10-25-2017, 07:55 PM
Headline oversells it a bit, but there are a few nuggets in here: http://www.sharpsportsanalytics.com/2017...-strategy/
David Shaw Reveals Play Calling Strategy
Headline oversells it a bit, but there are a few nuggets in here: http://www.sharpsportsanalytics.com/2017...-strategy/
10-25-2017, 08:27 PM
Interestingly the site has a section titled "CFB Coach Ratings", explaining that "We define on the field coaching as ... game management, play calling and motivational ability" while "excluding recruiting", although they do not explain their methodology any further.
In any case, Shaw ranks 19th out of 130 FBS coaches in their ranking, 4th in the Pac-12 behind Petersen, Leach and Wittingham (who all rank in the top ten, with Petersen ranked ahead of Nick Saban). Urban Meyer is ranked #1 and Jim Harbaugh #2.
In any case, Shaw ranks 19th out of 130 FBS coaches in their ranking, 4th in the Pac-12 behind Petersen, Leach and Wittingham (who all rank in the top ten, with Petersen ranked ahead of Nick Saban). Urban Meyer is ranked #1 and Jim Harbaugh #2.
Interestingly the site has a section titled "CFB Coach Ratings", explaining that "We define on the field coaching as ... game management, play calling and motivational ability" while "excluding recruiting", although they do not explain their methodology any further.
In any case, Shaw ranks 19th out of 130 FBS coaches in their ranking, 4th in the Pac-12 behind Petersen, Leach and Wittingham (who all rank in the top ten, with Petersen ranked ahead of Nick Saban). Urban Meyer is ranked #1 and Jim Harbaugh #2.
In any case, Shaw ranks 19th out of 130 FBS coaches in their ranking, 4th in the Pac-12 behind Petersen, Leach and Wittingham (who all rank in the top ten, with Petersen ranked ahead of Nick Saban). Urban Meyer is ranked #1 and Jim Harbaugh #2.
10-25-2017, 10:14 PM
Whitingham is vastly overrated. Look at his Nov record.
(10-25-2017, 08:27 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:Interestingly the site has a section titled "CFB Coach Ratings", explaining that "We define on the field coaching as ... game management, play calling and motivational ability" while "excluding recruiting", although they do not explain their methodology any further.
In any case, Shaw ranks 19th out of 130 FBS coaches in their ranking, 4th in the Pac-12 behind Petersen, Leach and Wittingham (who all rank in the top ten, with Petersen ranked ahead of Nick Saban). Urban Meyer is ranked #1 and Jim Harbaugh #2.
Whitingham is vastly overrated. Look at his Nov record.
(10-25-2017, 08:27 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:Interestingly the site has a section titled "CFB Coach Ratings", explaining that "We define on the field coaching as ... game management, play calling and motivational ability" while "excluding recruiting", although they do not explain their methodology any further.
In any case, Shaw ranks 19th out of 130 FBS coaches in their ranking, 4th in the Pac-12 behind Petersen, Leach and Wittingham (who all rank in the top ten, with Petersen ranked ahead of Nick Saban). Urban Meyer is ranked #1 and Jim Harbaugh #2.
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
10-26-2017, 03:49 AM
I like Whittingham but it wasn't long ago that he had 4 different offensive coordinators in 4 seasons.
I like Whittingham but it wasn't long ago that he had 4 different offensive coordinators in 4 seasons.
10-26-2017, 06:00 AM
Why would you exclude recruiting? Bizarre.
Also any result coming up with Shaw as merely a top 20 coach is facially wrong. He's, I think, sixth in the country among active coaches in winning percentage. Stanford's strength of schedule is routinely high. He wins a substantial percentage of games against ranked teams. Since a coach's job is to put good teams on the field those stats are hard to quibble with.
Also any result coming up with Shaw as merely a top 20 coach is facially wrong. He's, I think, sixth in the country among active coaches in winning percentage. Stanford's strength of schedule is routinely high. He wins a substantial percentage of games against ranked teams. Since a coach's job is to put good teams on the field those stats are hard to quibble with.
Why would you exclude recruiting? Bizarre.
Also any result coming up with Shaw as merely a top 20 coach is facially wrong. He's, I think, sixth in the country among active coaches in winning percentage. Stanford's strength of schedule is routinely high. He wins a substantial percentage of games against ranked teams. Since a coach's job is to put good teams on the field those stats are hard to quibble with.
Also any result coming up with Shaw as merely a top 20 coach is facially wrong. He's, I think, sixth in the country among active coaches in winning percentage. Stanford's strength of schedule is routinely high. He wins a substantial percentage of games against ranked teams. Since a coach's job is to put good teams on the field those stats are hard to quibble with.
(10-26-2017, 03:49 AM)ChicagoTree link Wrote:I like Whittingham but it wasn't long ago that he had 4 different offensive coordinators in 4 seasons.
Good thing that's improved to ... 9 offensive coordinators in 10 years (?).
That's actually surprisingly hard to look up.
I found the article below from December 2014 saying they were looking at going into 2015 with their eighth OC in eight years.
I think the same pair of co-OC lasted for both 2015-16, and this year they brought in Troy Taylor.
Though I guess since it was two guys for 2015-16, that's actually a full 10 for 10.Â
It would seem Whittingham is hard to work for.
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id...type=CMSID
(10-26-2017, 03:49 AM)ChicagoTree link Wrote:I like Whittingham but it wasn't long ago that he had 4 different offensive coordinators in 4 seasons.
Good thing that's improved to ... 9 offensive coordinators in 10 years (?).
That's actually surprisingly hard to look up.
I found the article below from December 2014 saying they were looking at going into 2015 with their eighth OC in eight years.
I think the same pair of co-OC lasted for both 2015-16, and this year they brought in Troy Taylor.
Though I guess since it was two guys for 2015-16, that's actually a full 10 for 10.Â
It would seem Whittingham is hard to work for.
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id...type=CMSID
10-26-2017, 06:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2017, 06:54 AM by OutsiderFan.)
(10-26-2017, 06:00 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Why would you exclude recruiting? Bizarre.
Also any result coming up with Shaw as merely a top 20 coach is facially wrong. He's, I think, sixth in the country among active coaches in winning percentage. Stanford's strength of schedule is routinely high. He wins a substantial percentage of games against ranked teams. Since a coach's job is to put good teams on the field those stats are hard to quibble with.
I've been as down on Shaw's game management as anyone; always taking the first half kickoff, not going for it on 4th down enough, taking too long to get plays called, wasting time before calling timeouts, running into stacked boxes, etc.
But the reality is how can you be that bad when the results are what they are? I mean maybe if he makes different decisions he's looked at as a better game manager, but he doesn't win as much? Sure he may lose some games he could have won by being a better game manager, but it's also possible (likely) there are games he has won that he would have lost if he didn't stick to his philosophy.
At the end of the day, the record is what matters. If a coach is 6th in win percentage among active coaches, that's pretty f'ing exceptional, no matter how he is perceived to be as a game manager.
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2017, 06:54 AM by OutsiderFan.)
(10-26-2017, 06:00 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Why would you exclude recruiting? Bizarre.
Also any result coming up with Shaw as merely a top 20 coach is facially wrong. He's, I think, sixth in the country among active coaches in winning percentage. Stanford's strength of schedule is routinely high. He wins a substantial percentage of games against ranked teams. Since a coach's job is to put good teams on the field those stats are hard to quibble with.
I've been as down on Shaw's game management as anyone; always taking the first half kickoff, not going for it on 4th down enough, taking too long to get plays called, wasting time before calling timeouts, running into stacked boxes, etc.
But the reality is how can you be that bad when the results are what they are? I mean maybe if he makes different decisions he's looked at as a better game manager, but he doesn't win as much? Sure he may lose some games he could have won by being a better game manager, but it's also possible (likely) there are games he has won that he would have lost if he didn't stick to his philosophy.
At the end of the day, the record is what matters. If a coach is 6th in win percentage among active coaches, that's pretty f'ing exceptional, no matter how he is perceived to be as a game manager.
10-26-2017, 07:46 AM
Interesting article, but John Gruden? Really. And to think the author earned a Masters from Duke. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
Interesting article, but John Gruden? Really. And to think the author earned a Masters from Duke. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
10-26-2017, 08:01 AM
my first point would be that judging a head coach is much more difficult than coordinators.
At first glance I would say that #19 is about right and fairly complimentary for Shaw. Because he dumped the game against SDSU we are ranked 20 instead of a probable 11.
The difficulty is that Shaw is a primarily offensive focused coach. Strictly as an offensive play-caller I'd rank him in the bottom 20% of major college coaches.
At first glance I would say that #19 is about right and fairly complimentary for Shaw. Because he dumped the game against SDSU we are ranked 20 instead of a probable 11.
The difficulty is that Shaw is a primarily offensive focused coach. Strictly as an offensive play-caller I'd rank him in the bottom 20% of major college coaches.
my first point would be that judging a head coach is much more difficult than coordinators.
At first glance I would say that #19 is about right and fairly complimentary for Shaw. Because he dumped the game against SDSU we are ranked 20 instead of a probable 11.
The difficulty is that Shaw is a primarily offensive focused coach. Strictly as an offensive play-caller I'd rank him in the bottom 20% of major college coaches.
At first glance I would say that #19 is about right and fairly complimentary for Shaw. Because he dumped the game against SDSU we are ranked 20 instead of a probable 11.
The difficulty is that Shaw is a primarily offensive focused coach. Strictly as an offensive play-caller I'd rank him in the bottom 20% of major college coaches.
10-26-2017, 08:06 AM
I think Shaw is an excellent game manager. But not in a two-minute drill sense. One of Stanfords strengths has been controlling clock and tempo. Those are brobdingnagian game management skills. As is burning clock when ahead. Something else Stanford has excelled at. Making teams play your tempo is important.
Ill take the occasional wasted time out etc I dont like it. But overall the management is excellent.Â
I've been as down on Shaw's game management as anyone; always taking the first half kickoff, not going for it on 4th down enough, taking too long to get plays called, wasting time before calling timeouts, running into stacked boxes, etc.
But the reality is how can you be that bad when the results are what they are? I mean maybe if he makes different decisions he's looked at as a better game manager, but he doesn't win as much? Sure he may lose some games he could have won by being a better game manager, but it's also possible (likely) there are games he has won that he would have lost if he didn't stick to his philosophy.
At the end of the day, the record is what matters. If a coach is 6th in win percentage among active coaches, that's pretty f'ing exceptional, no matter how he is perceived to be as a game manager.
[/quote]
Ill take the occasional wasted time out etc I dont like it. But overall the management is excellent.Â
(10-26-2017, 06:41 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17784.msg207869#msg207869 date=1509022859]
Why would you exclude recruiting? Bizarre.
Also any result coming up with Shaw as merely a top 20 coach is facially wrong. He's, I think, sixth in the country among active coaches in winning percentage. Stanford's strength of schedule is routinely high. He wins a substantial percentage of games against ranked teams. Since a coach's job is to put good teams on the field those stats are hard to quibble with.
I've been as down on Shaw's game management as anyone; always taking the first half kickoff, not going for it on 4th down enough, taking too long to get plays called, wasting time before calling timeouts, running into stacked boxes, etc.
But the reality is how can you be that bad when the results are what they are? I mean maybe if he makes different decisions he's looked at as a better game manager, but he doesn't win as much? Sure he may lose some games he could have won by being a better game manager, but it's also possible (likely) there are games he has won that he would have lost if he didn't stick to his philosophy.
At the end of the day, the record is what matters. If a coach is 6th in win percentage among active coaches, that's pretty f'ing exceptional, no matter how he is perceived to be as a game manager.
[/quote]
I think Shaw is an excellent game manager. But not in a two-minute drill sense. One of Stanfords strengths has been controlling clock and tempo. Those are brobdingnagian game management skills. As is burning clock when ahead. Something else Stanford has excelled at. Making teams play your tempo is important.
Ill take the occasional wasted time out etc I dont like it. But overall the management is excellent.Â
I've been as down on Shaw's game management as anyone; always taking the first half kickoff, not going for it on 4th down enough, taking too long to get plays called, wasting time before calling timeouts, running into stacked boxes, etc.
But the reality is how can you be that bad when the results are what they are? I mean maybe if he makes different decisions he's looked at as a better game manager, but he doesn't win as much? Sure he may lose some games he could have won by being a better game manager, but it's also possible (likely) there are games he has won that he would have lost if he didn't stick to his philosophy.
At the end of the day, the record is what matters. If a coach is 6th in win percentage among active coaches, that's pretty f'ing exceptional, no matter how he is perceived to be as a game manager.
[/quote]
Ill take the occasional wasted time out etc I dont like it. But overall the management is excellent.Â
(10-26-2017, 06:41 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17784.msg207869#msg207869 date=1509022859]
Why would you exclude recruiting? Bizarre.
Also any result coming up with Shaw as merely a top 20 coach is facially wrong. He's, I think, sixth in the country among active coaches in winning percentage. Stanford's strength of schedule is routinely high. He wins a substantial percentage of games against ranked teams. Since a coach's job is to put good teams on the field those stats are hard to quibble with.
I've been as down on Shaw's game management as anyone; always taking the first half kickoff, not going for it on 4th down enough, taking too long to get plays called, wasting time before calling timeouts, running into stacked boxes, etc.
But the reality is how can you be that bad when the results are what they are? I mean maybe if he makes different decisions he's looked at as a better game manager, but he doesn't win as much? Sure he may lose some games he could have won by being a better game manager, but it's also possible (likely) there are games he has won that he would have lost if he didn't stick to his philosophy.
At the end of the day, the record is what matters. If a coach is 6th in win percentage among active coaches, that's pretty f'ing exceptional, no matter how he is perceived to be as a game manager.
[/quote]
10-26-2017, 08:07 AM
(10-25-2017, 08:27 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:Interestingly the site has a section titled "CFB Coach Ratings", explaining that "We define on the field coaching as ... game management, play calling and motivational ability" while "excluding recruiting", although they do not explain their methodology any further.
In any case, Shaw ranks 19th out of 130 FBS coaches in their ranking, 4th in the Pac-12 behind Petersen, Leach and Wittingham (who all rank in the top ten, with Petersen ranked ahead of Nick Saban). Urban Meyer is ranked #1 and Jim Harbaugh #2.
If I were to rank FBS coaches, I'd rank them by their position on the collective NFL GM's speed dial.
(drops mike)
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(10-25-2017, 08:27 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:Interestingly the site has a section titled "CFB Coach Ratings", explaining that "We define on the field coaching as ... game management, play calling and motivational ability" while "excluding recruiting", although they do not explain their methodology any further.
In any case, Shaw ranks 19th out of 130 FBS coaches in their ranking, 4th in the Pac-12 behind Petersen, Leach and Wittingham (who all rank in the top ten, with Petersen ranked ahead of Nick Saban). Urban Meyer is ranked #1 and Jim Harbaugh #2.
If I were to rank FBS coaches, I'd rank them by their position on the collective NFL GM's speed dial.
(drops mike)
Audaces fortuna iuvat
10-26-2017, 08:09 AM
(10-26-2017, 07:46 AM)cardcrimson link Wrote:Interesting article, but John Gruden? Really. And to think the author earned a Masters from Duke. . . .
Actually, his Master's was from [u]Dhuke[/u]. He has' a problem with h's.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
How do coaches dump games. Explain that. As for Whitingham- Parens who I assume youre making the coordinator comment on) if Shawn had the November record that he does people to be screaming for his head right and left.
Utah had a three-game lead with five to play - and lost it last year. Losses to Washington, Colorado. Both understandable. And other losses to ×ÉÉ and Oregon. I does dumped games.
I am looking forward to reading your study that led to your conclusion that Shaw is in the bottom 20th of play callers. I had no idea you were that well versed. When can we expect it?
quote author=phxfan link=topic=17784.msg207874#msg207874 date=1509030110]
my first point would be that judging a head coach is much more difficult than coordinators.
At first glance I would say that #19 is about right and fairly complimentary for Shaw. Because he dumped the game against SDSU we are ranked 20 instead of a probable 11.
The difficulty is that Shaw is a primarily offensive focused coach. Strictly as an offensive play-caller I'd rank him in the bottom 20% of major college coaches.
[/quote]
Utah had a three-game lead with five to play - and lost it last year. Losses to Washington, Colorado. Both understandable. And other losses to ×ÉÉ and Oregon. I does dumped games.
I am looking forward to reading your study that led to your conclusion that Shaw is in the bottom 20th of play callers. I had no idea you were that well versed. When can we expect it?
quote author=phxfan link=topic=17784.msg207874#msg207874 date=1509030110]
my first point would be that judging a head coach is much more difficult than coordinators.
At first glance I would say that #19 is about right and fairly complimentary for Shaw. Because he dumped the game against SDSU we are ranked 20 instead of a probable 11.
The difficulty is that Shaw is a primarily offensive focused coach. Strictly as an offensive play-caller I'd rank him in the bottom 20% of major college coaches.
[/quote]
How do coaches dump games. Explain that. As for Whitingham- Parens who I assume youre making the coordinator comment on) if Shawn had the November record that he does people to be screaming for his head right and left.
Utah had a three-game lead with five to play - and lost it last year. Losses to Washington, Colorado. Both understandable. And other losses to ×ÉÉ and Oregon. I does dumped games.
I am looking forward to reading your study that led to your conclusion that Shaw is in the bottom 20th of play callers. I had no idea you were that well versed. When can we expect it?
quote author=phxfan link=topic=17784.msg207874#msg207874 date=1509030110]
my first point would be that judging a head coach is much more difficult than coordinators.
At first glance I would say that #19 is about right and fairly complimentary for Shaw. Because he dumped the game against SDSU we are ranked 20 instead of a probable 11.
The difficulty is that Shaw is a primarily offensive focused coach. Strictly as an offensive play-caller I'd rank him in the bottom 20% of major college coaches.
[/quote]
Utah had a three-game lead with five to play - and lost it last year. Losses to Washington, Colorado. Both understandable. And other losses to ×ÉÉ and Oregon. I does dumped games.
I am looking forward to reading your study that led to your conclusion that Shaw is in the bottom 20th of play callers. I had no idea you were that well versed. When can we expect it?
quote author=phxfan link=topic=17784.msg207874#msg207874 date=1509030110]
my first point would be that judging a head coach is much more difficult than coordinators.
At first glance I would say that #19 is about right and fairly complimentary for Shaw. Because he dumped the game against SDSU we are ranked 20 instead of a probable 11.
The difficulty is that Shaw is a primarily offensive focused coach. Strictly as an offensive play-caller I'd rank him in the bottom 20% of major college coaches.
[/quote]
10-26-2017, 12:27 PM
Sundheim and Shaw are talking tactics rather than strategy. Trust me. That was my job for 40+ years.
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »