten touchdowns and he wouldn't have won the award that year. The SEC SEC chants were too loud. On the flip side however, even Shaw admitted, that if he had been more aggressive with his passing attack, Luck would have won the award at least once.

[Phogge]

Toby just missed because of Barry Tompkins and two other dimwits. And Ingram is still busting tackles.

[Phogge]

Toby just missed because of Barry Tompkins and two other dimwits. And Ingram is still busting tackles.

[Mick]

As for Harbaugh, he lost me at "I wanted to put fifty on them" when explaining his two point conversion attempt during a beat down of SC and Petey. While probably deserving, not quite Stanford level sportsmanship. 

Nine times out of ten, I would agree -- or shall we say, ten teams out of eleven Pac-12 opponents, I would agree, even for C.al.  But after all the years of humiliation at USC's hands, and I mean eight separate games in which USC had won by 30+ over Stanford, after six losses in seven years prior to the 55-21 win (five of the six losses having come by double digits) I think a single win by 34 points is warranted over the coach who administered those multiple losses, particularly on the road in a football recruiting hotbed.  And we're 8-4 against USC since that win, with three of the four losses by just three points.  Prior to that win, Stanford was 26-57-3 against the T.rojans.

Frankly, I thought it took some stones for Carroll to say "What's your deal?" In the seven prior games, USC hung 49, 44, 31, 51, 42, 23 (in the Greatest Game Ever) and 45 points on Stanford. And that 55-21 win was the first of four straight over USC, the only time in history that's happened.

[Mick]

As for Harbaugh, he lost me at "I wanted to put fifty on them" when explaining his two point conversion attempt during a beat down of SC and Petey. While probably deserving, not quite Stanford level sportsmanship. 

Nine times out of ten, I would agree -- or shall we say, ten teams out of eleven Pac-12 opponents, I would agree, even for C.al.  But after all the years of humiliation at USC's hands, and I mean eight separate games in which USC had won by 30+ over Stanford, after six losses in seven years prior to the 55-21 win (five of the six losses having come by double digits) I think a single win by 34 points is warranted over the coach who administered those multiple losses, particularly on the road in a football recruiting hotbed.  And we're 8-4 against USC since that win, with three of the four losses by just three points.  Prior to that win, Stanford was 26-57-3 against the T.rojans.

Frankly, I thought it took some stones for Carroll to say "What's your deal?" In the seven prior games, USC hung 49, 44, 31, 51, 42, 23 (in the Greatest Game Ever) and 45 points on Stanford. And that 55-21 win was the first of four straight over USC, the only time in history that's happened.

[CornFed]

Yeah, I didn't shed any tears for SC, but Mick, it's one thing to run up the score against us, but it's really a little more "in your face" when you run up the score and then go for two after your last score.  

I think this was a part of Harbaugh's attitude adjustment on the team.  From the moment he took the job, Harbaugh called out SC, which was pretty laughable given the prior competitive imbalance.  And then the team pulled off the Greatest Upset in History immediately  the next season.  We were no longer just polite, feisty nerds.  We actually manifested Intellectual Brutality.

[CornFed]

Yeah, I didn't shed any tears for SC, but Mick, it's one thing to run up the score against us, but it's really a little more "in your face" when you run up the score and then go for two after your last score.  

I think this was a part of Harbaugh's attitude adjustment on the team.  From the moment he took the job, Harbaugh called out SC, which was pretty laughable given the prior competitive imbalance.  And then the team pulled off the Greatest Upset in History immediately  the next season.  We were no longer just polite, feisty nerds.  We actually manifested Intellectual Brutality.

[CTcard]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

...Wut? When has this been an issue? Unless you include "burning TOs early to avoid delay of game" in which case that's fair, I suppose, but not really a time management issue.

It depends exactly what one is complaining about. 

When Stanford has been behind and needs to score at the end of games, Shaw has made some decisions that I consider mistakes.  The worst, in my opinion, is that we have lost a lot of time when, with the clock running, we have substituted personnel and the ref then holds the ball while the defense gets to match the personnel substitutions. The UW game this year was a prime example. 
I think there have been similar, but less critical, cases at the end of halves. 

There's also been a few times that I think he has used his TOs at the wrong moments, but that is more of a one-off sort of thing. 


While Shaw's clock management with a lead has been endlessly discussed on the fan boards it's not at all clear to me Shaw is wrong - or at least that he isn't more right than wrong.

[CTcard]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

...Wut? When has this been an issue? Unless you include "burning TOs early to avoid delay of game" in which case that's fair, I suppose, but not really a time management issue.

It depends exactly what one is complaining about. 

When Stanford has been behind and needs to score at the end of games, Shaw has made some decisions that I consider mistakes.  The worst, in my opinion, is that we have lost a lot of time when, with the clock running, we have substituted personnel and the ref then holds the ball while the defense gets to match the personnel substitutions. The UW game this year was a prime example. 
I think there have been similar, but less critical, cases at the end of halves. 

There's also been a few times that I think he has used his TOs at the wrong moments, but that is more of a one-off sort of thing. 


While Shaw's clock management with a lead has been endlessly discussed on the fan boards it's not at all clear to me Shaw is wrong - or at least that he isn't more right than wrong.

[Goose]

I am sure Shaw had reasons to change personnel packages in the games where it cost us a lot of ticks on the clock. I am not so sure he fully weighted how much time we would lose doing it. He may have thought that since we substituted quickly, the opponent would do also and it wouldn't matter much. If so, that was unwise. I expect that if he had to do it over again, he wouldn't. It also may be that we are too specialized in what our team can do. If only certain guys can run a given play, that is a real handicap. Having a big playbook is of no use if you tip off all your plays by who is out there. This is pretty obvious, and I am sure not just Shaw, but all the coaches know this. I think we can be confident that Shaw isn't going to do this again unless he really, really has to.

[Goose]

I am sure Shaw had reasons to change personnel packages in the games where it cost us a lot of ticks on the clock. I am not so sure he fully weighted how much time we would lose doing it. He may have thought that since we substituted quickly, the opponent would do also and it wouldn't matter much. If so, that was unwise. I expect that if he had to do it over again, he wouldn't. It also may be that we are too specialized in what our team can do. If only certain guys can run a given play, that is a real handicap. Having a big playbook is of no use if you tip off all your plays by who is out there. This is pretty obvious, and I am sure not just Shaw, but all the coaches know this. I think we can be confident that Shaw isn't going to do this again unless he really, really has to.

[winflop]

The idiot at the Track House, as it's still colloquially called, said, "But Harbaugh smashed West Virginia in his bowl game and Shaw only won his by one point."

To Trackhouse Guy - Harbaugh lost his bowl game this year. Florida thumped Michigan 41-15. Harbaugh's bowl record at Michigan is now 1-3. He is also 0-4 vs. Ohio State, 2-2 vs. Michigan State and 0-1 vs. Notre Dame. He has won no championships at Michigan.

Imagine what would be said about Shaw if he had that kind of record.

I'm critical of Shaw, but because I think he can be BETTER not because I think he should go. He's as stubborn as they come and I think that's his shortcoming. But there's no way in Hell I'm going to say Harbaugh was better. Harbaugh was the coach the program needed at that time, just as Shaw was as his successor. The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

[winflop]

The idiot at the Track House, as it's still colloquially called, said, "But Harbaugh smashed West Virginia in his bowl game and Shaw only won his by one point."

To Trackhouse Guy - Harbaugh lost his bowl game this year. Florida thumped Michigan 41-15. Harbaugh's bowl record at Michigan is now 1-3. He is also 0-4 vs. Ohio State, 2-2 vs. Michigan State and 0-1 vs. Notre Dame. He has won no championships at Michigan.

Imagine what would be said about Shaw if he had that kind of record.

I'm critical of Shaw, but because I think he can be BETTER not because I think he should go. He's as stubborn as they come and I think that's his shortcoming. But there's no way in Hell I'm going to say Harbaugh was better. Harbaugh was the coach the program needed at that time, just as Shaw was as his successor. The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

[SamuelMcF]

Imagine what would be said about Shaw if he had that kind of record.

I'm critical of Shaw, but because I think he can be BETTER not because I think he should go. He's as stubborn as they come and I think that's his shortcoming. But there's no way in Hell I'm going to say Harbaugh was better. Harbaugh was the coach the program needed at that time, just as Shaw was as his successor. The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

Here, I'll rephrase your question: "Can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of having mostly Harbaugh's guys and the NCAA all-purpose yard record holder?"

I don't blame you for being skeptical...

[SamuelMcF]

Imagine what would be said about Shaw if he had that kind of record.

I'm critical of Shaw, but because I think he can be BETTER not because I think he should go. He's as stubborn as they come and I think that's his shortcoming. But there's no way in Hell I'm going to say Harbaugh was better. Harbaugh was the coach the program needed at that time, just as Shaw was as his successor. The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

Here, I'll rephrase your question: "Can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of having mostly Harbaugh's guys and the NCAA all-purpose yard record holder?"

I don't blame you for being skeptical...

[CTcard]

…  Having a big playbook is of no use if you tip off all your plays by who is out there. 

That isn't exactly true. 

Almost by definition if you have personnel packages for different plays then to some extent you are tipping off what play you are going to run by your personnel. The idea is that what you lose by partial telegraphing is offset by a) the defense not being able to match up to the personnel, and/or b) the increased precision of that personnel in running the given plays. 

No matter what you do, you are trading off between advantages and disadvantages. The key is finding the best choice of trade offs for your team and the game situation.

[CTcard]

…  Having a big playbook is of no use if you tip off all your plays by who is out there. 

That isn't exactly true. 

Almost by definition if you have personnel packages for different plays then to some extent you are tipping off what play you are going to run by your personnel. The idea is that what you lose by partial telegraphing is offset by a) the defense not being able to match up to the personnel, and/or b) the increased precision of that personnel in running the given plays. 

No matter what you do, you are trading off between advantages and disadvantages. The key is finding the best choice of trade offs for your team and the game situation.

[stupac2]

Imagine what would be said about Shaw if he had that kind of record.

I'm critical of Shaw, but because I think he can be BETTER not because I think he should go. He's as stubborn as they come and I think that's his shortcoming. But there's no way in Hell I'm going to say Harbaugh was better. Harbaugh was the coach the program needed at that time, just as Shaw was as his successor. The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

Here, I'll rephrase your question: "Can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of having mostly Harbaugh's guys and the NCAA all-purpose yard record holder?"

I don't blame you for being skeptical...

So, wait, Shaw doesn't get credit for pre-2013 because it was mostly Harbaugh's guys, but also doesn't get credit for finding and using McCaffrey? In what world does that make sense?

[stupac2]

Imagine what would be said about Shaw if he had that kind of record.

I'm critical of Shaw, but because I think he can be BETTER not because I think he should go. He's as stubborn as they come and I think that's his shortcoming. But there's no way in Hell I'm going to say Harbaugh was better. Harbaugh was the coach the program needed at that time, just as Shaw was as his successor. The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

Here, I'll rephrase your question: "Can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of having mostly Harbaugh's guys and the NCAA all-purpose yard record holder?"

I don't blame you for being skeptical...

So, wait, Shaw doesn't get credit for pre-2013 because it was mostly Harbaugh's guys, but also doesn't get credit for finding and using McCaffrey? In what world does that make sense?

[murky]

It often feels that critics fail to acknowledge that, by definition,  a head coach can't focus on everything.  He also isn't going to be great at everything.

I don't think Harbaugh could get the results he does without the crazy.  It seems that the same single-minded fanaticism that drives him to succeed, also makes him a bit of a sociopath.  When he's our guy, I don't see the value in picking at his warts.  It's not going to make him better.  He is who he is.  

We can wish for somebody else, but when you exchange the bad, you also exchange the good.

[murky]

It often feels that critics fail to acknowledge that, by definition,  a head coach can't focus on everything.  He also isn't going to be great at everything.

I don't think Harbaugh could get the results he does without the crazy.  It seems that the same single-minded fanaticism that drives him to succeed, also makes him a bit of a sociopath.  When he's our guy, I don't see the value in picking at his warts.  It's not going to make him better.  He is who he is.  

We can wish for somebody else, but when you exchange the bad, you also exchange the good.