[lex24]

Understood. Anyone that has coached will tell you they remember the tough losses more than anything else.

But in terms of analyzing Stanfords run under Shaw, those things that people criticize- conservative offense, stubbornness etc, are also factors in their success.

One of my favorite examples is “turtling”. Fans hate it. It’s somewhat boring. And it can be frustrating. But tell me a game since ‘11 that Stanford has gone into the fourth with an 8 point or more lead and lost.  You can’t. Because there are none. So then answer this:  has “ turtling” worked?  Fact is they have only lost a couple games the last 7 years where they went into the fourth leading by 7 or less; or trailed going in only to take a lead then lose.  As one that has watched Stanford for 50 plus years, that is something I appreciate.

The other thing is fans tend to take tough losses and define them by a play or two. With Stanford that usually means a couple play calls. An example- Utah ‘13. The “give it to Gaffney for gawdsakes” game.  Yes, bad play calls no question. Of course we don’t know what would have happened had Gaffney got the call. But we know what the percentages suggest.  People forget, however, other aspects that caused that loss. A 70 yard TD pass that was a fluke. A 90 yard plus Utah drive against what was a great Stanford defense.  It reminds me of a quote from Dwight Howard after a tough b-ball loss. He bitched about Jeremy Lin not closing out on a guy that hit a three to win the game. Howard was something like 2-11 from the FT line. Did that make a difference?

Last - Shaw has acheived enough where he deserves some slack when things go poorly. I’m as guilty as the next guy at times at screaming over a couple bad outcomes. But after SDS or 8 min into UCLA I wasn’t ready to throw in the towel or suggest coaching changes etc.

There will be a time when they don’t win. Heck they could finish 7-5 this year. The schedule is not easy.

As of now, David Shaw is the most successful coach in Stanford history. Over the last 50 no one comes close.  Yet to me the credit he gets is often grudgingly given. The first couple years it was Luck or simply an extension of what Harbaugh built. Now often when they win it’s because of the players, when they lose its on him. 

Why?  Personally I think that a lot of people don’t like the style. Offense, particularly the passing game, is in the blood of longtime Stanford fans. Watching what is essentially a 1970’s Big 10 style offense is a shock to the system. Even after all these years. But that physical emphasis has been the biggest element in their success. It’s what Harbaugh started.  Shaw has built on it.

The style doesn’t give you those of brobdingnagian blow outs that fast break spread teams get when they get on a roll against inferior teams. It just wins.

Rant over.

It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

[lex24]

Understood. Anyone that has coached will tell you they remember the tough losses more than anything else.

But in terms of analyzing Stanfords run under Shaw, those things that people criticize- conservative offense, stubbornness etc, are also factors in their success.

One of my favorite examples is “turtling”. Fans hate it. It’s somewhat boring. And it can be frustrating. But tell me a game since ‘11 that Stanford has gone into the fourth with an 8 point or more lead and lost.  You can’t. Because there are none. So then answer this:  has “ turtling” worked?  Fact is they have only lost a couple games the last 7 years where they went into the fourth leading by 7 or less; or trailed going in only to take a lead then lose.  As one that has watched Stanford for 50 plus years, that is something I appreciate.

The other thing is fans tend to take tough losses and define them by a play or two. With Stanford that usually means a couple play calls. An example- Utah ‘13. The “give it to Gaffney for gawdsakes” game.  Yes, bad play calls no question. Of course we don’t know what would have happened had Gaffney got the call. But we know what the percentages suggest.  People forget, however, other aspects that caused that loss. A 70 yard TD pass that was a fluke. A 90 yard plus Utah drive against what was a great Stanford defense.  It reminds me of a quote from Dwight Howard after a tough b-ball loss. He bitched about Jeremy Lin not closing out on a guy that hit a three to win the game. Howard was something like 2-11 from the FT line. Did that make a difference?

Last - Shaw has acheived enough where he deserves some slack when things go poorly. I’m as guilty as the next guy at times at screaming over a couple bad outcomes. But after SDS or 8 min into UCLA I wasn’t ready to throw in the towel or suggest coaching changes etc.

There will be a time when they don’t win. Heck they could finish 7-5 this year. The schedule is not easy.

As of now, David Shaw is the most successful coach in Stanford history. Over the last 50 no one comes close.  Yet to me the credit he gets is often grudgingly given. The first couple years it was Luck or simply an extension of what Harbaugh built. Now often when they win it’s because of the players, when they lose its on him. 

Why?  Personally I think that a lot of people don’t like the style. Offense, particularly the passing game, is in the blood of longtime Stanford fans. Watching what is essentially a 1970’s Big 10 style offense is a shock to the system. Even after all these years. But that physical emphasis has been the biggest element in their success. It’s what Harbaugh started.  Shaw has built on it.

The style doesn’t give you those of brobdingnagian blow outs that fast break spread teams get when they get on a roll against inferior teams. It just wins.

Rant over.

It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.