[Snorlax94]

I just don’t interpret it that way, and I don’t think Shaw (or any coach that talks about execution) necessarily means it that way.  First off, Shaw almost invariably says “we did not execute”, not “they did not execute”. Secondly, pointing to execution problems is, as noted, a truism.  It avoids having to point to even more uncomfortable truths, like the guys we recruited being too slow, or getting pushed around, or being in the wrong place.  All of those were true on Saturday (and many were discussed here), but saying so would really be calling out the players.  Execution implies that the talent is there to take on a team like Oregon, if we can just perform better; in truth, due to a combination of factors, the talent level on this team is not such that we are likely to beat Oregon unless they beat themselves (it’s been known to happen under Christobal). And finally, again, it is the coach’s responsibility to get the team to execute, so implicit in his statement is an acknowledgement of failure.

Now, all of the things you said may or may not be true.  But assuming that there were better assistants to be hired, better play calls to be made, better talent to be utililized, etc., how would we know it?  You’d see better execution on the field.

BC

---

Deja vu. After a loss, Shaw says the team needs to work on execution. Some people cry foul and claim Shaw is throwing the players under the bus. Cardboarders explain that no, it doesn't mean he's throwing anyone under the bus. That's not what "working on execution" or "throwing someone under the bus" mean.

What can and should a team work on for the next week, after a tough loss? A coach's job is to get players better each week. Execution. It's a totally reasonable, if boring and universal, answer.

Then, after the next loss, the cycle will begin anew.

[Snorlax94]

I just don’t interpret it that way, and I don’t think Shaw (or any coach that talks about execution) necessarily means it that way.  First off, Shaw almost invariably says “we did not execute”, not “they did not execute”. Secondly, pointing to execution problems is, as noted, a truism.  It avoids having to point to even more uncomfortable truths, like the guys we recruited being too slow, or getting pushed around, or being in the wrong place.  All of those were true on Saturday (and many were discussed here), but saying so would really be calling out the players.  Execution implies that the talent is there to take on a team like Oregon, if we can just perform better; in truth, due to a combination of factors, the talent level on this team is not such that we are likely to beat Oregon unless they beat themselves (it’s been known to happen under Christobal). And finally, again, it is the coach’s responsibility to get the team to execute, so implicit in his statement is an acknowledgement of failure.

Now, all of the things you said may or may not be true.  But assuming that there were better assistants to be hired, better play calls to be made, better talent to be utililized, etc., how would we know it?  You’d see better execution on the field.

BC

---

Deja vu. After a loss, Shaw says the team needs to work on execution. Some people cry foul and claim Shaw is throwing the players under the bus. Cardboarders explain that no, it doesn't mean he's throwing anyone under the bus. That's not what "working on execution" or "throwing someone under the bus" mean.

What can and should a team work on for the next week, after a tough loss? A coach's job is to get players better each week. Execution. It's a totally reasonable, if boring and universal, answer.

Then, after the next loss, the cycle will begin anew.