[teejers1]

Shaw has only proven that with superior players handed to him he can win playing his plodding style of offense.  THAT is what he has proven.


Well, that and that he has an uncanny ability to make some of the worst game management decisions in Stanford history.



He has shown no ability to sustain anything, particularly with his own players; he has shown no ability to out-coach an opponent.  The Oregon game mentioned above is the closest thing to that, but I believe that was necessity, as opposed to some deep/clever thinking.  Indeed, in that game Stanford had no choice.  It had no other kind of offense other than slamming a RB into the line play after play after play.  Did I support it at the time?  Yes, absolutely, because it gave Stanford its best chance to win. 3+ yards a carry for 40+ minutes.   Remarkable.  Do I think it was a great offensive scheme?  No.  Same holds for the season Bryce Love went wild on 50+ yard TD scampers.  Handing the ball off to Bryce and hoping he makes a house call is not a great offensive scheme.  And when Bryce went down with (a predictable injury), we saw what remained of that offensive scheme.  Give me the guy running the O show at Purdue (or maybe even Wake).  Do they have superior athletes.  Do they rely on a generational talent to win games?  The point is that there are lots of "non-gimmicky" coaches out there who can install a real offense and understand game management far better than the current guy.  And oh yeah, it might . . . just might encourage fans to show up and watch (though that horse may have left the barn too long ago to retrieve).

Actually I think you have clearly demonstrated that Shaw has done the rational thing with the players he had. Do I like the offense with Love being home run or loss of one? In the abstract, maybe not, but given that you have the generational talent (and not much else) that makes as much sense as pounding the ball against Oregon did. As you point out, when Love got hurt, they didn't have much else. I also think the offense under KJ was not a good one. It relied far too much on receivers winning the physical battle for the ball. But that is what we had, so that is what we did.

It is true that there are lots of coaches out there (probably a majority actually) that can install a "non-gimmicky" offense that is pretty balanced if they have an appropriate set of players. Not great players, but "good enough". You get a Purdue team that is not bad and might win the B1G west. Probably won't though. Generally a pretty "average" team. I will be impressed when they beat tOSU and win the B1G. Shaw has at least won when he had generational talents. Was he just real lucky that happened to him? Yes. I don't think anybody can say they expected either CMac or BL to be as good as they turned out to be. It seems you agree he utilized them pretty well.

If one wants to criticize Shaw, I would support the idea expressed by others that he hasn't had a good OL for quite a few (probably 5 at least) years. No matter what offense you run, without a good OL it won't work. You have to be able to run the ball at least competently. When you can't, you don't win. In public, this hasn't be acknowledged. Not surprising, you don't want to throw anybody under the bus. However, the question is how much the Shaw et al realize this problem and how they intend to fix it. This issue requires action. It is not obvious (at least to me) that it is a problem with not getting the "right" players. It may be we have over-emphasized size vs. speed. Given that, one would expect that we could blow people off the line but would have problems with blitzes and quick DLs. Well, we do have problems with quick defenses, which is bad. We can't blow anybody off the line which is worse.

The problems with the DL are of even longer standing. In that case it has been, at a minimum, lack of bodies. It appears that recruiting has stepped up in this area, which is a good thing. Now we need to see positive results from that step before it can be expected that problem is "solved".

I don't see David Shaw standing pat and claiming "No problem here, nothing to see here". The question remains how effective his fixes may be.

I always love the “flavor of the month”.  It was Scott Frost and  Troy Walters  a few years back.  Then Wilcox….  Not so much now. 

Now I see it’s Jeff Brohm from Purdue. Been there since ‘17. Record:

17-  7-6
18- 6-7
‘19. 4-8
‘20 2-4

My math is poor. But I think that is 19-25. On the far weaker side of the Big 14.  

He’s 6-3 this year with a couple big wins. So now he is “it” I guess.  Great…..

Do you think Brohm has a more talented roster than Stanford?
Do you think they play softer/easier opponents than Stanford?

As for Wilcox . . . well, he has been disappointing.  But I'll say this:  the City of Berkeley's regulators may be the only bunch more draconian/capricious than Santa Clara County's Health Officer.  24 players - many of whom had 2 negative tests in a row - were prohibited from traveling to AZ for the game against the Wildcats.  And Cal is a bit harder to recruit to than is Stanford.  Remember how everyone here shat on Dykes at Cal?  Well, he's doing all right for himself now (and pre-Cal).  Maybe the problems are institutional in Berkeley. That I don't know.

I've never been an advocate for Frost or Walters, though I do think Frost has shown more than our guy.  At least Frost built something himself and won in grand fashion.

[teejers1]

Shaw has only proven that with superior players handed to him he can win playing his plodding style of offense.  THAT is what he has proven.


Well, that and that he has an uncanny ability to make some of the worst game management decisions in Stanford history.



He has shown no ability to sustain anything, particularly with his own players; he has shown no ability to out-coach an opponent.  The Oregon game mentioned above is the closest thing to that, but I believe that was necessity, as opposed to some deep/clever thinking.  Indeed, in that game Stanford had no choice.  It had no other kind of offense other than slamming a RB into the line play after play after play.  Did I support it at the time?  Yes, absolutely, because it gave Stanford its best chance to win. 3+ yards a carry for 40+ minutes.   Remarkable.  Do I think it was a great offensive scheme?  No.  Same holds for the season Bryce Love went wild on 50+ yard TD scampers.  Handing the ball off to Bryce and hoping he makes a house call is not a great offensive scheme.  And when Bryce went down with (a predictable injury), we saw what remained of that offensive scheme.  Give me the guy running the O show at Purdue (or maybe even Wake).  Do they have superior athletes.  Do they rely on a generational talent to win games?  The point is that there are lots of "non-gimmicky" coaches out there who can install a real offense and understand game management far better than the current guy.  And oh yeah, it might . . . just might encourage fans to show up and watch (though that horse may have left the barn too long ago to retrieve).

Actually I think you have clearly demonstrated that Shaw has done the rational thing with the players he had. Do I like the offense with Love being home run or loss of one? In the abstract, maybe not, but given that you have the generational talent (and not much else) that makes as much sense as pounding the ball against Oregon did. As you point out, when Love got hurt, they didn't have much else. I also think the offense under KJ was not a good one. It relied far too much on receivers winning the physical battle for the ball. But that is what we had, so that is what we did.

It is true that there are lots of coaches out there (probably a majority actually) that can install a "non-gimmicky" offense that is pretty balanced if they have an appropriate set of players. Not great players, but "good enough". You get a Purdue team that is not bad and might win the B1G west. Probably won't though. Generally a pretty "average" team. I will be impressed when they beat tOSU and win the B1G. Shaw has at least won when he had generational talents. Was he just real lucky that happened to him? Yes. I don't think anybody can say they expected either CMac or BL to be as good as they turned out to be. It seems you agree he utilized them pretty well.

If one wants to criticize Shaw, I would support the idea expressed by others that he hasn't had a good OL for quite a few (probably 5 at least) years. No matter what offense you run, without a good OL it won't work. You have to be able to run the ball at least competently. When you can't, you don't win. In public, this hasn't be acknowledged. Not surprising, you don't want to throw anybody under the bus. However, the question is how much the Shaw et al realize this problem and how they intend to fix it. This issue requires action. It is not obvious (at least to me) that it is a problem with not getting the "right" players. It may be we have over-emphasized size vs. speed. Given that, one would expect that we could blow people off the line but would have problems with blitzes and quick DLs. Well, we do have problems with quick defenses, which is bad. We can't blow anybody off the line which is worse.

The problems with the DL are of even longer standing. In that case it has been, at a minimum, lack of bodies. It appears that recruiting has stepped up in this area, which is a good thing. Now we need to see positive results from that step before it can be expected that problem is "solved".

I don't see David Shaw standing pat and claiming "No problem here, nothing to see here". The question remains how effective his fixes may be.

I always love the “flavor of the month”.  It was Scott Frost and  Troy Walters  a few years back.  Then Wilcox….  Not so much now. 

Now I see it’s Jeff Brohm from Purdue. Been there since ‘17. Record:

17-  7-6
18- 6-7
‘19. 4-8
‘20 2-4

My math is poor. But I think that is 19-25. On the far weaker side of the Big 14.  

He’s 6-3 this year with a couple big wins. So now he is “it” I guess.  Great…..

Do you think Brohm has a more talented roster than Stanford?
Do you think they play softer/easier opponents than Stanford?

As for Wilcox . . . well, he has been disappointing.  But I'll say this:  the City of Berkeley's regulators may be the only bunch more draconian/capricious than Santa Clara County's Health Officer.  24 players - many of whom had 2 negative tests in a row - were prohibited from traveling to AZ for the game against the Wildcats.  And Cal is a bit harder to recruit to than is Stanford.  Remember how everyone here shat on Dykes at Cal?  Well, he's doing all right for himself now (and pre-Cal).  Maybe the problems are institutional in Berkeley. That I don't know.

I've never been an advocate for Frost or Walters, though I do think Frost has shown more than our guy.  At least Frost built something himself and won in grand fashion.