[Goose]

I don't define Walsh by his face-plant at the end of Walsh II. I think of the little things like resuscitating Stanford football 77/78 and those three SB rings. Kinda like a lot of you don't define Shaw by his...uh...shortcomings.

I too don't define Walsh by his "face-plant" at the end of his second stint at Stanford. I do regard his success at the NFL level as a separate thing. It isn't part of Stanford's story. Many of us in our hearts look at is as a continuum, but in reality it wasn't. I think what it actually shows is that the head coach, no matter how good, doesn't control the narrative. He is subject to lots of forces beyond his control. He may make all the "correct" decisions and it just may not matter. That is one reason why a long run of success is difficult to accomplish. Shit happens.
It is almost always true is that a bad coach will not be successful. It is often true that a "good" coach will not always be successful.

[Goose]

I don't define Walsh by his face-plant at the end of Walsh II. I think of the little things like resuscitating Stanford football 77/78 and those three SB rings. Kinda like a lot of you don't define Shaw by his...uh...shortcomings.

I too don't define Walsh by his "face-plant" at the end of his second stint at Stanford. I do regard his success at the NFL level as a separate thing. It isn't part of Stanford's story. Many of us in our hearts look at is as a continuum, but in reality it wasn't. I think what it actually shows is that the head coach, no matter how good, doesn't control the narrative. He is subject to lots of forces beyond his control. He may make all the "correct" decisions and it just may not matter. That is one reason why a long run of success is difficult to accomplish. Shit happens.
It is almost always true is that a bad coach will not be successful. It is often true that a "good" coach will not always be successful.