[Genuine Realist]

Jesus, Genuine, I thought you had died.


I ruled out the possibility you'd taken a pseudonym because your style becomes apparent by the first verb, or within a few words after it.

LongWinded has returned--did it less than a year ago--but to another board.
He''s more humble.
I assume it's an imposter.

Steve Durrett died a couple years ago and left a gaping hole no one has filled.
I made a bundle off of his stats--some friends scored over $7000 on the overtime win over Oregon--and his stills were indispensable to analyzing Stanford's game. 

Terry is one post a month short of having become a mute.

Hulk has become impatient beyond words, an event which most posters had deemed impossible.

We still have the most astute head coaches and offensive coordinators in the world,
all of them serving here part time.
They always have a better play. 
We don't learn what was wrong with the one we tried
and don't learn what the substituted play will be. 

A guide, however:
1. If we passed we should have run.
2. f we ran we should have passed.
3. And the formation was wrong.
Formations, basically, are always wrong; be sure to remember that.

This guide should, as your posts will do for us, dramatically improve your board participation experience.

Alas, my super fandom for Stanford football, which began in 1956 with Brodie and Wiggin, did not survive (a) the great Teevens wars, (b) the remodeling of the Stadium, and © my dad's aging out of being able to go (he'll be 100 net October). As to Teevens, what I learned is that, while the one-eyed man may be king in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is in big trouble. As to the rest, once you've separated from the culture, it becomes apparent what an incredibly slow game football actually is. These days it's basketball (college) and tennis (Federer, now clearly over the hill.

That said, it amuses me that ANY long time fan could have issues with Shaw. I was there for Cactus Jack Curtice and 0-10; for Ron Ayala; for Christiansen's inexplicable man crush on Cordova; for Walsh's desertion; for those teams of Paul Wiggins that reacted to trick plays as if every member of the defense has been hit over the head with an axe handle; for the Play; for Stanford blowing a 42-14 lead in the late third quarter against WSU - and I have to stop because my eyes are flooding.

Given that history, how anyone could have serious issues with a coach who wins as often and consistently as Shaw is beyond me. But then, this is Stanford, which has developed the technique of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory into a fine art. To quote myself, when Stanford flirts with disaster, they usually get married. So it has always been.

[Genuine Realist]

Jesus, Genuine, I thought you had died.


I ruled out the possibility you'd taken a pseudonym because your style becomes apparent by the first verb, or within a few words after it.

LongWinded has returned--did it less than a year ago--but to another board.
He''s more humble.
I assume it's an imposter.

Steve Durrett died a couple years ago and left a gaping hole no one has filled.
I made a bundle off of his stats--some friends scored over $7000 on the overtime win over Oregon--and his stills were indispensable to analyzing Stanford's game. 

Terry is one post a month short of having become a mute.

Hulk has become impatient beyond words, an event which most posters had deemed impossible.

We still have the most astute head coaches and offensive coordinators in the world,
all of them serving here part time.
They always have a better play. 
We don't learn what was wrong with the one we tried
and don't learn what the substituted play will be. 

A guide, however:
1. If we passed we should have run.
2. f we ran we should have passed.
3. And the formation was wrong.
Formations, basically, are always wrong; be sure to remember that.

This guide should, as your posts will do for us, dramatically improve your board participation experience.

Alas, my super fandom for Stanford football, which began in 1956 with Brodie and Wiggin, did not survive (a) the great Teevens wars, (b) the remodeling of the Stadium, and © my dad's aging out of being able to go (he'll be 100 net October). As to Teevens, what I learned is that, while the one-eyed man may be king in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is in big trouble. As to the rest, once you've separated from the culture, it becomes apparent what an incredibly slow game football actually is. These days it's basketball (college) and tennis (Federer, now clearly over the hill.

That said, it amuses me that ANY long time fan could have issues with Shaw. I was there for Cactus Jack Curtice and 0-10; for Ron Ayala; for Christiansen's inexplicable man crush on Cordova; for Walsh's desertion; for those teams of Paul Wiggins that reacted to trick plays as if every member of the defense has been hit over the head with an axe handle; for the Play; for Stanford blowing a 42-14 lead in the late third quarter against WSU - and I have to stop because my eyes are flooding.

Given that history, how anyone could have serious issues with a coach who wins as often and consistently as Shaw is beyond me. But then, this is Stanford, which has developed the technique of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory into a fine art. To quote myself, when Stanford flirts with disaster, they usually get married. So it has always been.