[CTcard]

All that is Crimson isn't evil.

Wel, yeah you'd think that - I can read your handle.

But I'll stick with needless, gratuitous shots at Bama when available.

[CTcard]

All that is Crimson isn't evil.

Wel, yeah you'd think that - I can read your handle.

But I'll stick with needless, gratuitous shots at Bama when available.

[JohnR34231]

I do think Shaw tends to take the long-view versus short term reaction, which I think is what the original post was getting at.    As I have posted before, I also think he is a chess player who sets up things used late in the season over many games.

Yeah, I recall Shaw saying once that we lose a game or two and everyone acts like we have just gone 0-12.

[JohnR34231]

I do think Shaw tends to take the long-view versus short term reaction, which I think is what the original post was getting at.    As I have posted before, I also think he is a chess player who sets up things used late in the season over many games.

Yeah, I recall Shaw saying once that we lose a game or two and everyone acts like we have just gone 0-12.

[martyup]

It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

[martyup]

It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

[CowboyIndian]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17736.msg207203#msg207203 date=1508560192]
All that is Crimson isn't evil.

Wel, yeah you'd think that - I can read your handle.

But I'll stick with needless, gratuitous shots at Bama when available.
[/quote]

Might be Harvard  ;D

[CowboyIndian]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17736.msg207203#msg207203 date=1508560192]
All that is Crimson isn't evil.

Wel, yeah you'd think that - I can read your handle.

But I'll stick with needless, gratuitous shots at Bama when available.
[/quote]

Might be Harvard  ;D

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17736.msg207216#msg207216 date=1508592616]
[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17736.msg207203#msg207203 date=1508560192]
All that is Crimson isn't evil.

Wel, yeah you'd think that - I can read your handle.

But I'll stick with needless, gratuitous shots at Bama when available.
[/quote]

Might be Harvard  ;D
[/quote]

Could be a big fan of prog rock.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17736.msg207216#msg207216 date=1508592616]
[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17736.msg207203#msg207203 date=1508560192]
All that is Crimson isn't evil.

Wel, yeah you'd think that - I can read your handle.

But I'll stick with needless, gratuitous shots at Bama when available.
[/quote]

Might be Harvard  ;D
[/quote]

Could be a big fan of prog rock.

[dabigv13]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=17736.msg207229#msg207229 date=1508603044]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17736.msg207216#msg207216 date=1508592616]
[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17736.msg207203#msg207203 date=1508560192]
All that is Crimson isn't evil.

Wel, yeah you'd think that - I can read your handle.

But I'll stick with needless, gratuitous shots at Bama when available.
[/quote]

Might be Harvard  ;D
[/quote]

Could be a big fan of prog rock.
[/quote]

Speaking of those guys...
https://twitter.com/BruceLevenstein/stat...5457560576

[dabigv13]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=17736.msg207229#msg207229 date=1508603044]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17736.msg207216#msg207216 date=1508592616]
[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17736.msg207203#msg207203 date=1508560192]
All that is Crimson isn't evil.

Wel, yeah you'd think that - I can read your handle.

But I'll stick with needless, gratuitous shots at Bama when available.
[/quote]

Might be Harvard  ;D
[/quote]

Could be a big fan of prog rock.
[/quote]

Speaking of those guys...
https://twitter.com/BruceLevenstein/stat...5457560576

[JohnR34231]

It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

Sometimes it's even the manner of the victory, especially if the offense looks anemic.

[JohnR34231]

It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

Sometimes it's even the manner of the victory, especially if the offense looks anemic.

[lex24]

Understood. Anyone that has coached will tell you they remember the tough losses more than anything else.

But in terms of analyzing Stanfords run under Shaw, those things that people criticize- conservative offense, stubbornness etc, are also factors in their success.

One of my favorite examples is “turtling”. Fans hate it. It’s somewhat boring. And it can be frustrating. But tell me a game since ‘11 that Stanford has gone into the fourth with an 8 point or more lead and lost.  You can’t. Because there are none. So then answer this:  has “ turtling” worked?  Fact is they have only lost a couple games the last 7 years where they went into the fourth leading by 7 or less; or trailed going in only to take a lead then lose.  As one that has watched Stanford for 50 plus years, that is something I appreciate.

The other thing is fans tend to take tough losses and define them by a play or two. With Stanford that usually means a couple play calls. An example- Utah ‘13. The “give it to Gaffney for gawdsakes” game.  Yes, bad play calls no question. Of course we don’t know what would have happened had Gaffney got the call. But we know what the percentages suggest.  People forget, however, other aspects that caused that loss. A 70 yard TD pass that was a fluke. A 90 yard plus Utah drive against what was a great Stanford defense.  It reminds me of a quote from Dwight Howard after a tough b-ball loss. He bitched about Jeremy Lin not closing out on a guy that hit a three to win the game. Howard was something like 2-11 from the FT line. Did that make a difference?

Last - Shaw has acheived enough where he deserves some slack when things go poorly. I’m as guilty as the next guy at times at screaming over a couple bad outcomes. But after SDS or 8 min into UCLA I wasn’t ready to throw in the towel or suggest coaching changes etc.

There will be a time when they don’t win. Heck they could finish 7-5 this year. The schedule is not easy.

As of now, David Shaw is the most successful coach in Stanford history. Over the last 50 no one comes close.  Yet to me the credit he gets is often grudgingly given. The first couple years it was Luck or simply an extension of what Harbaugh built. Now often when they win it’s because of the players, when they lose its on him. 

Why?  Personally I think that a lot of people don’t like the style. Offense, particularly the passing game, is in the blood of longtime Stanford fans. Watching what is essentially a 1970’s Big 10 style offense is a shock to the system. Even after all these years. But that physical emphasis has been the biggest element in their success. It’s what Harbaugh started.  Shaw has built on it.

The style doesn’t give you those of brobdingnagian blow outs that fast break spread teams get when they get on a roll against inferior teams. It just wins.

Rant over.

It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

[lex24]

Understood. Anyone that has coached will tell you they remember the tough losses more than anything else.

But in terms of analyzing Stanfords run under Shaw, those things that people criticize- conservative offense, stubbornness etc, are also factors in their success.

One of my favorite examples is “turtling”. Fans hate it. It’s somewhat boring. And it can be frustrating. But tell me a game since ‘11 that Stanford has gone into the fourth with an 8 point or more lead and lost.  You can’t. Because there are none. So then answer this:  has “ turtling” worked?  Fact is they have only lost a couple games the last 7 years where they went into the fourth leading by 7 or less; or trailed going in only to take a lead then lose.  As one that has watched Stanford for 50 plus years, that is something I appreciate.

The other thing is fans tend to take tough losses and define them by a play or two. With Stanford that usually means a couple play calls. An example- Utah ‘13. The “give it to Gaffney for gawdsakes” game.  Yes, bad play calls no question. Of course we don’t know what would have happened had Gaffney got the call. But we know what the percentages suggest.  People forget, however, other aspects that caused that loss. A 70 yard TD pass that was a fluke. A 90 yard plus Utah drive against what was a great Stanford defense.  It reminds me of a quote from Dwight Howard after a tough b-ball loss. He bitched about Jeremy Lin not closing out on a guy that hit a three to win the game. Howard was something like 2-11 from the FT line. Did that make a difference?

Last - Shaw has acheived enough where he deserves some slack when things go poorly. I’m as guilty as the next guy at times at screaming over a couple bad outcomes. But after SDS or 8 min into UCLA I wasn’t ready to throw in the towel or suggest coaching changes etc.

There will be a time when they don’t win. Heck they could finish 7-5 this year. The schedule is not easy.

As of now, David Shaw is the most successful coach in Stanford history. Over the last 50 no one comes close.  Yet to me the credit he gets is often grudgingly given. The first couple years it was Luck or simply an extension of what Harbaugh built. Now often when they win it’s because of the players, when they lose its on him. 

Why?  Personally I think that a lot of people don’t like the style. Offense, particularly the passing game, is in the blood of longtime Stanford fans. Watching what is essentially a 1970’s Big 10 style offense is a shock to the system. Even after all these years. But that physical emphasis has been the biggest element in their success. It’s what Harbaugh started.  Shaw has built on it.

The style doesn’t give you those of brobdingnagian blow outs that fast break spread teams get when they get on a roll against inferior teams. It just wins.

Rant over.

It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

[lex24]

You posted this as I was on my rant. Personally I care not about  “the manner” of winning. 3-2 or 60-58. Just win. They have. At levels I never thought I’d see and if you are an honest longtime fan, you never thought as well.

[quote author=martyup link=topic=17736.msg207228#msg207228 date=1508602209]
It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

Sometimes it's even the manner of the victory, especially if the offense looks anemic.
[/quote]

[lex24]

You posted this as I was on my rant. Personally I care not about  “the manner” of winning. 3-2 or 60-58. Just win. They have. At levels I never thought I’d see and if you are an honest longtime fan, you never thought as well.

[quote author=martyup link=topic=17736.msg207228#msg207228 date=1508602209]
It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

Sometimes it's even the manner of the victory, especially if the offense looks anemic.
[/quote]

[Goose]

Understood. Anyone that has coached will tell you they remember the tough losses more than anything else.

But in terms of analyzing Stanfords run under Shaw, those things that people criticize- conservative offense, stubbornness etc, are also factors in their success.

One of my favorite examples is “turtling”. Fans hate it. It’s somewhat boring. And it can be frustrating. But tell me a game since ‘11 that Stanford has gone into the fourth with an 8 point or more lead and lost.  You can’t. Because there are none. So then answer this:  has “ turtling” worked?  Fact is they have only lost a couple games the last 7 years where they went into the fourth leading by 7 or less; or trailed going in only to take a lead then lose.  As one that has watched Stanford for 50 plus years, that is something I appreciate.

The other thing is fans tend to take tough losses and define them by a play or two. With Stanford that usually means a couple play calls. An example- Utah ‘13. The “give it to Gaffney for gawdsakes” game.  Yes, bad play calls no question. Of course we don’t know what would have happened had Gaffney got the call. But we know what the percentages suggest.  People forget, however, other aspects that caused that loss. A 70 yard TD pass that was a fluke. A 90 yard plus Utah drive against what was a great Stanford defense.  It reminds me of a quote from Dwight Howard after a tough b-ball loss. He bitched about Jeremy Lin not closing out on a guy that hit a three to win the game. Howard was something like 2-11 from the FT line. Did that make a difference?

Last - Shaw has acheived enough where he deserves some slack when things go poorly. I’m as guilty as the next guy at times at screaming over a couple bad outcomes. But after SDS or 8 min into UCLA I wasn’t ready to throw in the towel or suggest coaching changes etc.

There will be a time when they don’t win. Heck they could finish 7-5 this year. The schedule is not easy.

As of now, David Shaw is the most successful coach in Stanford history. Over the last 50 no one comes close.  Yet to me the credit he gets is often grudgingly given. The first couple years it was Luck or simply an extension of what Harbaugh built. Now often when they win it’s because of the players, when they lose its on him. 

Why?  Personally I think that a lot of people don’t like the style. Offense, particularly the passing game, is in the blood of longtime Stanford fans. Watching what is essentially a 1970’s Big 10 style offense is a shock to the system. Even after all these years. But that physical emphasis has been the biggest element in their success. It’s what Harbaugh started.  Shaw has built on it.

The style doesn’t give you those of of exceedingly large proportions blow outs that fast break spread teams get when they get on a roll against inferior teams. It just wins.

Rant over.

+ 1

[Goose]

Understood. Anyone that has coached will tell you they remember the tough losses more than anything else.

But in terms of analyzing Stanfords run under Shaw, those things that people criticize- conservative offense, stubbornness etc, are also factors in their success.

One of my favorite examples is “turtling”. Fans hate it. It’s somewhat boring. And it can be frustrating. But tell me a game since ‘11 that Stanford has gone into the fourth with an 8 point or more lead and lost.  You can’t. Because there are none. So then answer this:  has “ turtling” worked?  Fact is they have only lost a couple games the last 7 years where they went into the fourth leading by 7 or less; or trailed going in only to take a lead then lose.  As one that has watched Stanford for 50 plus years, that is something I appreciate.

The other thing is fans tend to take tough losses and define them by a play or two. With Stanford that usually means a couple play calls. An example- Utah ‘13. The “give it to Gaffney for gawdsakes” game.  Yes, bad play calls no question. Of course we don’t know what would have happened had Gaffney got the call. But we know what the percentages suggest.  People forget, however, other aspects that caused that loss. A 70 yard TD pass that was a fluke. A 90 yard plus Utah drive against what was a great Stanford defense.  It reminds me of a quote from Dwight Howard after a tough b-ball loss. He bitched about Jeremy Lin not closing out on a guy that hit a three to win the game. Howard was something like 2-11 from the FT line. Did that make a difference?

Last - Shaw has acheived enough where he deserves some slack when things go poorly. I’m as guilty as the next guy at times at screaming over a couple bad outcomes. But after SDS or 8 min into UCLA I wasn’t ready to throw in the towel or suggest coaching changes etc.

There will be a time when they don’t win. Heck they could finish 7-5 this year. The schedule is not easy.

As of now, David Shaw is the most successful coach in Stanford history. Over the last 50 no one comes close.  Yet to me the credit he gets is often grudgingly given. The first couple years it was Luck or simply an extension of what Harbaugh built. Now often when they win it’s because of the players, when they lose its on him. 

Why?  Personally I think that a lot of people don’t like the style. Offense, particularly the passing game, is in the blood of longtime Stanford fans. Watching what is essentially a 1970’s Big 10 style offense is a shock to the system. Even after all these years. But that physical emphasis has been the biggest element in their success. It’s what Harbaugh started.  Shaw has built on it.

The style doesn’t give you those of of exceedingly large proportions blow outs that fast break spread teams get when they get on a roll against inferior teams. It just wins.

Rant over.

+ 1

[BostonCard]

Thank you lex, a million times over.

The bottom line... there is no coach I would rather have leading Stanford football.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thank you lex, a million times over.

The bottom line... there is no coach I would rather have leading Stanford football.

BC

[JohnR34231]

You posted this as I was on my rant. Personally I care not about  “the manner” of winning. 3-2 or 60-58. Just win. They have. At levels I never thought I’d see and if you are an honest longtime fan, you never thought as well.

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17736.msg207232#msg207232 date=1508606025]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17736.msg207228#msg207228 date=1508602209]
It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

Sometimes it's even the manner of the victory, especially if the offense looks anemic.
[/quote]

Actually I agree with you, but not everyone does.

[JohnR34231]

You posted this as I was on my rant. Personally I care not about  “the manner” of winning. 3-2 or 60-58. Just win. They have. At levels I never thought I’d see and if you are an honest longtime fan, you never thought as well.

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17736.msg207232#msg207232 date=1508606025]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17736.msg207228#msg207228 date=1508602209]
It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

Sometimes it's even the manner of the victory, especially if the offense looks anemic.
[/quote]

Actually I agree with you, but not everyone does.

[lex24]

How can anyone possibly disagree with me!!!  :P

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17736.msg207236#msg207236 date=1508607075]
You posted this as I was on my rant. Personally I care not about  “the manner” of winning. 3-2 or 60-58. Just win. They have. At levels I never thought I’d see and if you are an honest longtime fan, you never thought as well.

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17736.msg207232#msg207232 date=1508606025]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17736.msg207228#msg207228 date=1508602209]
It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

Sometimes it's even the manner of the victory, especially if the offense looks anemic.
[/quote]

Actually I agree with you, but not everyone does.
[/quote]

[lex24]

How can anyone possibly disagree with me!!!  :P

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17736.msg207236#msg207236 date=1508607075]
You posted this as I was on my rant. Personally I care not about  “the manner” of winning. 3-2 or 60-58. Just win. They have. At levels I never thought I’d see and if you are an honest longtime fan, you never thought as well.

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=17736.msg207232#msg207232 date=1508606025]
[quote author=martyup link=topic=17736.msg207228#msg207228 date=1508602209]
It's not the losing. It's the manner of the loss that seems to wake the C.ardboard Kraken.

Sometimes it's even the manner of the victory, especially if the offense looks anemic.
[/quote]

Actually I agree with you, but not everyone does.
[/quote]

[terry]

As far as staying the course, I think Heath Ledger or Mel Gibson immortalized the comment in The Patriot.

"Stay the course," meaning pursue a goal despite obstacles, has been used at least since the late 1800s. Some early examples came from sports:

- The Times of London, 1879: "Jockeys who have ridden him think he cannot stay the course."

- New York Times, 1873, referring to Dartmouth's crew: "All question as to their staying the course was set at rest."

Politicians have used "stay the course" for years. Examples:

- Winston Churchill, 1950, "Will America stay the course?"

- Harry Truman, 1952: "Some are doubtful whether we will stay the course until we achieve peace in a free world."

- Lyndon Johnson, 1967: "It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the course in Vietnam, we could help to lay the cornerstone for a diverse and independent Asia, full of promise and resolute in the cause of peaceful economic development for her long-suffering peoples. But if we faltered, the forces of chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the course."

[terry]

As far as staying the course, I think Heath Ledger or Mel Gibson immortalized the comment in The Patriot.

"Stay the course," meaning pursue a goal despite obstacles, has been used at least since the late 1800s. Some early examples came from sports:

- The Times of London, 1879: "Jockeys who have ridden him think he cannot stay the course."

- New York Times, 1873, referring to Dartmouth's crew: "All question as to their staying the course was set at rest."

Politicians have used "stay the course" for years. Examples:

- Winston Churchill, 1950, "Will America stay the course?"

- Harry Truman, 1952: "Some are doubtful whether we will stay the course until we achieve peace in a free world."

- Lyndon Johnson, 1967: "It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the course in Vietnam, we could help to lay the cornerstone for a diverse and independent Asia, full of promise and resolute in the cause of peaceful economic development for her long-suffering peoples. But if we faltered, the forces of chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the course."

[teejers1]

Speaking of things that drive fans crazy: referring to "those who want a new head coach at Stanford."  Do you really think there is anyone who feels that way?  Maybe a wingnut or two, but the overwhelming majority sentiment is that Shaw has done a very good job as Stanford's Head Coach.

My (oft-stated) objections are: 

(i) what I see as the most basic of coaching errors that do not give Stanford the best chance to win.  At Utah was one such example.  The back-to-back games against SC were others.  Of course, some may say "hindsight bias," blah, blah, blah, but that is not the case.  And yes, we don't know what would have happened without the Most Basic Brainlocks, but the point is, it shouldn't be an issue in the first instance.

(ii) an insufficient recognition that the Stanford football program - despite the winning - is on shaky ground.  Why is a small stadium hosting a winning team rarely (if ever) filled up on game day?  There are, of course, multiple reasons for this.  But I submit that part of the problem is a 'run between the tackle' offense that doesn't excite those watching.  I mean, think about this team without Bryce Love - would it be enjoyable to watch?  Love has singularly made this a remarkable and fun team to watch.

If the multitude of close wins Stanford has had turn into close losses, then where will the program be?  It may seem like hyperbole, but it's possible that David Shaw will be the winningest coach in Stanford history AND the coach who presides over the demise over the program.

(iii) sufficient appreciation of roster talent and setting expectations accordingly.  Shaw absolutely deserves credit for generally keeping the pipeline of talent on the roster at all-time highs (in my non-expert opinion).  But with heightened talent, is it also not reasonable to expect increased W/L records?  Thus, to some extent, the comparison to coaches of yesteryear is not quite apples to oranges.

Having said all of the above, a coach's job is to recruit good players and field a winning team, and Coach Shaw has certainly done that very well.  And that's appreciated and to be applauded. 

And btw, I agree that this team could end up 7-5 through no fault of Shaw & Co. (i.e., no obvious blunders).  There are a lot of good opponents remaining on the schedule. 

Here's hoping for 9-3 (10-2 seems almost like too much to ask).

[teejers1]

Speaking of things that drive fans crazy: referring to "those who want a new head coach at Stanford."  Do you really think there is anyone who feels that way?  Maybe a wingnut or two, but the overwhelming majority sentiment is that Shaw has done a very good job as Stanford's Head Coach.

My (oft-stated) objections are: 

(i) what I see as the most basic of coaching errors that do not give Stanford the best chance to win.  At Utah was one such example.  The back-to-back games against SC were others.  Of course, some may say "hindsight bias," blah, blah, blah, but that is not the case.  And yes, we don't know what would have happened without the Most Basic Brainlocks, but the point is, it shouldn't be an issue in the first instance.

(ii) an insufficient recognition that the Stanford football program - despite the winning - is on shaky ground.  Why is a small stadium hosting a winning team rarely (if ever) filled up on game day?  There are, of course, multiple reasons for this.  But I submit that part of the problem is a 'run between the tackle' offense that doesn't excite those watching.  I mean, think about this team without Bryce Love - would it be enjoyable to watch?  Love has singularly made this a remarkable and fun team to watch.

If the multitude of close wins Stanford has had turn into close losses, then where will the program be?  It may seem like hyperbole, but it's possible that David Shaw will be the winningest coach in Stanford history AND the coach who presides over the demise over the program.

(iii) sufficient appreciation of roster talent and setting expectations accordingly.  Shaw absolutely deserves credit for generally keeping the pipeline of talent on the roster at all-time highs (in my non-expert opinion).  But with heightened talent, is it also not reasonable to expect increased W/L records?  Thus, to some extent, the comparison to coaches of yesteryear is not quite apples to oranges.

Having said all of the above, a coach's job is to recruit good players and field a winning team, and Coach Shaw has certainly done that very well.  And that's appreciated and to be applauded. 

And btw, I agree that this team could end up 7-5 through no fault of Shaw & Co. (i.e., no obvious blunders).  There are a lot of good opponents remaining on the schedule. 

Here's hoping for 9-3 (10-2 seems almost like too much to ask).

[Hurlburt88]

I agree that the vast preponderance of serious Stanford fans seriously appreciate & support Shaw.  I will continue to enjoy analyzing, critiquing, and discussing specifics--all within the context of The Golden Age of Stanford Football! 

[Hurlburt88]

I agree that the vast preponderance of serious Stanford fans seriously appreciate & support Shaw.  I will continue to enjoy analyzing, critiquing, and discussing specifics--all within the context of The Golden Age of Stanford Football! 

[Mick]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17736.msg207193#msg207193 date=1508550593]
As far as staying the course, I think Heath Ledger or Mel Gibson immortalized the comment in The Patriot.

"Stay the course," meaning pursue a goal despite obstacles, has been used at least since the late 1800s. Some early examples came from sports:

- The Times of London, 1879: "Jockeys who have ridden him think he cannot stay the course."

- New York Times, 1873, referring to Dartmouth's crew: "All question as to their staying the course was set at rest."

Politicians have used "stay the course" for years. Examples:

- Winston Churchill, 1950, "Will America stay the course?"

- Harry Truman, 1952: "Some are doubtful whether we will stay the course until we achieve peace in a free world."

- Lyndon Johnson, 1967: "It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the course in Vietnam, we could help to lay the cornerstone for a diverse and independent Asia, full of promise and resolute in the cause of peaceful economic development for her long-suffering peoples. But if we faltered, the forces of chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the course."
[/quote]


Christopher Marlowe used it in Dr. Faustas in 1588.  Ben Johnson used in "Volpone, or The Fox" in 1605; e.g., "Avocatore 1: Can you plead ought [that is, aught] to stay the course of justice? If you can, speak."

From "Certain Observations touching the two great Offices of the Seneschalsey or High-Stewardship, and High Constableship of England" in 1641:

It is to be understood notwithstanding, that none may stop the course of any ordinary running streames within his banks or ditches longer then from the rising to the going down of the sunne. Neither may any one stay the course of waters with any new ponds, ditches, or sluces, but shall permit them to run their course, lest the mills standing upon their streams, or men in their affairs, tanners, diers, and such like, should thereby suffer losse and detriment. If any shall stay them for the filling up of pools, or ponds, they shall be bound to restore such losses as the milners, or others living by the passage of those waters, shall have sustained by the with-holding of them, and waters shall be suffered to run their accustomed course.

[Mick]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17736.msg207193#msg207193 date=1508550593]
As far as staying the course, I think Heath Ledger or Mel Gibson immortalized the comment in The Patriot.

"Stay the course," meaning pursue a goal despite obstacles, has been used at least since the late 1800s. Some early examples came from sports:

- The Times of London, 1879: "Jockeys who have ridden him think he cannot stay the course."

- New York Times, 1873, referring to Dartmouth's crew: "All question as to their staying the course was set at rest."

Politicians have used "stay the course" for years. Examples:

- Winston Churchill, 1950, "Will America stay the course?"

- Harry Truman, 1952: "Some are doubtful whether we will stay the course until we achieve peace in a free world."

- Lyndon Johnson, 1967: "It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the course in Vietnam, we could help to lay the cornerstone for a diverse and independent Asia, full of promise and resolute in the cause of peaceful economic development for her long-suffering peoples. But if we faltered, the forces of chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the course."
[/quote]


Christopher Marlowe used it in Dr. Faustas in 1588.  Ben Johnson used in "Volpone, or The Fox" in 1605; e.g., "Avocatore 1: Can you plead ought [that is, aught] to stay the course of justice? If you can, speak."

From "Certain Observations touching the two great Offices of the Seneschalsey or High-Stewardship, and High Constableship of England" in 1641:

It is to be understood notwithstanding, that none may stop the course of any ordinary running streames within his banks or ditches longer then from the rising to the going down of the sunne. Neither may any one stay the course of waters with any new ponds, ditches, or sluces, but shall permit them to run their course, lest the mills standing upon their streams, or men in their affairs, tanners, diers, and such like, should thereby suffer losse and detriment. If any shall stay them for the filling up of pools, or ponds, they shall be bound to restore such losses as the milners, or others living by the passage of those waters, shall have sustained by the with-holding of them, and waters shall be suffered to run their accustomed course.

[CompSci87]

"Stay the course" had a different meaning in Mick's two older quotes: it meant to stop or hinder something in its progress, not to remain steadfastly on one's own course.

[CompSci87]

"Stay the course" had a different meaning in Mick's two older quotes: it meant to stop or hinder something in its progress, not to remain steadfastly on one's own course.

[Mick]

"Stay the course" had a different meaning in Mick's two older quotes: it meant to stop or hinder something in its progress, not to remain steadfastly on one's own course.

I don't believe so, at least in the second instance, since "stop the course" is used in the prior part of the sentence.

[Mick]

"Stay the course" had a different meaning in Mick's two older quotes: it meant to stop or hinder something in its progress, not to remain steadfastly on one's own course.

I don't believe so, at least in the second instance, since "stop the course" is used in the prior part of the sentence.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=17736.msg207229#msg207229 date=1508603044]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17736.msg207216#msg207216 date=1508592616]
[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17736.msg207203#msg207203 date=1508560192]
All that is Crimson isn't evil.

Wel, yeah you'd think that - I can read your handle.

But I'll stick with needless, gratuitous shots at Bama when available.
[/quote]

Might be Harvard  ;D
[/quote]

Could be a big fan of prog rock.
[/quote]

I'll never tell. . . .

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=17736.msg207229#msg207229 date=1508603044]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17736.msg207216#msg207216 date=1508592616]
[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17736.msg207203#msg207203 date=1508560192]
All that is Crimson isn't evil.

Wel, yeah you'd think that - I can read your handle.

But I'll stick with needless, gratuitous shots at Bama when available.
[/quote]

Might be Harvard  ;D
[/quote]

Could be a big fan of prog rock.
[/quote]

I'll never tell. . . .