[Mick]

Man, this quote. I don't know how many times I and others on this board beat this drum, but it was quite a few.

“He doesn’t fire anyone, and everyone also thinks that they can’t get fired, so what you get is an environment (that is) the exact opposite of insanely competitive,” a former starting player said. “Then over time that becomes the norm, and you fall out of being the best.”

The #1 thing I took from Bill Walsh's teachings was the importance of having a standard of performance and holding people accountable to it. That means if they fail at what they are responsible for doing, they are replaced. If coaches aren't accountable, the players certainly won't be either.

Asked whether he or the university decided to terminate Turley’s employment, Shaw said, “Everyone from my position and above was involved.”

Just so amazing that the only guy Shaw fired was Turley, arguably the most important guy in the program. Granted, there were extenuating circumstances, but how hard did Shaw fight for Turley, really. So he doesn't make the tough decisions when in charge and doesn't fight very hard for his guys when the university pressures him. I would have said "he goes, I go."  Shaw clearly didn't do that.

Unless you know what the “extenuating circumstances” were, it is impossible to evaluate the personnel decision. Extenuating circumstances range from non-negotiable “he is gone “ to negotiable “let’s look at our options”.  Since we will never know, I have to give Shaw the benefit of the doubt that he made the right call. 

What I think we can agree upon is the Turley termination had a very significant impact on the program.

In addition to Turley's departure was the departure of the head athletic trainer who iirc joined a company specializing in making athletic braces and support devices.  The trainer was highly respected for getting players rehabed in a short amount of time.

I'm sorry, I can't give Shaw the benefit of the doubt on that call, particularly since his other calls were so egregiously bad and because Turley was ridiculously successful.  This is particularly true at a place like Stanford, where students and teachers routinely exceed performance limits. And doubly particularly true when successful Stanford players comment on how easy it's become since the Turley days -- and the head athletic trainer days.

So...fine, you get rid of Turley. Who did you get to replace him? Someone on whose watch Stanford had a record numberof injuries. And as for offense at (arguably) Quarterback U., why did you think Tavita Pritchard would be a success?

If he has an "A" game, Bernard Muir better bring it with respect to the forthcoming football hires. I'd hate to see the Stanford football program follow the fortunes of the football program at that little jesuit school down south.

[Mick]

Man, this quote. I don't know how many times I and others on this board beat this drum, but it was quite a few.

“He doesn’t fire anyone, and everyone also thinks that they can’t get fired, so what you get is an environment (that is) the exact opposite of insanely competitive,” a former starting player said. “Then over time that becomes the norm, and you fall out of being the best.”

The #1 thing I took from Bill Walsh's teachings was the importance of having a standard of performance and holding people accountable to it. That means if they fail at what they are responsible for doing, they are replaced. If coaches aren't accountable, the players certainly won't be either.

Asked whether he or the university decided to terminate Turley’s employment, Shaw said, “Everyone from my position and above was involved.”

Just so amazing that the only guy Shaw fired was Turley, arguably the most important guy in the program. Granted, there were extenuating circumstances, but how hard did Shaw fight for Turley, really. So he doesn't make the tough decisions when in charge and doesn't fight very hard for his guys when the university pressures him. I would have said "he goes, I go."  Shaw clearly didn't do that.

Unless you know what the “extenuating circumstances” were, it is impossible to evaluate the personnel decision. Extenuating circumstances range from non-negotiable “he is gone “ to negotiable “let’s look at our options”.  Since we will never know, I have to give Shaw the benefit of the doubt that he made the right call. 

What I think we can agree upon is the Turley termination had a very significant impact on the program.

In addition to Turley's departure was the departure of the head athletic trainer who iirc joined a company specializing in making athletic braces and support devices.  The trainer was highly respected for getting players rehabed in a short amount of time.

I'm sorry, I can't give Shaw the benefit of the doubt on that call, particularly since his other calls were so egregiously bad and because Turley was ridiculously successful.  This is particularly true at a place like Stanford, where students and teachers routinely exceed performance limits. And doubly particularly true when successful Stanford players comment on how easy it's become since the Turley days -- and the head athletic trainer days.

So...fine, you get rid of Turley. Who did you get to replace him? Someone on whose watch Stanford had a record numberof injuries. And as for offense at (arguably) Quarterback U., why did you think Tavita Pritchard would be a success?

If he has an "A" game, Bernard Muir better bring it with respect to the forthcoming football hires. I'd hate to see the Stanford football program follow the fortunes of the football program at that little jesuit school down south.