[pefloresjr]

This site has an institutional Shaw defense mechanism (and general coach defense outlook), particularly when compared to other Stanford fan sites.  Indeed, the origins of this site was as an alternative to the 'leg, which was seen as an unseemly bunch unfairly attacking Ty Willingham.  That's okay, you all like this nice cozy, happy community.  It's fun to see/read commentary on Stanford sports, even if in a Candide world. 

I swim upstream in these parts if for no other reason than "someone has to do it.'  Well, that and the hope that we all don't forget what "archaic" means.

I appreciate those who are willing to tack away from the pack when they do it for reasons other than simple trash talking.  Most of the Shawtagonists here fit into that category.  While some on this site fall into the Shawpologist category, what I love about this site is that any support or criticism is thoroughly vetted based on all available evidence.  Standard criticism of coaching or players without support is called out in a very Stanford way; with evidence and analysis, not counter trash talking.  A lot of tough talk about the right kind of attitude as criticism of coaching is not very helpful because there are a great many failed coaches and players who had the right "tough guy" attitude but never approached the success of Shaw and his staff. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

This site has an institutional Shaw defense mechanism (and general coach defense outlook), particularly when compared to other Stanford fan sites.  Indeed, the origins of this site was as an alternative to the 'leg, which was seen as an unseemly bunch unfairly attacking Ty Willingham.  That's okay, you all like this nice cozy, happy community.  It's fun to see/read commentary on Stanford sports, even if in a Candide world. 

I swim upstream in these parts if for no other reason than "someone has to do it.'  Well, that and the hope that we all don't forget what "archaic" means.

I appreciate those who are willing to tack away from the pack when they do it for reasons other than simple trash talking.  Most of the Shawtagonists here fit into that category.  While some on this site fall into the Shawpologist category, what I love about this site is that any support or criticism is thoroughly vetted based on all available evidence.  Standard criticism of coaching or players without support is called out in a very Stanford way; with evidence and analysis, not counter trash talking.  A lot of tough talk about the right kind of attitude as criticism of coaching is not very helpful because there are a great many failed coaches and players who had the right "tough guy" attitude but never approached the success of Shaw and his staff. 

Cheers,
Pete F.