(11-22-2021, 03:52 PM)winflop Wrote: Troy - thanks as always for the information and insights. A number of thoughts in no particular order:
- I don't think the result (W/L) would have been different if we'd scored on either or both of those first two possessions. Avoiding a completely embarrassing blowout is about the only difference that would have resulted
- Big props to McGill for a) stepping up to the mic, and especially b) owning his mistake that resulted in the longed passing TD in Big Game History. I wish Coach Shaw could be half as accountable as this instead of giving us generic platitudes and coach-speak. Just once I want to hear him take specific accountability for a specific incident. He had a great opportunity to say "we shouldn't have gone for it on 4th & 5, and that's on me."
- The problems on the 4th down plays were as much about the play calls themselves as the decision to go for it. I think the first one was a good decision and the second one was about as stupid as it gets. But equally important were the two stupid play calls on 3rd down that put the team in that position. Naked WR screens in the red zone are just dumb. It's easy for the safety to roll up much more quickly because there's zero deep threat, and with no blocking help the WR is a sitting duck. That Humphries got to the 2 or 3 was about as much as could possibly be expected there.
- Is tackling primarily a player (talent) issue or a coaching issue? Can bad tacklers be taught to be good tacklers? If not, why are we recruiting bad tacklers to begin with? If so, why aren't we doing a better job of teaching our players to tackle?
- You seem to still think this team has a shot at winning on Saturday. The only question is what score Brian Kelly decides he wants to hang on Stanford. Unlike you, I'm glad the kickoff is at 5pm. Many fewer eyeballs to watch us be even more humiliated in our house.
- I share you hope that we get OUR AXE back next season, but absent significant changes in the program I'm not optimistic. This team is on a multi-year downward trajectory. I hope you will agree that changes are needed in the program in your postseason assessment. Change doesn't have to be "fire the coach" which I know you won't touch. It could be a change in philosophy, scheme, structure, etc. But something's gotta give. Whatever Shaw's trying to do, it's not working at all.
Troy C is not the only one who won't "touch" the idea of firing Shaw. Nor wiil the radio announcers come anywhere close to broaching that topic. Nor will the press ask difficult questions of Shaw (assuming he doesn't walk out after two questions). And I doubt that either Muir -- who is culpable in the first place of giving Shaw an outrageously high salary and quasi-tenure -- or the President or the Provost will do any such thing. Can anyone seriously imagine Shaw being fired or having his salary docked while Stanford is trumpeting its commitment to "Diversity Equity and Inclusion"? In fact, it seems to me that to date serious criticism of Shaw by anybody employed by or affiliated with Stanford is de facto "streng verboten"!!!