[2006alum]

That’s Rivals Murky.  Where some posters even could have done better

The two sites definitely lean different directions. For the majority here, Shaw still walks on water. For many there, he is the Great Satan. Always good to listen to, and appreciate, differing perspectives, no matter what the subject matter.

I don't think that many here think Shaw walks on water, especially after the last few seasons. I do think they believe he deserves some plaudits for his successful years here and don't buy the notion that any coach worth his salt could have done as well, and perhaps better.

Thoughtful, reasonable.  

I find the endless negative carping about the coach who has the most wins by far in Stanford history to be revolting.  I didn't like it when he was still coach and even when I AGREED that he should go I thought the carping to be positively ungrateful, given what he gave us.  I find it even more repugnant now that he is long gone.  It is past beating the dead horse.  There are posters who are beating the bleached bones into dust and then picking up bone chips with tweezers to pulverize them a little more.  It makes me wonder if the depth of anti-Shaw sentiment has more to it than simply the obvious downturn at the end of his career.  Is something personal involved?

To paraphrase a certain famous novel, Shaw gave us the best of times, and the worst of times.  He gave us an age of wisdom, and an age of foolishness.  If I had been offered a 96-54 record the day before he took the job, with 2 Rose Bowl wins, 3 top 10 finishes and 6 top 20 finishes, followed by 5 mediocre to poor finishes, I would have taken it in a heartbeat.  What is more, I think nearly everyone here--given Stanford's prior inability to sustain a strong football program over time--would have too.

The virulent anti-Shaw attitude expressed by many on this board seems to me to be disappointment that he could not sustain what Harbaugh and he started.  But he was loyal to Stanford and stayed past the his best winning seasons because he loved Stanford and wanted to do what no one else in Stanford history has done--sustain football success in the long term.  All (ALL!) the other great modern coaches in Stanford history bailed after their initial success--because every one of them knew the challenge of sustaining that level of excellence at Stanford was incredibly difficult.  You want to criticize Shaw because he believed so strongly in Stanford that he took the risk of staying long term when no one else would?

Think of what you are saying.   Assume you are in the same room with the man.

"Thank you Coach Shaw for winning more games than any other coach in Stanford history.  Thank you for coaching us to the only 2 Rose Bowl wins in 50 years.  Thank you for the 5 bowl wins.  Thank you for understanding the importance of Stanford ethics and academics and not lowering our team to the level of our competitors.  Thank you for believing so strongly in Stanford football and our way of competing that you turned down numerous other opportunities to stay with your alma mater even when the program ran into trouble.  Now F#$@ off you loser!  You should have left years earlier.  Your lack of clairvoyance and confidence that you could continue your prior success is contemptible, and you disgust us."

No, he did not walk on water.  But I doubt the man who did could have coached our team to better success.

You had me until paragraph #6. Shame you felt you had had finish with a caricature, over-wrought tantrum. 
C'est la vie.

Well, the same could be said of the post that follows 81's, and at least his had 5 thoughtful paragraphs to precede it...

[2006alum]

That’s Rivals Murky.  Where some posters even could have done better

The two sites definitely lean different directions. For the majority here, Shaw still walks on water. For many there, he is the Great Satan. Always good to listen to, and appreciate, differing perspectives, no matter what the subject matter.

I don't think that many here think Shaw walks on water, especially after the last few seasons. I do think they believe he deserves some plaudits for his successful years here and don't buy the notion that any coach worth his salt could have done as well, and perhaps better.

Thoughtful, reasonable.  

I find the endless negative carping about the coach who has the most wins by far in Stanford history to be revolting.  I didn't like it when he was still coach and even when I AGREED that he should go I thought the carping to be positively ungrateful, given what he gave us.  I find it even more repugnant now that he is long gone.  It is past beating the dead horse.  There are posters who are beating the bleached bones into dust and then picking up bone chips with tweezers to pulverize them a little more.  It makes me wonder if the depth of anti-Shaw sentiment has more to it than simply the obvious downturn at the end of his career.  Is something personal involved?

To paraphrase a certain famous novel, Shaw gave us the best of times, and the worst of times.  He gave us an age of wisdom, and an age of foolishness.  If I had been offered a 96-54 record the day before he took the job, with 2 Rose Bowl wins, 3 top 10 finishes and 6 top 20 finishes, followed by 5 mediocre to poor finishes, I would have taken it in a heartbeat.  What is more, I think nearly everyone here--given Stanford's prior inability to sustain a strong football program over time--would have too.

The virulent anti-Shaw attitude expressed by many on this board seems to me to be disappointment that he could not sustain what Harbaugh and he started.  But he was loyal to Stanford and stayed past the his best winning seasons because he loved Stanford and wanted to do what no one else in Stanford history has done--sustain football success in the long term.  All (ALL!) the other great modern coaches in Stanford history bailed after their initial success--because every one of them knew the challenge of sustaining that level of excellence at Stanford was incredibly difficult.  You want to criticize Shaw because he believed so strongly in Stanford that he took the risk of staying long term when no one else would?

Think of what you are saying.   Assume you are in the same room with the man.

"Thank you Coach Shaw for winning more games than any other coach in Stanford history.  Thank you for coaching us to the only 2 Rose Bowl wins in 50 years.  Thank you for the 5 bowl wins.  Thank you for understanding the importance of Stanford ethics and academics and not lowering our team to the level of our competitors.  Thank you for believing so strongly in Stanford football and our way of competing that you turned down numerous other opportunities to stay with your alma mater even when the program ran into trouble.  Now F#$@ off you loser!  You should have left years earlier.  Your lack of clairvoyance and confidence that you could continue your prior success is contemptible, and you disgust us."

No, he did not walk on water.  But I doubt the man who did could have coached our team to better success.

You had me until paragraph #6. Shame you felt you had had finish with a caricature, over-wrought tantrum. 
C'est la vie.

Well, the same could be said of the post that follows 81's, and at least his had 5 thoughtful paragraphs to precede it...