[msqueri]

If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.



My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.

While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.

The record shows that in terms of winning percentage of .671 (94-46) is better than Jim Harbaugh (.580), Walt Harris (.261), Buddy Teavens (.303), Tyrone Willingham (.549), Dennis Green (.471), Jack Elway (.464), Paul Wiggin (.364), Rod Dowhower (.500), Bill Walsh (.585), Jack Christiansen (.573), John Ralston (.601), Jack Curtice (.280), Chuck Taylor (.577), Marchmont Schwartz (.500), etc.  the only coaches with a better record than Shaw were Clark Schaunessy, Pop Warner, and some pre-World War I coaches.



If that is mediocrity as a coach… so in order to justify that his record is mediocre, you have to point to the record in the last three years (but not the COVID year), and say that everything he accomplished before is attributable to his predecessor.



There is a legitimate danger that the recent trend will continue, and if it does, his winning percentage will plummet. And maybe in your mind, Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed (it was for Teevens and Harris, but they didn’t have nearly a decade of success before then).  But if you are going to make sweeping statements about Shaw, give him the courtesy of evaluating his entire record.



BC

No doubt Shaw's overall record at Stanford has been exemplary.

However, for better or worse, college football coaching is very much a "what have you done for us lately" profession, and let's face it, two out of the last three years have sucked. I guess the question is how many more years does it have to suck before we conclude things have to change.

Hopefully Shaw will get things turned around so we won't have to address that question.

Which of Stanford last 5 or 6 head coaches would you rather have instead of Shaw?  Based on when they left Stanford.



Denny Green?  Harbaugh?  



Walsh II had a pretty miserable record after coasting the first year with the deck Green handed him.   I assume you're in the camp that thinks Willingham was a lazy golfer who got lucky with the Rose Bowl season, and he didn't paint the field with glory after he left.



I'm paraphrasing, taking some license, my version of what I've gleaned from message boards from unhappy fans.

I assume you mean going forward, in which case...almost all of them?

I am very grateful for what Shaw did in his best years. I'll always give him credit for those. I'd vote for him for the Hall of Fame. But going forward, I'd take a replacement level coach over him in a heartbeat. I've done extremely detailed analyses in the past showing just how bad Shaw has been in recent years (and not a negligible number of years) and I'm happy to reproduce some of those if you'd like or if you have a particular refutation to the arguments against Shaw. But it's really stark. No coach in the country has as established a track record as Shaw of doing less with more and there are only a handful who lose as much over as many years period, regardless of talent. It adds up to a picture where I'd say among the last five Stanford coaches, with the benefit of hindsight, Harris is the only one of those five coaches I'd take a pass on compared to the current version of Shaw. I say with the benefit of hindsight because Harris was coming off a BCS bowl and failed for a complex range of reasons but on paper was a coach I'd rather have over today's Shaw too. But Harris sucked at Stanford, so no problem saying I'd rather have Shaw.

I'm sure you think this is hyperbole. I don't mean it to be. The level Shaw is coaching at these days is not one I think is difficult to reach. I know Shawpologists think this is hyperbole but computer rankings back it up: David Shaw today is no better a Stanford coach than Buddy Teevens was (objectively probably a bit worse). Willingham? Forget about it. Shaw recruits far better and far more responsibly, but what Shaw turns that talent into is no contest.

I'd rather have Tavita Pritchard as our head coach. I'd rather have Lance Anderson. I'd rather draw a random name out of a hat among the head coaches for the California Group of Five and FCS programs. Again, not hyperbole, painstakingly considered recognition of the level we've settled at for the last several years. Shaw is taking top 25 talent and producing a top 75 program. That's really, really hard to do.

[msqueri]

If you throw out the COVID year you get 25-26. If you substitute 2016 for 2020 you get 35-29.



My overall point is that "recent history" of Shaw's record is mediocre at best. Even if this season is 6-6 (which I think is a pipe dream), Shaw's record over the last three full seasons would be well below mediocre.

While I understand the sacrilege that many readers here perceive when it comes to blunt criticism of Shaw, the record reveals that he is now well into mediocrity as a coach, it's been showing for some time, and it is undeniable (except for the self-deluded). Look at the thinness of this team. Look at the mediocrities he retains on his staff. Look at the naked emperor. Check the outlook for this season. This mess gets worse by the year and has not hit bottom. We are smack in The Shawlight Zone. Anybody who sees a way out should make it known.

The record shows that in terms of winning percentage of .671 (94-46) is better than Jim Harbaugh (.580), Walt Harris (.261), Buddy Teavens (.303), Tyrone Willingham (.549), Dennis Green (.471), Jack Elway (.464), Paul Wiggin (.364), Rod Dowhower (.500), Bill Walsh (.585), Jack Christiansen (.573), John Ralston (.601), Jack Curtice (.280), Chuck Taylor (.577), Marchmont Schwartz (.500), etc.  the only coaches with a better record than Shaw were Clark Schaunessy, Pop Warner, and some pre-World War I coaches.



If that is mediocrity as a coach… so in order to justify that his record is mediocre, you have to point to the record in the last three years (but not the COVID year), and say that everything he accomplished before is attributable to his predecessor.



There is a legitimate danger that the recent trend will continue, and if it does, his winning percentage will plummet. And maybe in your mind, Shaw is owed nothing and three-plus bad years are enough to conclude that new blood is needed (it was for Teevens and Harris, but they didn’t have nearly a decade of success before then).  But if you are going to make sweeping statements about Shaw, give him the courtesy of evaluating his entire record.



BC

No doubt Shaw's overall record at Stanford has been exemplary.

However, for better or worse, college football coaching is very much a "what have you done for us lately" profession, and let's face it, two out of the last three years have sucked. I guess the question is how many more years does it have to suck before we conclude things have to change.

Hopefully Shaw will get things turned around so we won't have to address that question.

Which of Stanford last 5 or 6 head coaches would you rather have instead of Shaw?  Based on when they left Stanford.



Denny Green?  Harbaugh?  



Walsh II had a pretty miserable record after coasting the first year with the deck Green handed him.   I assume you're in the camp that thinks Willingham was a lazy golfer who got lucky with the Rose Bowl season, and he didn't paint the field with glory after he left.



I'm paraphrasing, taking some license, my version of what I've gleaned from message boards from unhappy fans.

I assume you mean going forward, in which case...almost all of them?

I am very grateful for what Shaw did in his best years. I'll always give him credit for those. I'd vote for him for the Hall of Fame. But going forward, I'd take a replacement level coach over him in a heartbeat. I've done extremely detailed analyses in the past showing just how bad Shaw has been in recent years (and not a negligible number of years) and I'm happy to reproduce some of those if you'd like or if you have a particular refutation to the arguments against Shaw. But it's really stark. No coach in the country has as established a track record as Shaw of doing less with more and there are only a handful who lose as much over as many years period, regardless of talent. It adds up to a picture where I'd say among the last five Stanford coaches, with the benefit of hindsight, Harris is the only one of those five coaches I'd take a pass on compared to the current version of Shaw. I say with the benefit of hindsight because Harris was coming off a BCS bowl and failed for a complex range of reasons but on paper was a coach I'd rather have over today's Shaw too. But Harris sucked at Stanford, so no problem saying I'd rather have Shaw.

I'm sure you think this is hyperbole. I don't mean it to be. The level Shaw is coaching at these days is not one I think is difficult to reach. I know Shawpologists think this is hyperbole but computer rankings back it up: David Shaw today is no better a Stanford coach than Buddy Teevens was (objectively probably a bit worse). Willingham? Forget about it. Shaw recruits far better and far more responsibly, but what Shaw turns that talent into is no contest.

I'd rather have Tavita Pritchard as our head coach. I'd rather have Lance Anderson. I'd rather draw a random name out of a hat among the head coaches for the California Group of Five and FCS programs. Again, not hyperbole, painstakingly considered recognition of the level we've settled at for the last several years. Shaw is taking top 25 talent and producing a top 75 program. That's really, really hard to do.