[stupac2]

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.

This is so wrong it's hard to even know where to begin. Earlier this year (let alone in 2014) there was plenty of Shaw criticism, even from people (like apparently myself) who you seem to think are brobdingnagian Shaw apologists who can't take any kind of criticism. There are tons of things that pretty much every sane fan agrees Shaw has bungled (like not taking a QB in 2012 leaving us with a gaping hole last year), plenty more that find widespread agreement (timeout issues, weird redshirting decision, doing too much internal promotion, although he's been shown willing to go outside in the past few years). It boggles my mind that you think this board is one giant pile of Shawpologists.

The problem is that your criticism of him is, like this complaint, obviously wrong and you're completely unwilling to consider that fact. You spout nonsense about the offense that's contradicted by basic facts, never bother to engage with those facts, and keep going on spouting the same easily disproven nonsense no matter how many times BC or CTCard slap it down. At some point it just becomes tiring.

[stupac2]

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.

This is so wrong it's hard to even know where to begin. Earlier this year (let alone in 2014) there was plenty of Shaw criticism, even from people (like apparently myself) who you seem to think are brobdingnagian Shaw apologists who can't take any kind of criticism. There are tons of things that pretty much every sane fan agrees Shaw has bungled (like not taking a QB in 2012 leaving us with a gaping hole last year), plenty more that find widespread agreement (timeout issues, weird redshirting decision, doing too much internal promotion, although he's been shown willing to go outside in the past few years). It boggles my mind that you think this board is one giant pile of Shawpologists.

The problem is that your criticism of him is, like this complaint, obviously wrong and you're completely unwilling to consider that fact. You spout nonsense about the offense that's contradicted by basic facts, never bother to engage with those facts, and keep going on spouting the same easily disproven nonsense no matter how many times BC or CTCard slap it down. At some point it just becomes tiring.