[CTcard]

The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

The answer is almost certainly "no, Shaw will not maintain an all time winning percentage equal to his first five years on the job." 
At least if he stays here long enough.

While in general I think it would take a coach of super-human skill to do so, further investigation shows Shaw isn't that far away. His winning percentage in his most recent "tough years" is only 9 points below those first five, and all time only 3 points lower. So, just maybe. 
 


In those first five years, Shaw won 79% of games played. 
In the next three that dipped to 70%. 
Overall, that puts Shaw at 76%.

Other top Stanford coaches were:
Pop Warner: 78%
Tiny Thornhill: 57%
Clark Shaughnessy: 84%  (but only lasted two seasons)
Chuck Taylor: 58%
John Ralston: 60%
John Ralston (best 5 years): 69%
Denny Green: 47%
Bill Walsh: 59% 
Bill Walsh I (only): 71% (but only lasted two seasons)
Jim Harbaugh: 58% 
Jim Harbaugh (at Michigan): 73%

[CTcard]

The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

The answer is almost certainly "no, Shaw will not maintain an all time winning percentage equal to his first five years on the job." 
At least if he stays here long enough.

While in general I think it would take a coach of super-human skill to do so, further investigation shows Shaw isn't that far away. His winning percentage in his most recent "tough years" is only 9 points below those first five, and all time only 3 points lower. So, just maybe. 
 


In those first five years, Shaw won 79% of games played. 
In the next three that dipped to 70%. 
Overall, that puts Shaw at 76%.

Other top Stanford coaches were:
Pop Warner: 78%
Tiny Thornhill: 57%
Clark Shaughnessy: 84%  (but only lasted two seasons)
Chuck Taylor: 58%
John Ralston: 60%
John Ralston (best 5 years): 69%
Denny Green: 47%
Bill Walsh: 59% 
Bill Walsh I (only): 71% (but only lasted two seasons)
Jim Harbaugh: 58% 
Jim Harbaugh (at Michigan): 73%

[SamuelMcF]

Imagine what would be said about Shaw if he had that kind of record.

I'm critical of Shaw, but because I think he can be BETTER not because I think he should go. He's as stubborn as they come and I think that's his shortcoming. But there's no way in Hell I'm going to say Harbaugh was better. Harbaugh was the coach the program needed at that time, just as Shaw was as his successor. The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

Here, I'll rephrase your question: "Can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of having mostly Harbaugh's guys and the NCAA all-purpose yard record holder?"

I don't blame you for being skeptical...

So, wait, Shaw doesn't get credit for pre-2013 because it was mostly Harbaugh's guys, but also doesn't get credit for finding and using McCaffrey? In what world does that make sense?

I'm saying he definitely gets credit for CMac, but needing to find an all-everything superstar like that again in order to get back to 2015-and-earlier levels of success doesn't bode well.

[SamuelMcF]

Imagine what would be said about Shaw if he had that kind of record.

I'm critical of Shaw, but because I think he can be BETTER not because I think he should go. He's as stubborn as they come and I think that's his shortcoming. But there's no way in Hell I'm going to say Harbaugh was better. Harbaugh was the coach the program needed at that time, just as Shaw was as his successor. The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

Here, I'll rephrase your question: "Can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of having mostly Harbaugh's guys and the NCAA all-purpose yard record holder?"

I don't blame you for being skeptical...

So, wait, Shaw doesn't get credit for pre-2013 because it was mostly Harbaugh's guys, but also doesn't get credit for finding and using McCaffrey? In what world does that make sense?

I'm saying he definitely gets credit for CMac, but needing to find an all-everything superstar like that again in order to get back to 2015-and-earlier levels of success doesn't bode well.

[stupac2]

I'm saying he definitely gets credit for CMac, but needing to find an all-everything superstar like that again in order to get back to 2015-and-earlier levels of success doesn't bode well.

I mean, Shaw has managed to find two of them so far (Love counts, even if this year was disappointing). I'm also not sure that 2015 required McCaffrey to win, in some of our biggest games he was taken away (WSU, ND) and we still pulled it out.

[stupac2]

I'm saying he definitely gets credit for CMac, but needing to find an all-everything superstar like that again in order to get back to 2015-and-earlier levels of success doesn't bode well.

I mean, Shaw has managed to find two of them so far (Love counts, even if this year was disappointing). I'm also not sure that 2015 required McCaffrey to win, in some of our biggest games he was taken away (WSU, ND) and we still pulled it out.

[Goose]

No matter what you do, you are trading off between advantages and disadvantages. The key is finding the best choice of trade offs for your team and the game situation.

Absolutely true. Shaw was trying to do that when he substituted. I think that probably, if he had it to do over again, he would not have substituted. Then again, if he felt compelled to do so because he felt it maximized our probability of winning, it is worth looking at the possibility of too much specialization. Since we didn't win, Shaw probably will examine his options and modify something. It may be that he doesn't have any better options. If that is so, we will continue to fail in those situations.

[Goose]

No matter what you do, you are trading off between advantages and disadvantages. The key is finding the best choice of trade offs for your team and the game situation.

Absolutely true. Shaw was trying to do that when he substituted. I think that probably, if he had it to do over again, he would not have substituted. Then again, if he felt compelled to do so because he felt it maximized our probability of winning, it is worth looking at the possibility of too much specialization. Since we didn't win, Shaw probably will examine his options and modify something. It may be that he doesn't have any better options. If that is so, we will continue to fail in those situations.

[Mick]

It often feels that critics fail to acknowledge that, by definition,  a head coach can't focus on everything.  He also isn't going to be great at everything.

I don't think Harbaugh could get the results he does without the crazy.  It seems that the same single-minded fanaticism that drives him to succeed, also makes him a bit of a sociopath.  When he's our guy, I don't see the value in picking at his warts.  It's not going to make him better.  He is who he is.  

We can wish for somebody else, but when you exchange the bad, you also exchange the good.

Speaking of Harbaugh, Athlon has 2019's Michigan team at a pre-season #8 ranking, didn't rank Stanford but both Washington schools, Oregon and Utah made their Top 25:
https://athlonsports.com/college-footbal...kings-2019

Sporting news has Stanford at #21 and Michigan at #10:
http://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-foot...q91g458llh

SBNation has Michigan at #6, adds USC to Wash schools, Oregon and Utah, no Stanford in their Top 25:
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...early-2019

NCAA.com has Stanford at #20, Michigan at #7:
https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...season-top

[Mick]

It often feels that critics fail to acknowledge that, by definition,  a head coach can't focus on everything.  He also isn't going to be great at everything.

I don't think Harbaugh could get the results he does without the crazy.  It seems that the same single-minded fanaticism that drives him to succeed, also makes him a bit of a sociopath.  When he's our guy, I don't see the value in picking at his warts.  It's not going to make him better.  He is who he is.  

We can wish for somebody else, but when you exchange the bad, you also exchange the good.

Speaking of Harbaugh, Athlon has 2019's Michigan team at a pre-season #8 ranking, didn't rank Stanford but both Washington schools, Oregon and Utah made their Top 25:
https://athlonsports.com/college-footbal...kings-2019

Sporting news has Stanford at #21 and Michigan at #10:
http://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-foot...q91g458llh

SBNation has Michigan at #6, adds USC to Wash schools, Oregon and Utah, no Stanford in their Top 25:
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...early-2019

NCAA.com has Stanford at #20, Michigan at #7:
https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...season-top

[Red State1]

Especially considering:
(1) Toby had just run about 20 yards carrying multiple Cal defenders on his back after receiving a pass from Luck. And had rushed for 136 yards on the day, wiith Cal having little to no luck in stopping him.  Oh, and Luck had missed on 4 of 5 passes, including three of the four plays in the previous drive that had resulted in a turnover on downs at the Cal 21 yard line, when a field goal would've tied the game. 

(2) We had timeouts, and could've used one of them to give him a blow after that pass reception. When Toby was on the bench, we passed incomplete, then brought him back in on 2nd and 10 - and passed again, resulting in the interception that sealed the game.  And there was still 1:42 left in the game.

Yep, that one still stings.

VG

That was a hard loss to swallow but cal was the better team that day. They really beat Stanford at their own game. After Stanford jumped out to a quick 14-0 lead, Cal really dominated the game. I believe cal RB Shane Vareen carried 40 times for around 200 yards. Toby had an early long TD run of about 65 yards where was untouched. I had an eery feeling about that play and I turned to my friend and said, "That was almost too easy". Gerhart was really shut down after that run and Stanford was forced to go to the pass way more than they had the previous two games, victories over Oregon and USC. Stanford was in position to pull off the win, but cal really earned that victory.

[Red State1]

Especially considering:
(1) Toby had just run about 20 yards carrying multiple Cal defenders on his back after receiving a pass from Luck. And had rushed for 136 yards on the day, wiith Cal having little to no luck in stopping him.  Oh, and Luck had missed on 4 of 5 passes, including three of the four plays in the previous drive that had resulted in a turnover on downs at the Cal 21 yard line, when a field goal would've tied the game. 

(2) We had timeouts, and could've used one of them to give him a blow after that pass reception. When Toby was on the bench, we passed incomplete, then brought him back in on 2nd and 10 - and passed again, resulting in the interception that sealed the game.  And there was still 1:42 left in the game.

Yep, that one still stings.

VG

That was a hard loss to swallow but cal was the better team that day. They really beat Stanford at their own game. After Stanford jumped out to a quick 14-0 lead, Cal really dominated the game. I believe cal RB Shane Vareen carried 40 times for around 200 yards. Toby had an early long TD run of about 65 yards where was untouched. I had an eery feeling about that play and I turned to my friend and said, "That was almost too easy". Gerhart was really shut down after that run and Stanford was forced to go to the pass way more than they had the previous two games, victories over Oregon and USC. Stanford was in position to pull off the win, but cal really earned that victory.

[Hank 91]

As for Harbaugh, he lost me at "I wanted to put fifty on them" when explaining his two point conversion attempt during a beat down of SC and Petey. While probably deserving, not quite Stanford level sportsmanship. 

Nine times out of ten, I would agree -- or shall we say, ten teams out of eleven Pac-12 opponents, I would agree, even for C.al.  But after all the years of humiliation at USC's hands, and I mean eight separate games in which USC had won by 30+ over Stanford, after six losses in seven years prior to the 55-21 win (five of the six losses having come by double digits) I think a single win by 34 points is warranted over the coach who administered those multiple losses, particularly on the road in a football recruiting hotbed.  And we're 8-4 against USC since that win, with three of the four losses by just three points.  Prior to that win, Stanford was 26-57-3 against the T.rojans.

Frankly, I thought it took some stones for Carroll to say "What's your deal?"  In the seven prior games, USC hung 49, 44, 31, 51, 42, 23 (in the Greatest Game Ever) and 45 points on Stanford.  And that 55-21 win was the first of four straight over USC, the only time in history that's happened.

I'd agree with this. I was at that game, and it resonated throughout the region for a few days after that. The only time in my life that I called into a sports radio show was that Monday when the topic was whether or not Stanford should have run up the score. The SoCal audience was very down on the idea, and kept harping on the lack of sportsmanship. When I called, I explained that this wasn't just about USC, it was about sending a message to the entire conference that Stanford football was here, and here to stay. That game meant something, and I firmly believe we wouldn't be where we are right now if we hadn't blown them out like that.

[Hank 91]

As for Harbaugh, he lost me at "I wanted to put fifty on them" when explaining his two point conversion attempt during a beat down of SC and Petey. While probably deserving, not quite Stanford level sportsmanship. 

Nine times out of ten, I would agree -- or shall we say, ten teams out of eleven Pac-12 opponents, I would agree, even for C.al.  But after all the years of humiliation at USC's hands, and I mean eight separate games in which USC had won by 30+ over Stanford, after six losses in seven years prior to the 55-21 win (five of the six losses having come by double digits) I think a single win by 34 points is warranted over the coach who administered those multiple losses, particularly on the road in a football recruiting hotbed.  And we're 8-4 against USC since that win, with three of the four losses by just three points.  Prior to that win, Stanford was 26-57-3 against the T.rojans.

Frankly, I thought it took some stones for Carroll to say "What's your deal?"  In the seven prior games, USC hung 49, 44, 31, 51, 42, 23 (in the Greatest Game Ever) and 45 points on Stanford.  And that 55-21 win was the first of four straight over USC, the only time in history that's happened.

I'd agree with this. I was at that game, and it resonated throughout the region for a few days after that. The only time in my life that I called into a sports radio show was that Monday when the topic was whether or not Stanford should have run up the score. The SoCal audience was very down on the idea, and kept harping on the lack of sportsmanship. When I called, I explained that this wasn't just about USC, it was about sending a message to the entire conference that Stanford football was here, and here to stay. That game meant something, and I firmly believe we wouldn't be where we are right now if we hadn't blown them out like that.

[BostonCard]

Speaking of Harbaugh, Athlon has 2019's Michigan team at a pre-season #8 ranking, didn't rank Stanford but both Washington schools, Oregon and Utah made their Top 25:
https://athlonsports.com/college-footbal...kings-2019

Sporting news has Stanford at #21 and Michigan at #10:
http://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-foot...q91g458llh

SBNation has Michigan at #6, adds USC to Wash schools, Oregon and Utah, no Stanford in their Top 25:
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...early-2019

NCAA.com has Stanford at #20, Michigan at #7:
https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...season-top

That's decidedly more confidence in Shaw and Stanford out there than most posters here have; I think most people here think we are well out of the top-25.  Someone here said that'd be happy if we went to a bowl and beat Cal.

BC

[BostonCard]

Speaking of Harbaugh, Athlon has 2019's Michigan team at a pre-season #8 ranking, didn't rank Stanford but both Washington schools, Oregon and Utah made their Top 25:
https://athlonsports.com/college-footbal...kings-2019

Sporting news has Stanford at #21 and Michigan at #10:
http://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-foot...q91g458llh

SBNation has Michigan at #6, adds USC to Wash schools, Oregon and Utah, no Stanford in their Top 25:
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...early-2019

NCAA.com has Stanford at #20, Michigan at #7:
https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...season-top

That's decidedly more confidence in Shaw and Stanford out there than most posters here have; I think most people here think we are well out of the top-25.  Someone here said that'd be happy if we went to a bowl and beat Cal.

BC

[terry]

Some numbers re David Shaw:

W/L record:                        82-26
Winning pct.:                      .759
Conf. W/L record:               55-17
Conf. winning pct.:              .764

Total seasons:                        8 
Winning seasons:                  8
Seasons with 9+ wins:           7
Average wins per year:        10.3
Average losses per year:       3.3

Division championships:          4
Conference championships:    3
Bowl appearances:                 8
Bowl wins:                              5
Rose Bowl wins:                     2
Post-season W/L record:       8-4   (includes bowls and conf. championship games)

Final AP Top 10 rankings:      3
Final AP Top 20 rankings:      6

Record against spread:     65-41-2
Cover pct. vs. spread:        63.3%
Cover pct. rank, 2011-18:      1    (rank among Power 5 teams) (yes, Stanford is #1)

Stanford winning records, 1981-2010:   9 winning records in 30 seasons
Stanford winning records under Shaw:  8 winning records in 8 seasons

[terry]

Some numbers re David Shaw:

W/L record:                        82-26
Winning pct.:                      .759
Conf. W/L record:               55-17
Conf. winning pct.:              .764

Total seasons:                        8 
Winning seasons:                  8
Seasons with 9+ wins:           7
Average wins per year:        10.3
Average losses per year:       3.3

Division championships:          4
Conference championships:    3
Bowl appearances:                 8
Bowl wins:                              5
Rose Bowl wins:                     2
Post-season W/L record:       8-4   (includes bowls and conf. championship games)

Final AP Top 10 rankings:      3
Final AP Top 20 rankings:      6

Record against spread:     65-41-2
Cover pct. vs. spread:        63.3%
Cover pct. rank, 2011-18:      1    (rank among Power 5 teams) (yes, Stanford is #1)

Stanford winning records, 1981-2010:   9 winning records in 30 seasons
Stanford winning records under Shaw:  8 winning records in 8 seasons

[BostonCard]

The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

You are right to be skeptical; it would be hard for anyone in the country, outside of maybe Alabama and Clemson, to win their conference three times in five years and go to four BCS bowls in five years.  The 2011 - 2015 period was one of the most outstandingly consistent periods in Stanford history, and it is hard for any team, let alone Stanford, to maintain that level of excellence for that long.  I mean, consider Auburn, for example.  Gene Chizik won a national championship in 2010.  Two years later he had a losing record and was fired.  Or look at FSU; three conference championships between 2012 and 2014, including a national championship in 2013, and five consecutive 10-win seasons.  But by 2017, Jimbo Fisher resigned with the Seminoles going 5-6 (they ended the season 7-6).  Last year, Willie Taggert went 5-7.  Or look at the Oregon Ducks.  They were Pac-10/12 champions in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014 when they went to the National Championship game under Mark Helfrich.  By 2016, the Ducks were 4-8 and Helfrich was fired.

Again, unless you are Alabama, it is very hard to retain that level of excellence over a prolonged period of time.  It is completely normal to revert some to the mean, if for no other reason, that any random fluctuation when you are very good is more likely to leave you worse off than better off (as there is not much room for improvement).

Shaw's impressive accomplishment is not in making the teams so good between 2011-2015, but in maintaining that excellence (even if it is not quite that level).  Dropping from a 10.8 win per year average is not surprising in the least; it is expected... being able to keep a 9.3 wins per year average is actually an impressive accomplishment.

BC

[BostonCard]

The question I have going forward is can Shaw sustain the level of excellence of his first five years on the job, and I'm skeptical.

You are right to be skeptical; it would be hard for anyone in the country, outside of maybe Alabama and Clemson, to win their conference three times in five years and go to four BCS bowls in five years.  The 2011 - 2015 period was one of the most outstandingly consistent periods in Stanford history, and it is hard for any team, let alone Stanford, to maintain that level of excellence for that long.  I mean, consider Auburn, for example.  Gene Chizik won a national championship in 2010.  Two years later he had a losing record and was fired.  Or look at FSU; three conference championships between 2012 and 2014, including a national championship in 2013, and five consecutive 10-win seasons.  But by 2017, Jimbo Fisher resigned with the Seminoles going 5-6 (they ended the season 7-6).  Last year, Willie Taggert went 5-7.  Or look at the Oregon Ducks.  They were Pac-10/12 champions in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014 when they went to the National Championship game under Mark Helfrich.  By 2016, the Ducks were 4-8 and Helfrich was fired.

Again, unless you are Alabama, it is very hard to retain that level of excellence over a prolonged period of time.  It is completely normal to revert some to the mean, if for no other reason, that any random fluctuation when you are very good is more likely to leave you worse off than better off (as there is not much room for improvement).

Shaw's impressive accomplishment is not in making the teams so good between 2011-2015, but in maintaining that excellence (even if it is not quite that level).  Dropping from a 10.8 win per year average is not surprising in the least; it is expected... being able to keep a 9.3 wins per year average is actually an impressive accomplishment.

BC

[Goose]

Dropping from a 10.8 win per year average is not surprising in the least; it is expected... being able to keep a 9.3 wins per year average is actually an impressive accomplishment.

BC

+1. 9.3 wins a year is out on the tail of the curve. I am sure that every year all teams have new and different problems. Eliminating all the variables is pretty much impossible unless you are Alabama. Even Clemson could have a hard time if some of their loyal coaches decide to move on. Eventually, they will, and that will be another challenge. They may not be able to overcome it. It has been said, and quoted by Shaw I believe, that when you are hired as a coach, the clock starts on when you will be fired. Eventually, you will fall below expectations. Lets hope that is at least 15 years from now.

[Goose]

Dropping from a 10.8 win per year average is not surprising in the least; it is expected... being able to keep a 9.3 wins per year average is actually an impressive accomplishment.

BC

+1. 9.3 wins a year is out on the tail of the curve. I am sure that every year all teams have new and different problems. Eliminating all the variables is pretty much impossible unless you are Alabama. Even Clemson could have a hard time if some of their loyal coaches decide to move on. Eventually, they will, and that will be another challenge. They may not be able to overcome it. It has been said, and quoted by Shaw I believe, that when you are hired as a coach, the clock starts on when you will be fired. Eventually, you will fall below expectations. Lets hope that is at least 15 years from now.

[CornFed]

And that's not even considering the strength of the schedule during Shaw's tenure.

[CornFed]

And that's not even considering the strength of the schedule during Shaw's tenure.

[BostonCard]

Quiz: What do Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Boise State have in common?

Answer: They are the only teams that have had a better record than Stanford over the last 8 years (Shaw's tenure as head coach).

Teams not on that list: Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Wisconsin, Oregon, Oklahoma State, Notre Dame... and a bunch of others.

BC

---

I'm saying he definitely gets credit for CMac, but needing to find an all-everything superstar like that again in order to get back to 2015-and-earlier levels of success doesn't bode well.

So, we should discount Harbaugh's accomplishments as well because: Luck?

Worth noting that Shaw took us to two Rose Bowls with Hogan and Taylor (2012) and Hogan and Gaffney (2013).  There were some great defenders on those teams, but none that would qualify as an "all-everything superstar".

As mentioned elsewhere, Shaw has managed to win with an explosive offense and mediocre defense, a mediocre offense and great defenses, a run-first power offense, a pass-first big play offense.  He's won with Voldemort runners-up on offense; he's won with good but hardly superstar players.  He's won with dominant offensive lines; he's won with offensive lines that were a sieve on pass blocking and dysfunctional offensive lines that couldn't run-block a damn.  The only constant in 8 years as head coach is that he has always won... never fewer than eight games.

To be honest, I find that much more impressive than his ability to win 11+ games with Andrew Luck or Christian McCaffrey on the roster. 

BC

[BostonCard]

Quiz: What do Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Boise State have in common?

Answer: They are the only teams that have had a better record than Stanford over the last 8 years (Shaw's tenure as head coach).

Teams not on that list: Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Wisconsin, Oregon, Oklahoma State, Notre Dame... and a bunch of others.

BC

---

I'm saying he definitely gets credit for CMac, but needing to find an all-everything superstar like that again in order to get back to 2015-and-earlier levels of success doesn't bode well.

So, we should discount Harbaugh's accomplishments as well because: Luck?

Worth noting that Shaw took us to two Rose Bowls with Hogan and Taylor (2012) and Hogan and Gaffney (2013).  There were some great defenders on those teams, but none that would qualify as an "all-everything superstar".

As mentioned elsewhere, Shaw has managed to win with an explosive offense and mediocre defense, a mediocre offense and great defenses, a run-first power offense, a pass-first big play offense.  He's won with Voldemort runners-up on offense; he's won with good but hardly superstar players.  He's won with dominant offensive lines; he's won with offensive lines that were a sieve on pass blocking and dysfunctional offensive lines that couldn't run-block a damn.  The only constant in 8 years as head coach is that he has always won... never fewer than eight games.

To be honest, I find that much more impressive than his ability to win 11+ games with Andrew Luck or Christian McCaffrey on the roster. 

BC

[JustAnotherFan]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

...Wut? When has this been an issue? Unless you include "burning TOs early to avoid delay of game" in which case that's fair, I suppose, but not really a time management issue.

Basically every close game.

The most obvious was the UCLA game in (I believe) 2016. 

And substituting players during a 2-minute drill certainly counts as clock management failures. That happened more than once this season alone. 

Also, I can't believe someone gave me a negative 1 for saying "I'm not over crapping on Coach Shaw" when it was a direct response to the thread's title. Get a grip.

Listen, I am a supporter of Shaw. But I am also very concerned that he is not pushing himself to learn from mistakes year after year. Clock management is on him. That cannot be blamed on players or assistant coaches.

[JustAnotherFan]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

...Wut? When has this been an issue? Unless you include "burning TOs early to avoid delay of game" in which case that's fair, I suppose, but not really a time management issue.

Basically every close game.

The most obvious was the UCLA game in (I believe) 2016. 

And substituting players during a 2-minute drill certainly counts as clock management failures. That happened more than once this season alone. 

Also, I can't believe someone gave me a negative 1 for saying "I'm not over crapping on Coach Shaw" when it was a direct response to the thread's title. Get a grip.

Listen, I am a supporter of Shaw. But I am also very concerned that he is not pushing himself to learn from mistakes year after year. Clock management is on him. That cannot be blamed on players or assistant coaches.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

<rant>

I had an appointment in Menlo Park today, so I stopped by Stanford on my way home. At the stadium apparel store, of all places, I heard the teller remark, "Shaw should learn a thing or two."

I just let loose because I'm so tired of hearing that. Shaw is the winningest coach in Stanford history. He's taken us to three Rose Bowls and won two. Only Tiny Thornhill matched the former, and only John Ralston matched the latter. Not even the great Bill Walsh managed that. Shaw has presided over the Pac-12 team with the best record this decade. 

Then Idiotboy disparaged the conference championships Shaw's won, "Yeah, but that game's only been since 2014," as though somehow teams got to 90-some Rose Bowls without being conference champions.

You don't think Shaw's a good coach? Dabo Swiney disagrees, and I think he know something about college football. 

The idiot at the Track House, as it's still colloquially called, said, "But Harbaugh smashed West Virginia in his bowl game and Shaw only won his by one point." I'm so over the comparisons. Harbaugh was a good coach for then, but he's not our coach now, and he never won even one FBS conference championship.

You guys comparing Harbaugh to Shaw need to get over it. It's always "Harbaugh would have..." You can talk about what Harbaugh might have done, but never look at what Shaw actually did. Stop pining for Harbaugh. He was a good coach who raised Stanford's profile and fans' perspective, but he cared about Stanford as much as he cared about the University of San Diego. It was a stepping stone. Every single time Harbaugh had the opportunity to look at another team, he did. Conversely, Shaw lives and breathes Stanford. 

And let's not get started on rivalry games because Shaw has never, ever lost to Cal. 

Don't like Shaw's play calling? Well, don't forget that it was an idiotic play call that lost the 2009 Big Game, which was the same play that made Harbaugh the only 49er coach to ever lose a Super Bowl. 

You Harbaugh fans who haven't gotten on board go become Michigan fans. I'm a Stanford fan, and I'm a fan of the guy who's in the skipper's seat now. 

</rant>

Say it loud and proud !

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

<rant>

I had an appointment in Menlo Park today, so I stopped by Stanford on my way home. At the stadium apparel store, of all places, I heard the teller remark, "Shaw should learn a thing or two."

I just let loose because I'm so tired of hearing that. Shaw is the winningest coach in Stanford history. He's taken us to three Rose Bowls and won two. Only Tiny Thornhill matched the former, and only John Ralston matched the latter. Not even the great Bill Walsh managed that. Shaw has presided over the Pac-12 team with the best record this decade. 

Then Idiotboy disparaged the conference championships Shaw's won, "Yeah, but that game's only been since 2014," as though somehow teams got to 90-some Rose Bowls without being conference champions.

You don't think Shaw's a good coach? Dabo Swiney disagrees, and I think he know something about college football. 

The idiot at the Track House, as it's still colloquially called, said, "But Harbaugh smashed West Virginia in his bowl game and Shaw only won his by one point." I'm so over the comparisons. Harbaugh was a good coach for then, but he's not our coach now, and he never won even one FBS conference championship.

You guys comparing Harbaugh to Shaw need to get over it. It's always "Harbaugh would have..." You can talk about what Harbaugh might have done, but never look at what Shaw actually did. Stop pining for Harbaugh. He was a good coach who raised Stanford's profile and fans' perspective, but he cared about Stanford as much as he cared about the University of San Diego. It was a stepping stone. Every single time Harbaugh had the opportunity to look at another team, he did. Conversely, Shaw lives and breathes Stanford. 

And let's not get started on rivalry games because Shaw has never, ever lost to Cal. 

Don't like Shaw's play calling? Well, don't forget that it was an idiotic play call that lost the 2009 Big Game, which was the same play that made Harbaugh the only 49er coach to ever lose a Super Bowl. 

You Harbaugh fans who haven't gotten on board go become Michigan fans. I'm a Stanford fan, and I'm a fan of the guy who's in the skipper's seat now. 

</rant>

Say it loud and proud !

[BostonCard]

Basically every close game.

The most obvious was the UCLA game in (I believe) 2016. 

Seems odd to highlight a team Shaw has never lost to.

BC

[BostonCard]

Basically every close game.

The most obvious was the UCLA game in (I believe) 2016. 

Seems odd to highlight a team Shaw has never lost to.

BC

[Goose]

To be honest, I find that much more impressive than his ability to win 11+ games with Andrew Luck or Christian McCaffrey on the roster. 

BC

You are absolutely correct. Shaw has adapted, despite what others say. The last two or three years have been a big challenge. Yes, you can say he shouldn't have allowed that to happen, but he cannot just substitute in a better player like Alabama can. He has to make the best of what he has. He has arguably done that.

[Goose]

To be honest, I find that much more impressive than his ability to win 11+ games with Andrew Luck or Christian McCaffrey on the roster. 

BC

You are absolutely correct. Shaw has adapted, despite what others say. The last two or three years have been a big challenge. Yes, you can say he shouldn't have allowed that to happen, but he cannot just substitute in a better player like Alabama can. He has to make the best of what he has. He has arguably done that.

[JustAnotherFan]

Basically every close game.

The most obvious was the UCLA game in (I believe) 2016. 

Seems odd to highlight a team Shaw has never lost to.

BC

Did you watch the game? Seems odd to dismiss horrible clock management just because we won the game.

[JustAnotherFan]

Basically every close game.

The most obvious was the UCLA game in (I believe) 2016. 

Seems odd to highlight a team Shaw has never lost to.

BC

Did you watch the game? Seems odd to dismiss horrible clock management just because we won the game.

[BostonCard]

Wait, the comeback game against UCLA with the JJ Arcega Whiteside fade to win it?  That seems like a very peculiar game to complain about, since we actually successully came back from a four point deficit with about two minutes to win it with about 30 seconds left.  I mean, there was a lot to complain about, including the fact that until that point Ryan Burns hadn’t like 70 yards passing the ball, mostly to nobody in particular, but clock management was not high on the list.  Or did I watch the wrong game?

BC

---

By the way, David Shaw beat Josh Rosen with Ryan Burns.  Let that sink in for a minute.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wait, the comeback game against UCLA with the JJ Arcega Whiteside fade to win it?  That seems like a very peculiar game to complain about, since we actually successully came back from a four point deficit with about two minutes to win it with about 30 seconds left.  I mean, there was a lot to complain about, including the fact that until that point Ryan Burns hadn’t like 70 yards passing the ball, mostly to nobody in particular, but clock management was not high on the list.  Or did I watch the wrong game?

BC

---

By the way, David Shaw beat Josh Rosen with Ryan Burns.  Let that sink in for a minute.

BC

[d4cohn]

Basically every close game.

The most obvious was the UCLA game in (I believe) 2016. 

Seems odd to highlight a team Shaw has never lost to.

BC

Did you watch the game? Seems odd to dismiss horrible clock management just because we won the game.

I also think, even if the bottom-line isn't always just the bottom-line, your argument regarding clock management would be strengthened by pointing to a game where such clock management cost us. It would seem this year's UW game would be among the stronger examples; however, on the other hand, in so many other games this year (SC, ASU, Pitt even), Coach Shaw locked up wins with his clock management.

[d4cohn]

Basically every close game.

The most obvious was the UCLA game in (I believe) 2016. 

Seems odd to highlight a team Shaw has never lost to.

BC

Did you watch the game? Seems odd to dismiss horrible clock management just because we won the game.

I also think, even if the bottom-line isn't always just the bottom-line, your argument regarding clock management would be strengthened by pointing to a game where such clock management cost us. It would seem this year's UW game would be among the stronger examples; however, on the other hand, in so many other games this year (SC, ASU, Pitt even), Coach Shaw locked up wins with his clock management.