[CardinalSagehen]

I don't think David Shaw is stressing about winning like Petersen is. I don't know if that's good or bad. Depends on your perspective. Whatever the case, it seems reasonable to assume Stanford doesn't create stress for a coach like Washington and other places do.

I happened to work with the wife of a young defensive assistant at Stanford until last year.  Her reports of the intensity of coaching under Shaw surprised me, because like you, I had assumed Shaw was running a kinder, gentler, “maintenance-mode” environment (despite my respect for him).  She told me about the heat and pressure that was being applied at mid-season after a couple losses. I even bounced off her the idea that Shaw seemed to be a calmer, lower-pressure leader, and she furrowed her brow and shook her head.  Of course, she was young enough not to have been around other coaching staffs, so she and her husband might have perceived “level 5” coaching intensity as “level 10”, but it still struck me how hard they were working and how intensely Shaw cared about winning. She also spoke of 100-hour work weeks and the fact that she barely ever saw her husband during the season (and even for much of the off-season). After those occasional conversations by the coffee machine, I gained a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had inferred from his calm and sometimes low-energy demeanor.

Interesting insights. OK so Shaw's obsessed with winning. I want a football head coach who is. My big questions are beyond that:
1. when he's not winning, is he sufficiently introspective to figure out why, including critically evaluating himself and his staff? His press conferences do not indicate that he is, but I'm not convinced he puts his cards on the table there
2. When he figures out why and what the path forward is, is he willing to execute on it?

Fair questions. Unfortunately, I have only my own opinions and no particular insight on the answers. 

My contact had imperfect data more often than I assumed an insider would, and she was careful not to share anything truly confidential. She seemed to think that "change was in the air" on the defensive side during our last bowl/off-season, which turned out to be true for her husband (who was relatively junior and moved on after several years with the program), but not for the man at the very top of the defense. Of course, it could very well be that he was open to a move, but not able to land a good opportunity. There was no sense (or at least nothing shared) that there was any rift or discontent among DS and his coordinators, but of course that would be consistent with your theory that DS prefers and chooses "yes" men.  

I consider my own data and knowledge to be insufficient to evaluate the details of how DS operates. I'd be unhappy with his performance if he has another really bad season or a couple mediocre ones over the next couple years. Otherwise, I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. But that's just me.

[CardinalSagehen]

I don't think David Shaw is stressing about winning like Petersen is. I don't know if that's good or bad. Depends on your perspective. Whatever the case, it seems reasonable to assume Stanford doesn't create stress for a coach like Washington and other places do.

I happened to work with the wife of a young defensive assistant at Stanford until last year.  Her reports of the intensity of coaching under Shaw surprised me, because like you, I had assumed Shaw was running a kinder, gentler, “maintenance-mode” environment (despite my respect for him).  She told me about the heat and pressure that was being applied at mid-season after a couple losses. I even bounced off her the idea that Shaw seemed to be a calmer, lower-pressure leader, and she furrowed her brow and shook her head.  Of course, she was young enough not to have been around other coaching staffs, so she and her husband might have perceived “level 5” coaching intensity as “level 10”, but it still struck me how hard they were working and how intensely Shaw cared about winning. She also spoke of 100-hour work weeks and the fact that she barely ever saw her husband during the season (and even for much of the off-season). After those occasional conversations by the coffee machine, I gained a different perspective of Shaw than the one I had inferred from his calm and sometimes low-energy demeanor.

Interesting insights. OK so Shaw's obsessed with winning. I want a football head coach who is. My big questions are beyond that:
1. when he's not winning, is he sufficiently introspective to figure out why, including critically evaluating himself and his staff? His press conferences do not indicate that he is, but I'm not convinced he puts his cards on the table there
2. When he figures out why and what the path forward is, is he willing to execute on it?

Fair questions. Unfortunately, I have only my own opinions and no particular insight on the answers. 

My contact had imperfect data more often than I assumed an insider would, and she was careful not to share anything truly confidential. She seemed to think that "change was in the air" on the defensive side during our last bowl/off-season, which turned out to be true for her husband (who was relatively junior and moved on after several years with the program), but not for the man at the very top of the defense. Of course, it could very well be that he was open to a move, but not able to land a good opportunity. There was no sense (or at least nothing shared) that there was any rift or discontent among DS and his coordinators, but of course that would be consistent with your theory that DS prefers and chooses "yes" men.  

I consider my own data and knowledge to be insufficient to evaluate the details of how DS operates. I'd be unhappy with his performance if he has another really bad season or a couple mediocre ones over the next couple years. Otherwise, I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. But that's just me.