[cardcrimson]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

Well, frankly. They all can be true. Seemingly, we've regressed in a myriad of areas. Including in those areas you mentioned, and in many more. Apparent complacency is one you did mention, and it crosses everything.

FWIW, new talent doesn't come out of the blue, it gets recruited. And luck has very little to do with winning, unless of course it's Andrew.

Just so I understand, are you basing “apparent complacency” on a string of 9-win seasons, a win over the Big Ten West champion, two bad road losses, and a 2020 recruiting class that is light on D but generally of normal quality for us?

Perhaps a little recency bias there?

Nope. Same thing several folks here have been worried about for a few years. Sadly, they predicted the future accurately thus far.

[cardcrimson]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

Well, frankly. They all can be true. Seemingly, we've regressed in a myriad of areas. Including in those areas you mentioned, and in many more. Apparent complacency is one you did mention, and it crosses everything.

FWIW, new talent doesn't come out of the blue, it gets recruited. And luck has very little to do with winning, unless of course it's Andrew.

Just so I understand, are you basing “apparent complacency” on a string of 9-win seasons, a win over the Big Ten West champion, two bad road losses, and a 2020 recruiting class that is light on D but generally of normal quality for us?

Perhaps a little recency bias there?

Nope. Same thing several folks here have been worried about for a few years. Sadly, they predicted the future accurately thus far.

[BostonCard]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

Thanks for the perspective.  I think it is good to remind ourselves that Shaw has won the Pac-12 three times, the Pac-12 North 4, never missed a bowl game, never had a losing record, and in fact never had fewer than 8 wins.  Coaching in college football is hard, and by definition the average coach will go 6-6 in the regular season.  Moreover, we might think that Stanford is special and has built in advantages that other schools don't have, but fans of every school think that.  Hell, fans of other schools (like Rice) are probably going If Stanford can get 8 wins year in and year out, why can't we? And of course historically there is no reason to believe that any other coach would be able to achieve more

I'm very sensitive to the fact that we, as fans, have a tendency to overestimate how easy organizational changes, and tend to underestimate the opportunity costs and downsides.  I see it often with playcalling, which every fan who watches the game thinks they can do better than the idiot behind the headset.  Yes, we see when a power run between the tackles gets stopped behind the LOS, and it is super easy to say we should have passed when we rushed, spread the field out instead of concentrated our blockers, run wide instead of run up the middle, or zagged when we zigged, but all of those are unfalsifiable hypotheses (unless you happened to visit the parallel play where we ran the play call you liked), but it happens with other things too.  I have said that we should offer more players so that we can fill more scholarships, but Harbaugh, who had a very expansive offer strategy, left a few recruits pissed off when he just yanked an offer (or just ghosted them), and possibly burned some bridges to high school coaches.

Now with all those caveats being mentioned, there are a few things that Shaw should probably do that are semi-obvious and have relatively easy to identify upsides and little to no downsides:

First, we should allow spring official visits, or at least step back from a blanket rule against them.  Maybe you evaluate cases individually and decide whether a particular student has the means to make an unofficial visit, how far away they are, and how much an official visit would help us.  Or maybe you try it out a year and see if you can engender camaraderie during the recruiting process (that is, have one or a couple "big visits" in the spring) instead of after most players have signed LOIs.

Second, we should make more offers.  Really, it is hard to see the downside of having 85 filled scholarships each and every year.  Maybe you hold one back from a preferred walk-on, but really the money is a rounding error to the program and even if you have to push for an academic or athletic reach, or a guy who was injured his senior year but has potential, or a hungry guy who is a bit undersized for his position, or a guy with  potential who maybe has only been playing for a few years and is still learning football, maybe you offer those guys and they provide crucial depth to your squad, so you aren't forced to play three true freshmen on the offensive line.  You never know when the next Gardner (2* player when he was recruited) comes along, and the worst thing that happens if they don't pan out is they sit on the bench for four years.  The guys we don't offer can't even keep the bench warm.

Third, and I think this is the most controversial, we should encourage Tavita to go out for a few years, learn a completely new system from a great offensive mind, and then come back with the opportunity to incorporate what he's learned  with the principles he knows to help take Stanford's offense in a new direction.  Everything I've heard about Tavita is that he has the potential to be a great offensive coordinator, and that he is someone we want to keep our eye out for when Shaw eventually finds something else to do.  But I don't think we should hoard coaches.  Tavita should be allowed to, hell, encouraged, to stretch as a coordinator.  The only system he's ever worked with is the one that Harbaugh brought and Shaw developed, and Tavita is now refining.  Yes, he has done a lot to alter the system.  So I think he has it in him to work to improve what we have.  But right now, he needs to learn how to take the next step and integrate a bunch of different things into a coherent offensive philosophy.  And I think some time away from Stanford, under the tutelage of one of the more innovative NFL or college head coaches, would do him wonders.  Then he can come back to revamp the Stanford offense, or take over after Shaw leaves.

BC

[BostonCard]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

Thanks for the perspective.  I think it is good to remind ourselves that Shaw has won the Pac-12 three times, the Pac-12 North 4, never missed a bowl game, never had a losing record, and in fact never had fewer than 8 wins.  Coaching in college football is hard, and by definition the average coach will go 6-6 in the regular season.  Moreover, we might think that Stanford is special and has built in advantages that other schools don't have, but fans of every school think that.  Hell, fans of other schools (like Rice) are probably going If Stanford can get 8 wins year in and year out, why can't we? And of course historically there is no reason to believe that any other coach would be able to achieve more

I'm very sensitive to the fact that we, as fans, have a tendency to overestimate how easy organizational changes, and tend to underestimate the opportunity costs and downsides.  I see it often with playcalling, which every fan who watches the game thinks they can do better than the idiot behind the headset.  Yes, we see when a power run between the tackles gets stopped behind the LOS, and it is super easy to say we should have passed when we rushed, spread the field out instead of concentrated our blockers, run wide instead of run up the middle, or zagged when we zigged, but all of those are unfalsifiable hypotheses (unless you happened to visit the parallel play where we ran the play call you liked), but it happens with other things too.  I have said that we should offer more players so that we can fill more scholarships, but Harbaugh, who had a very expansive offer strategy, left a few recruits pissed off when he just yanked an offer (or just ghosted them), and possibly burned some bridges to high school coaches.

Now with all those caveats being mentioned, there are a few things that Shaw should probably do that are semi-obvious and have relatively easy to identify upsides and little to no downsides:

First, we should allow spring official visits, or at least step back from a blanket rule against them.  Maybe you evaluate cases individually and decide whether a particular student has the means to make an unofficial visit, how far away they are, and how much an official visit would help us.  Or maybe you try it out a year and see if you can engender camaraderie during the recruiting process (that is, have one or a couple "big visits" in the spring) instead of after most players have signed LOIs.

Second, we should make more offers.  Really, it is hard to see the downside of having 85 filled scholarships each and every year.  Maybe you hold one back from a preferred walk-on, but really the money is a rounding error to the program and even if you have to push for an academic or athletic reach, or a guy who was injured his senior year but has potential, or a hungry guy who is a bit undersized for his position, or a guy with  potential who maybe has only been playing for a few years and is still learning football, maybe you offer those guys and they provide crucial depth to your squad, so you aren't forced to play three true freshmen on the offensive line.  You never know when the next Gardner (2* player when he was recruited) comes along, and the worst thing that happens if they don't pan out is they sit on the bench for four years.  The guys we don't offer can't even keep the bench warm.

Third, and I think this is the most controversial, we should encourage Tavita to go out for a few years, learn a completely new system from a great offensive mind, and then come back with the opportunity to incorporate what he's learned  with the principles he knows to help take Stanford's offense in a new direction.  Everything I've heard about Tavita is that he has the potential to be a great offensive coordinator, and that he is someone we want to keep our eye out for when Shaw eventually finds something else to do.  But I don't think we should hoard coaches.  Tavita should be allowed to, hell, encouraged, to stretch as a coordinator.  The only system he's ever worked with is the one that Harbaugh brought and Shaw developed, and Tavita is now refining.  Yes, he has done a lot to alter the system.  So I think he has it in him to work to improve what we have.  But right now, he needs to learn how to take the next step and integrate a bunch of different things into a coherent offensive philosophy.  And I think some time away from Stanford, under the tutelage of one of the more innovative NFL or college head coaches, would do him wonders.  Then he can come back to revamp the Stanford offense, or take over after Shaw leaves.

BC

[CornFed]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

Well, frankly. They all can be true. Seemingly, we've regressed in a myriad of areas. Including in those areas you mentioned, and in many more. Apparent complacency is one you did mention, and it crosses everything.

FWIW, new talent doesn't come out of the blue, it gets recruited. And luck has very little to do with winning, unless of course it's Andrew.

Just so I understand, are you basing “apparent complacency” on a string of 9-win seasons, a win over the Big Ten West champion, two bad road losses, and a 2020 recruiting class that is light on D but generally of normal quality for us?

Perhaps a little recency bias there?

Nope. Same thing several folks here have been worried about for a few years. Sadly, they predicted the future accurately thus far.

Yeah.  It's like predicting 10 of the last two recessions.  The naysayers have been naysaying almost since Day 1 of the David Shaw era.  Eventually there will be some period during which our system falls out of sync, bad decisions are made, we leave Bloomberg in charge of OL and OL recruitment past his "sell-by" date, the strength and conditioning guru lapses, our success leads to early departures for the NFL, unexpected medical retirements, etc. etc. etc.

The "pounce factor" by Shaw's critics is pathetic.  He has never had fewer than 8 victories.  And 3 games into the season that MAY break that trend we've got folks all too happy to trot out their sense of superior insight to what he's been doing wrong all this time.

I don't think Shaw is comfortable losing.  I respect that he doesn't jerk the program around in a panic every time things don't go our way for a bit.  I suspect that, if we win 6 or fewer games this year, he will not be sleeping soundly, looking forward to the next season of Blacklist.  In that event I will be very interested to see what he does to adjust.  Many very good thoughts have been shared here about what actions he might consider.  But while I agree that he seems stubborn about some things, I do not think he's stupid.  Those here who perceive him to be some current version of Woody Hayes are welcome to their opinion.  I just don't agree.

[CornFed]

I am a proud Shawpologist.

The myriad reasons that have been offered for our recent poor results cannot all be true at the same time.  I've heard everything from recruiting to play-calling to insular coordinator promotions to strength and conditioning to admissions standards to CTE to demographics. And more.

Let's see where we end up at the end of the year.  We may very well be 7-6, 6-7, or worse, but would that be a sign of the apocalypse?  No.  I expected 8 regular season wins this year but Vegas expected only 6 - from the outside looking in, this was never going to be a great year.   

Mark Dantonio was 3-9 in 2016 and 10-3 the next year.
Brian Kelly was 4-8 in 2016; two years later, ND went 12-1 and made the CFP.
Are these bad coaches? Are good coaches not permitted one down year, from time to time? 

If David Shaw knee-jerked a fraction as often as we message board pundits called for it, I'm certain he would be a less successful coach in the long run. We're all concerned that a number of problem areas look like trends that are only getting worse. But regression to the mean works in both directions. Luck improves, players and coaches compensate, new talents come out of the blue, freshmen get excessive playing time and turn into fantastic contributors as sophomores.

I still believe we are unlikely to see 2-3 losing seasons in a row under Coach Shaw.  If and when we do, that will be a reasonable time for both sides to question the relationship, but we are far from that point.  

Well, frankly. They all can be true. Seemingly, we've regressed in a myriad of areas. Including in those areas you mentioned, and in many more. Apparent complacency is one you did mention, and it crosses everything.

FWIW, new talent doesn't come out of the blue, it gets recruited. And luck has very little to do with winning, unless of course it's Andrew.

Just so I understand, are you basing “apparent complacency” on a string of 9-win seasons, a win over the Big Ten West champion, two bad road losses, and a 2020 recruiting class that is light on D but generally of normal quality for us?

Perhaps a little recency bias there?

Nope. Same thing several folks here have been worried about for a few years. Sadly, they predicted the future accurately thus far.

Yeah.  It's like predicting 10 of the last two recessions.  The naysayers have been naysaying almost since Day 1 of the David Shaw era.  Eventually there will be some period during which our system falls out of sync, bad decisions are made, we leave Bloomberg in charge of OL and OL recruitment past his "sell-by" date, the strength and conditioning guru lapses, our success leads to early departures for the NFL, unexpected medical retirements, etc. etc. etc.

The "pounce factor" by Shaw's critics is pathetic.  He has never had fewer than 8 victories.  And 3 games into the season that MAY break that trend we've got folks all too happy to trot out their sense of superior insight to what he's been doing wrong all this time.

I don't think Shaw is comfortable losing.  I respect that he doesn't jerk the program around in a panic every time things don't go our way for a bit.  I suspect that, if we win 6 or fewer games this year, he will not be sleeping soundly, looking forward to the next season of Blacklist.  In that event I will be very interested to see what he does to adjust.  Many very good thoughts have been shared here about what actions he might consider.  But while I agree that he seems stubborn about some things, I do not think he's stupid.  Those here who perceive him to be some current version of Woody Hayes are welcome to their opinion.  I just don't agree.

[BostonCard]

Nope. Same thing several folks here have been worried about for a few years. Sadly, they predicted the future accurately thus far.

This strikes me a bit like Paul Samuelson's quip that "To prove that Wall Street is an early omen of movements still to come in GNP, commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions! And its mistakes were beauties."

I'm old enough to remember how after Andrew Luck graduated, and after the first few games where Nunes struggled, people were stating confidently that Shaw could not win without Luck, and that we were headed for dark times; instead we went to the Rose Bowl, in consecutive seasons.  I remember after MSU shut down our offense in that second Rose Bowl, and after we started 2014 5-5 that many of the same people predicted that our offense had grown stagnant and had become easy to stop.  We won the last three games in dominant fashion, scoring 38, 31, and 45 points.  I remember after Northwestern beat us in 2015, again the critics noted that the fact that we could only muster 6 points despite our weapons meant that Shaw had lost a step.  Instead, we went on to win 12 out of the next 13 games, our third Pac-12 championship in four years, culminating with a shellacking of Iowa in the Rose Bowl.  I remember when our offensive line struggled in 2016 and we went through a four game period where we got crushed by Washington and Washington State, scored one offensive touchdown against Notre Dame, then mustered 5 points against Colorado.  Sitting at 4-3, with a bunch of ugly games, surely Shaw's coaching incompetence would become obvious.  We didn't lose the rest of the season, and wound up with another 10-win season.  OK, but we had Christian McCaffrey then.  Surely in 2017, when we started 1-2 with losses on the road against USC and a G5 team (sound familiar) that portended gloom and doom, no?  Well, wrong again.  We won eight of the next nine games and the Pac-12 North title.  Another year, another 9-win season.  OK, but 2018... we couldn't run the ball for jack squat, our offense looked bad.  Our defense continued to slip from the glory years of 2012 - 2013.  We went through a five game period where we lost to Notre Dame by three touchdowns, Utah by 19 points, Washington State at home and Washington, barely eeking out a win against lowly ASU in between them.  At five and four, many wondered whether we'd see our seventh win after we beat OSU.  And of course, we actually won our last four straight for yet another 9 win season.
I do think there are some structural reasons that this year's team will struggle.  I don't think we've found answers for the questions at key positions, and injuries have exacerbated the situation.  I predicted a 7-6 season prior to the year, and from what I've seen so far, I would be inclined to downgrade the forecast.  But I think looking back and saying, this was predictable a long time ago only works if your predictions also included 3 Pac-12 championships, 4 Pac-12 N titles, 8 winning seasons, and no season with fewer than 8 wins since Shaw took over.
Of course the ride will end someday.  But nobody should be credit for saying this is the year it will end... every damned year.

BC

---

Yeah.  It's like predicting 10 of the last two recessions. 

Ha! Looks like we reached for the same (paraphrased) Samuelson quote.  Great minds or something...

BC

[BostonCard]

Nope. Same thing several folks here have been worried about for a few years. Sadly, they predicted the future accurately thus far.

This strikes me a bit like Paul Samuelson's quip that "To prove that Wall Street is an early omen of movements still to come in GNP, commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions! And its mistakes were beauties."

I'm old enough to remember how after Andrew Luck graduated, and after the first few games where Nunes struggled, people were stating confidently that Shaw could not win without Luck, and that we were headed for dark times; instead we went to the Rose Bowl, in consecutive seasons.  I remember after MSU shut down our offense in that second Rose Bowl, and after we started 2014 5-5 that many of the same people predicted that our offense had grown stagnant and had become easy to stop.  We won the last three games in dominant fashion, scoring 38, 31, and 45 points.  I remember after Northwestern beat us in 2015, again the critics noted that the fact that we could only muster 6 points despite our weapons meant that Shaw had lost a step.  Instead, we went on to win 12 out of the next 13 games, our third Pac-12 championship in four years, culminating with a shellacking of Iowa in the Rose Bowl.  I remember when our offensive line struggled in 2016 and we went through a four game period where we got crushed by Washington and Washington State, scored one offensive touchdown against Notre Dame, then mustered 5 points against Colorado.  Sitting at 4-3, with a bunch of ugly games, surely Shaw's coaching incompetence would become obvious.  We didn't lose the rest of the season, and wound up with another 10-win season.  OK, but we had Christian McCaffrey then.  Surely in 2017, when we started 1-2 with losses on the road against USC and a G5 team (sound familiar) that portended gloom and doom, no?  Well, wrong again.  We won eight of the next nine games and the Pac-12 North title.  Another year, another 9-win season.  OK, but 2018... we couldn't run the ball for jack squat, our offense looked bad.  Our defense continued to slip from the glory years of 2012 - 2013.  We went through a five game period where we lost to Notre Dame by three touchdowns, Utah by 19 points, Washington State at home and Washington, barely eeking out a win against lowly ASU in between them.  At five and four, many wondered whether we'd see our seventh win after we beat OSU.  And of course, we actually won our last four straight for yet another 9 win season.
I do think there are some structural reasons that this year's team will struggle.  I don't think we've found answers for the questions at key positions, and injuries have exacerbated the situation.  I predicted a 7-6 season prior to the year, and from what I've seen so far, I would be inclined to downgrade the forecast.  But I think looking back and saying, this was predictable a long time ago only works if your predictions also included 3 Pac-12 championships, 4 Pac-12 N titles, 8 winning seasons, and no season with fewer than 8 wins since Shaw took over.
Of course the ride will end someday.  But nobody should be credit for saying this is the year it will end... every damned year.

BC

---

Yeah.  It's like predicting 10 of the last two recessions. 

Ha! Looks like we reached for the same (paraphrased) Samuelson quote.  Great minds or something...

BC

[cardcrimson]

[quote="CardinalSagehen" pid='255620' dateline='1568675207']

Thanks for the perspective.  I think it is good to remind ourselves that Shaw has won the Pac-12 three times, the Pac-12 North 4, never missed a bowl game, never had a losing record, and in fact never had fewer than 8 wins.  Coaching in college football is hard, and by definition the average coach will go 6-6 in the regular season.  Moreover, we might think that Stanford is special and has built in advantages that other schools don't have, but fans of every school think that.  Hell, fans of other schools (like Rice) are probably going If Stanford can get 8 wins year in and year out, why can't we? And of course historically there is no reason to believe that any other coach would be able to achieve more



I'm very sensitive to the fact that we, as fans, have a tendency to overestimate how easy organizational changes, and tend to underestimate the opportunity costs and downsides.  I see it often with playcalling, which every fan who watches the game thinks they can do better than the idiot behind the headset.  Yes, we see when a power run between the tackles gets stopped behind the LOS, and it is super easy to say we should have passed when we rushed, spread the field out instead of concentrated our blockers, run wide instead of run up the middle, or zagged when we zigged, but all of those are unfalsifiable hypotheses (unless you happened to visit the parallel play where we ran the play call you liked), but it happens with other things too.  I have said that we should offer more players so that we can fill more scholarships, but Harbaugh, who had a very expansive offer strategy, left a few recruits pissed off when he just yanked an offer (or just ghosted them), and possibly burned some bridges to high school coaches.



Now with all those caveats being mentioned, there are a few things that Shaw should probably do that are semi-obvious and have relatively easy to identify upsides and little to no downsides:



First, we should allow spring official visits, or at least step back from a blanket rule against them.  Maybe you evaluate cases individually and decide whether a particular student has the means to make an unofficial visit, how far away they are, and how much an official visit would help us.  Or maybe you try it out a year and see if you can engender camaraderie during the recruiting process (that is, have one or a couple "big visits" in the spring) instead of after most players have signed LOIs.



Second, we should make more offers.  Really, it is hard to see the downside of having 85 filled scholarships each and every year.  Maybe you hold one back from a preferred walk-on, but really the money is a rounding error to the program and even if you have to push for an academic or athletic reach, or a guy who was injured his senior year but has potential, or a hungry guy who is a bit undersized for his position, or a guy with  potential who maybe has only been playing for a few years and is still learning football, maybe you offer those guys and they provide crucial depth to your squad, so you aren't forced to play three true freshmen on the offensive line.  You never know when the next Gardner (2* player when he was recruited) comes along, and the worst thing that happens if they don't pan out is they sit on the bench for four years.  The guys we don't offer can't even keep the bench warm.



Third, and I think this is the most controversial, we should encourage Tavita to go out for a few years, learn a completely new system from a great offensive mind, and then come back with the opportunity to incorporate what he's learned  with the principles he knows to help take Stanford's offense in a new direction.  Everything I've heard about Tavita is that he has the potential to be a great offensive coordinator, and that he is someone we want to keep our eye out for when Shaw eventually finds something else to do.  But I don't think we should hoard coaches.  Tavita should be allowed to, hell, encouraged, to stretch as a coordinator.  The only system he's ever worked with is the one that Harbaugh brought and Shaw developed, and Tavita is now refining.  Yes, he has done a lot to alter the system.  So I think he has it in him to work to improve what we have.  But right now, he needs to learn how to take the next step and integrate a bunch of different things into a coherent offensive philosophy.  And I think some time away from Stanford, under the tutelage of one of the more innovative NFL or college head coaches, would do him wonders.  Then he can come back to revamp the Stanford offense, or take over after Shaw leaves.



BC

Nice post. Though I swear I read similar from folks last year. Probably even the year before. Maybe even the year before that. NONE of the issues are new. What's new though, it's as if EF Hutton is finally bringing up the same concerns.

[cardcrimson]

[quote="CardinalSagehen" pid='255620' dateline='1568675207']

Thanks for the perspective.  I think it is good to remind ourselves that Shaw has won the Pac-12 three times, the Pac-12 North 4, never missed a bowl game, never had a losing record, and in fact never had fewer than 8 wins.  Coaching in college football is hard, and by definition the average coach will go 6-6 in the regular season.  Moreover, we might think that Stanford is special and has built in advantages that other schools don't have, but fans of every school think that.  Hell, fans of other schools (like Rice) are probably going If Stanford can get 8 wins year in and year out, why can't we? And of course historically there is no reason to believe that any other coach would be able to achieve more



I'm very sensitive to the fact that we, as fans, have a tendency to overestimate how easy organizational changes, and tend to underestimate the opportunity costs and downsides.  I see it often with playcalling, which every fan who watches the game thinks they can do better than the idiot behind the headset.  Yes, we see when a power run between the tackles gets stopped behind the LOS, and it is super easy to say we should have passed when we rushed, spread the field out instead of concentrated our blockers, run wide instead of run up the middle, or zagged when we zigged, but all of those are unfalsifiable hypotheses (unless you happened to visit the parallel play where we ran the play call you liked), but it happens with other things too.  I have said that we should offer more players so that we can fill more scholarships, but Harbaugh, who had a very expansive offer strategy, left a few recruits pissed off when he just yanked an offer (or just ghosted them), and possibly burned some bridges to high school coaches.



Now with all those caveats being mentioned, there are a few things that Shaw should probably do that are semi-obvious and have relatively easy to identify upsides and little to no downsides:



First, we should allow spring official visits, or at least step back from a blanket rule against them.  Maybe you evaluate cases individually and decide whether a particular student has the means to make an unofficial visit, how far away they are, and how much an official visit would help us.  Or maybe you try it out a year and see if you can engender camaraderie during the recruiting process (that is, have one or a couple "big visits" in the spring) instead of after most players have signed LOIs.



Second, we should make more offers.  Really, it is hard to see the downside of having 85 filled scholarships each and every year.  Maybe you hold one back from a preferred walk-on, but really the money is a rounding error to the program and even if you have to push for an academic or athletic reach, or a guy who was injured his senior year but has potential, or a hungry guy who is a bit undersized for his position, or a guy with  potential who maybe has only been playing for a few years and is still learning football, maybe you offer those guys and they provide crucial depth to your squad, so you aren't forced to play three true freshmen on the offensive line.  You never know when the next Gardner (2* player when he was recruited) comes along, and the worst thing that happens if they don't pan out is they sit on the bench for four years.  The guys we don't offer can't even keep the bench warm.



Third, and I think this is the most controversial, we should encourage Tavita to go out for a few years, learn a completely new system from a great offensive mind, and then come back with the opportunity to incorporate what he's learned  with the principles he knows to help take Stanford's offense in a new direction.  Everything I've heard about Tavita is that he has the potential to be a great offensive coordinator, and that he is someone we want to keep our eye out for when Shaw eventually finds something else to do.  But I don't think we should hoard coaches.  Tavita should be allowed to, hell, encouraged, to stretch as a coordinator.  The only system he's ever worked with is the one that Harbaugh brought and Shaw developed, and Tavita is now refining.  Yes, he has done a lot to alter the system.  So I think he has it in him to work to improve what we have.  But right now, he needs to learn how to take the next step and integrate a bunch of different things into a coherent offensive philosophy.  And I think some time away from Stanford, under the tutelage of one of the more innovative NFL or college head coaches, would do him wonders.  Then he can come back to revamp the Stanford offense, or take over after Shaw leaves.



BC

Nice post. Though I swear I read similar from folks last year. Probably even the year before. Maybe even the year before that. NONE of the issues are new. What's new though, it's as if EF Hutton is finally bringing up the same concerns.

[yvonne]

Thanks for the perspective.  I think it is good to remind ourselves that Shaw has won the Pac-12 three times, the Pac-12 North 4, never missed a bowl game, never had a losing record, and in fact never had fewer than 8 wins.

and never lost to Cal.

Yeah, I think it's freaking me out seeing other schools do well, and seeing the possibility of a 6-6 or lower season. There have years in which I looked at 6-6 believing It portended a winning season. I'm not sure that 6-6 will usher in a four- or -five win season, but it is a worry. We're four seasons from our last Rose Bowl, and we don't seem to have another in view.

Sagehen, I hope you're right—and Shaw does deserve a mulligan. A bowl win and extending the streak to 10 will make me happy.

[yvonne]

Thanks for the perspective.  I think it is good to remind ourselves that Shaw has won the Pac-12 three times, the Pac-12 North 4, never missed a bowl game, never had a losing record, and in fact never had fewer than 8 wins.

and never lost to Cal.

Yeah, I think it's freaking me out seeing other schools do well, and seeing the possibility of a 6-6 or lower season. There have years in which I looked at 6-6 believing It portended a winning season. I'm not sure that 6-6 will usher in a four- or -five win season, but it is a worry. We're four seasons from our last Rose Bowl, and we don't seem to have another in view.

Sagehen, I hope you're right—and Shaw does deserve a mulligan. A bowl win and extending the streak to 10 will make me happy.

[BostonCard]

Thanks for the perspective.  I think it is good to remind ourselves that Shaw has won the Pac-12 three times, the Pac-12 North 4, never missed a bowl game, never had a losing record, and in fact never had fewer than 8 wins.

and never lost to Cal.

Yeah, I think it's freaking me out seeing other schools do well, and seeing the possibility of a 6-6 or lower season. There have years in which I looked at 6-6 believing It portended a winning season. I'm not sure that 6-6 will usher in a four- or -five win season, but it is a worry. We're four seasons from our last Rose Bowl, and we don't seem to have another in view.

Sagehen, I hope you're right, and Shaw does deserve a mulligan. A bowl win and extending the streak to 10 will make me happy.

Yes, I'm old enough to remember being pissed that losing to friggin Davis cost us a 6-6 season and a chance to go to a bowl game (turns out it was blessing in disguise, but I wouldn't realize that until two years later).

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks for the perspective.  I think it is good to remind ourselves that Shaw has won the Pac-12 three times, the Pac-12 North 4, never missed a bowl game, never had a losing record, and in fact never had fewer than 8 wins.

and never lost to Cal.

Yeah, I think it's freaking me out seeing other schools do well, and seeing the possibility of a 6-6 or lower season. There have years in which I looked at 6-6 believing It portended a winning season. I'm not sure that 6-6 will usher in a four- or -five win season, but it is a worry. We're four seasons from our last Rose Bowl, and we don't seem to have another in view.

Sagehen, I hope you're right, and Shaw does deserve a mulligan. A bowl win and extending the streak to 10 will make me happy.

Yes, I'm old enough to remember being pissed that losing to friggin Davis cost us a 6-6 season and a chance to go to a bowl game (turns out it was blessing in disguise, but I wouldn't realize that until two years later).

BC

[slide]

nice posts BC.  good perspective.  

I'm not sure that I've predicted any recessions (I had 6-6 this year as ceiling), but I have harped about the recruiting process, the failure to adapt to new circumstances and some of the holes in the past few classes.  "gap" years QB strategy along with starved attention to OL (a 1 OL offer strategy in '18, really?), ILB and S being at the top of the list.  all correctable if....

[slide]

nice posts BC.  good perspective.  

I'm not sure that I've predicted any recessions (I had 6-6 this year as ceiling), but I have harped about the recruiting process, the failure to adapt to new circumstances and some of the holes in the past few classes.  "gap" years QB strategy along with starved attention to OL (a 1 OL offer strategy in '18, really?), ILB and S being at the top of the list.  all correctable if....

[OutsiderFan]

Will the scribes at the Tuesday presser address some of the longer term trends in the program like recruiting issues that have led to relying on True Frosh OL for all depth, or just ask about UCF and Oregon? And how defensive will Shaw be if such questions are posed to him?

I don’t imagine they will ask about some of the longer term competitiveness issues discussed here, particularly coaching staff, but I could see them asking some open ended “why” questions about what is leading to blowout losses and how his team could be lit up by True Frosh QBs two weeks in a row. I’m confident he will be asked why Costello as a 4th year veteran was so terrible after playing so well against Northwestern.

[OutsiderFan]

Will the scribes at the Tuesday presser address some of the longer term trends in the program like recruiting issues that have led to relying on True Frosh OL for all depth, or just ask about UCF and Oregon? And how defensive will Shaw be if such questions are posed to him?

I don’t imagine they will ask about some of the longer term competitiveness issues discussed here, particularly coaching staff, but I could see them asking some open ended “why” questions about what is leading to blowout losses and how his team could be lit up by True Frosh QBs two weeks in a row. I’m confident he will be asked why Costello as a 4th year veteran was so terrible after playing so well against Northwestern.

[winflop]

I'm as pro-Shaw as anyone, but changes need to be made: expand the brain trust and recruit for the style that brought you here. It's as though he's forgotten what he, himself said. Also, it's hard for me to look across the Bay and see the other team winning using that style while we've moved to "throw and hope." I don't want to return to the "cycle of suckage" in which we'd have a couple of 8-5 seasons in between 4-8 seasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBCkec9csdo

How do you know what to recruit when you don't know your identity? Shaw was asked this question directly post-game on Saturday and didn't answer it. Maybe he does know and won't say it, but maybe he's realized that football in a phone booth no longer works and isn't sure what to change to?

[winflop]

I'm as pro-Shaw as anyone, but changes need to be made: expand the brain trust and recruit for the style that brought you here. It's as though he's forgotten what he, himself said. Also, it's hard for me to look across the Bay and see the other team winning using that style while we've moved to "throw and hope." I don't want to return to the "cycle of suckage" in which we'd have a couple of 8-5 seasons in between 4-8 seasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBCkec9csdo

How do you know what to recruit when you don't know your identity? Shaw was asked this question directly post-game on Saturday and didn't answer it. Maybe he does know and won't say it, but maybe he's realized that football in a phone booth no longer works and isn't sure what to change to?

[oman]

Simpleminded me just thinks that our offensive tackle situation isn't what I thought it would be when we recruited Sarrell and Little.  And our line-backing doesn't look very stout.

In our most exciting period of play in the last 10 years our linebackers have always seemed to be somewhat beast like. 

If you don't have an O-line and a front seven D that is crushing people, you are going to struggle.

I do think he can get back to that.

[oman]

Simpleminded me just thinks that our offensive tackle situation isn't what I thought it would be when we recruited Sarrell and Little.  And our line-backing doesn't look very stout.

In our most exciting period of play in the last 10 years our linebackers have always seemed to be somewhat beast like. 

If you don't have an O-line and a front seven D that is crushing people, you are going to struggle.

I do think he can get back to that.

[gailtate]

Conditioning.

Injuries.

Stupid mistakes.

Complacency.

Heart.

All disasters today and thus far this season.

Can he fix it? Will he even try? Complacency seems to start at the top with our program these days.
[/quote]

He could fix it, but it would require more change that I think he's willing to make:
- He needs new DC & OC. The OC needs to come from outside the Stanford family and needs to be given full playcalling authority. DC should too.
- He needs a new recruiting leader
- He needs some position coaches who will coach up nastiness
- He need to hire the next Turley

That'd be for starters. If we got one of these I'd consider it a major step forward.
[/quote]

Correct, winflop.  In my view, Shaw has created a far too cozy family coaching culture, by promoting from within and not seeking outside talent.  This is his biggest mistake.  The right coaches turn 3 star players into 4 star players; and the 4-5 star players become superstars.  The opposite dynamic now appears to plague us: talented players that cannot seem to pull it together.  If anybody doubts this, ask yourself which coach on the current staff would be seriously targeted by another FBS program for a bigger job.  Maybe Pete Alamar.  Maybe.  After that, no one.  In the past, Harbaugh's and Shaw's lieutenants were always getting poached: Fangio, Mason, Hamilton, even Bloomgren.  Ultimately, it all comes down to the coaches.  As successful as Shaw has been, what will his coaching tree ultimately look like?  Truly successful organizations spawn talented leaders.  We have ceased to do this.  And that is the ultimate cause of our downward trajectory and hits everything: recruiting, player development, game preparation, work ethic, toughness, etc.  Harbaugh may have been the man who instilled "intellectual brutality" into Stanford football; but his most important accomplishment was assembling an excellent coaching staff, which has unfortunately atrophied since his departure.  Until Shaw fixes this, the downward spiral will continue.
[/quote] I too agee that Shaw has created an atmosphere of family rather than going after a new breed of coaching style. And that maybe ,Duane and Pete might be reached out to by other programs, but really, he is not recruiting the Harbaugh type guy and the toughness is gone. Passion is missing and offensive creativity is missing. Tavita is not the guy to diagram X's and O's. Very sad to see this program beginning to head towards the pre-Harbaugh era. Also, if you lookout K.J. junior highlights at Santa Margarita his passes were crisp and on target. He did not sling the ball as he does now which prompts me to think he has shoulder issues. Lastly, why are freshman in other power 5 programs stepping into starting positions when it takes our QB 3 years to "master the offense"?? Very disappointing. I do not mind losing games when we play entertaining fun  to watch offense...
[/quote]

I will take a boring win over an exciting loss every time. In 50 years, I've never walked out of the stadium after a loss, feeling compensated just because I saw lots of scoring and gadget plays.BTW, Harbaugh destroyed the myth of the "limited pool"of recruits (which is code for recruiting hamstrung by ineffective recruiting strategies and tactics). With the right head coach and staff, Stanford can recruit the Gerharts, Gaffneys, Taylors, Hogans, Skovs, Murphys, Thomases, DeCastros, Ertzes, Fleeners, JJAWs, Cajustes, etc., etc., etc. Every Year. But only IF it chooses to expend the effort to identify and pursue them. With CHAMPIONSHIPS in mind. These efforts--and this mindset--are no longer operative and I see no evidence that David Shaw is the leader to make it happen. The trend is there for all to see.

[gailtate]

Conditioning.

Injuries.

Stupid mistakes.

Complacency.

Heart.

All disasters today and thus far this season.

Can he fix it? Will he even try? Complacency seems to start at the top with our program these days.
[/quote]

He could fix it, but it would require more change that I think he's willing to make:
- He needs new DC & OC. The OC needs to come from outside the Stanford family and needs to be given full playcalling authority. DC should too.
- He needs a new recruiting leader
- He needs some position coaches who will coach up nastiness
- He need to hire the next Turley

That'd be for starters. If we got one of these I'd consider it a major step forward.
[/quote]

Correct, winflop.  In my view, Shaw has created a far too cozy family coaching culture, by promoting from within and not seeking outside talent.  This is his biggest mistake.  The right coaches turn 3 star players into 4 star players; and the 4-5 star players become superstars.  The opposite dynamic now appears to plague us: talented players that cannot seem to pull it together.  If anybody doubts this, ask yourself which coach on the current staff would be seriously targeted by another FBS program for a bigger job.  Maybe Pete Alamar.  Maybe.  After that, no one.  In the past, Harbaugh's and Shaw's lieutenants were always getting poached: Fangio, Mason, Hamilton, even Bloomgren.  Ultimately, it all comes down to the coaches.  As successful as Shaw has been, what will his coaching tree ultimately look like?  Truly successful organizations spawn talented leaders.  We have ceased to do this.  And that is the ultimate cause of our downward trajectory and hits everything: recruiting, player development, game preparation, work ethic, toughness, etc.  Harbaugh may have been the man who instilled "intellectual brutality" into Stanford football; but his most important accomplishment was assembling an excellent coaching staff, which has unfortunately atrophied since his departure.  Until Shaw fixes this, the downward spiral will continue.
[/quote] I too agee that Shaw has created an atmosphere of family rather than going after a new breed of coaching style. And that maybe ,Duane and Pete might be reached out to by other programs, but really, he is not recruiting the Harbaugh type guy and the toughness is gone. Passion is missing and offensive creativity is missing. Tavita is not the guy to diagram X's and O's. Very sad to see this program beginning to head towards the pre-Harbaugh era. Also, if you lookout K.J. junior highlights at Santa Margarita his passes were crisp and on target. He did not sling the ball as he does now which prompts me to think he has shoulder issues. Lastly, why are freshman in other power 5 programs stepping into starting positions when it takes our QB 3 years to "master the offense"?? Very disappointing. I do not mind losing games when we play entertaining fun  to watch offense...
[/quote]

I will take a boring win over an exciting loss every time. In 50 years, I've never walked out of the stadium after a loss, feeling compensated just because I saw lots of scoring and gadget plays.BTW, Harbaugh destroyed the myth of the "limited pool"of recruits (which is code for recruiting hamstrung by ineffective recruiting strategies and tactics). With the right head coach and staff, Stanford can recruit the Gerharts, Gaffneys, Taylors, Hogans, Skovs, Murphys, Thomases, DeCastros, Ertzes, Fleeners, JJAWs, Cajustes, etc., etc., etc. Every Year. But only IF it chooses to expend the effort to identify and pursue them. With CHAMPIONSHIPS in mind. These efforts--and this mindset--are no longer operative and I see no evidence that David Shaw is the leader to make it happen. The trend is there for all to see.

[oldalum]

I'd appreciate learning the evidence that posters are relying on in concluding that the coaching staff is no longer making as much EFFORT as they used to in recruiting. Simply looking at the recruiting results doesn't do it for me. Has the recruiting budget been cut? Are we not making as many recruiting trips as before? Are we recruiting fewer potential athletes than before? Are the coaches watching less film of potential recruits than they used to? Have coaches been quoted saying anything to support this conclusion? Are there copies of hotel bills showing that they are staying in their hotel rooms and watching movies instead of going out to see the recruits they supposedly came out to see?

[oldalum]

I'd appreciate learning the evidence that posters are relying on in concluding that the coaching staff is no longer making as much EFFORT as they used to in recruiting. Simply looking at the recruiting results doesn't do it for me. Has the recruiting budget been cut? Are we not making as many recruiting trips as before? Are we recruiting fewer potential athletes than before? Are the coaches watching less film of potential recruits than they used to? Have coaches been quoted saying anything to support this conclusion? Are there copies of hotel bills showing that they are staying in their hotel rooms and watching movies instead of going out to see the recruits they supposedly came out to see?

[SamuelMcF]

I'd appreciate learning the evidence that posters are relying on in concluding that the coaching staff is no longer making as much EFFORT as they used to in recruiting. Simply looking at the recruiting results doesn't do it for me. Has the recruiting budget been cut? Are we not making as many recruiting trips as before? Are we recruiting fewer potential athletes than before? Are the coaches watching less film of potential recruits than they used to? Have coaches been quoted saying anything to support this conclusion? Are there copies of hotel bills showing that they are staying in their hotel rooms and watching movies instead of going out to see the recruits they supposedly came out to see?

I'm not sure how this could possibly be answered on a free site. This has paywall written all over it.

[SamuelMcF]

I'd appreciate learning the evidence that posters are relying on in concluding that the coaching staff is no longer making as much EFFORT as they used to in recruiting. Simply looking at the recruiting results doesn't do it for me. Has the recruiting budget been cut? Are we not making as many recruiting trips as before? Are we recruiting fewer potential athletes than before? Are the coaches watching less film of potential recruits than they used to? Have coaches been quoted saying anything to support this conclusion? Are there copies of hotel bills showing that they are staying in their hotel rooms and watching movies instead of going out to see the recruits they supposedly came out to see?

I'm not sure how this could possibly be answered on a free site. This has paywall written all over it.

[cardcrimson]

I'd appreciate learning the evidence that posters are relying on in concluding that the coaching staff is no longer making as much EFFORT as they used to in recruiting. Simply looking at the recruiting results doesn't do it for me. Has the recruiting budget been cut? Are we not making as many recruiting trips as before? Are we recruiting fewer potential athletes than before? Are the coaches watching less film of potential recruits than they used to? Have coaches been quoted saying anything to support this conclusion? Are there copies of hotel bills showing that they are staying in their hotel rooms and watching movies instead of going out to see the recruits they supposedly came out to see?

I'm not sure how this could possibly be answered on a free site. This has paywall written all over it.

A couple of articles from years back. One discussing the 14 player only class in particular. While I don't disagree with his general philosophy, some of the predictions in the comment sections certainly came home.

https://watchstadium.com/news/david-shaw...2-07-2017/

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co...f-is-crap/

[cardcrimson]

I'd appreciate learning the evidence that posters are relying on in concluding that the coaching staff is no longer making as much EFFORT as they used to in recruiting. Simply looking at the recruiting results doesn't do it for me. Has the recruiting budget been cut? Are we not making as many recruiting trips as before? Are we recruiting fewer potential athletes than before? Are the coaches watching less film of potential recruits than they used to? Have coaches been quoted saying anything to support this conclusion? Are there copies of hotel bills showing that they are staying in their hotel rooms and watching movies instead of going out to see the recruits they supposedly came out to see?

I'm not sure how this could possibly be answered on a free site. This has paywall written all over it.

A couple of articles from years back. One discussing the 14 player only class in particular. While I don't disagree with his general philosophy, some of the predictions in the comment sections certainly came home.

https://watchstadium.com/news/david-shaw...2-07-2017/

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co...f-is-crap/

[d4cohn]

Yeah.  It's like predicting 10 of the last two recessions.  The naysayers have been naysaying almost since Day 1 of the David Shaw era.  Eventually there will be some period during which our system falls out of sync, bad decisions are made, we leave Bloomberg in charge of OL and OL recruitment past his "sell-by" date, the strength and conditioning guru lapses, our success leads to early departures for the NFL, unexpected medical retirements, etc. etc. etc.

The "pounce factor" by Shaw's critics is pathetic.  He has never had fewer than 8 victories.  And 3 games into the season that MAY break that trend we've got folks all too happy to trot out their sense of superior insight to what he's been doing wrong all this time.

I don't think Shaw is comfortable losing.  I respect that he doesn't jerk the program around in a panic every time things don't go our way for a bit.  I suspect that, if we win 6 or fewer games this year, he will not be sleeping soundly, looking forward to the next season of Blacklist.  In that event I will be very interested to see what he does to adjust.  Many very good thoughts have been shared here about what actions he might consider.  But while I agree that he seems stubborn about some things, I do not think he's stupid.  Those here who perceive him to be some current version of Woody Hayes are welcome to their opinion.  I just don't agree.

I wish I could upvote this more than once.

[d4cohn]

Yeah.  It's like predicting 10 of the last two recessions.  The naysayers have been naysaying almost since Day 1 of the David Shaw era.  Eventually there will be some period during which our system falls out of sync, bad decisions are made, we leave Bloomberg in charge of OL and OL recruitment past his "sell-by" date, the strength and conditioning guru lapses, our success leads to early departures for the NFL, unexpected medical retirements, etc. etc. etc.

The "pounce factor" by Shaw's critics is pathetic.  He has never had fewer than 8 victories.  And 3 games into the season that MAY break that trend we've got folks all too happy to trot out their sense of superior insight to what he's been doing wrong all this time.

I don't think Shaw is comfortable losing.  I respect that he doesn't jerk the program around in a panic every time things don't go our way for a bit.  I suspect that, if we win 6 or fewer games this year, he will not be sleeping soundly, looking forward to the next season of Blacklist.  In that event I will be very interested to see what he does to adjust.  Many very good thoughts have been shared here about what actions he might consider.  But while I agree that he seems stubborn about some things, I do not think he's stupid.  Those here who perceive him to be some current version of Woody Hayes are welcome to their opinion.  I just don't agree.

I wish I could upvote this more than once.

[yvonne]

Yeah.  It's like predicting 10 of the last two recessions.  The naysayers have been naysaying almost since Day 1 of the David Shaw era.  Eventually there will be some period during which our system falls out of sync, bad decisions are made, we leave Bloomberg in charge of OL and OL recruitment past his "sell-by" date, the strength and conditioning guru lapses, our success leads to early departures for the NFL, unexpected medical retirements, etc. etc. etc.

The "pounce factor" by Shaw's critics is pathetic.  He has never had fewer than 8 victories.  And 3 games into the season that MAY break that trend we've got folks all too happy to trot out their sense of superior insight to what he's been doing wrong all this time.

I don't think Shaw is comfortable losing.  I respect that he doesn't jerk the program around in a panic every time things don't go our way for a bit.  I suspect that, if we win 6 or fewer games this year, he will not be sleeping soundly, looking forward to the next season of Blacklist.  In that event I will be very interested to see what he does to adjust.  Many very good thoughts have been shared here about what actions he might consider.  But while I agree that he seems stubborn about some things, I do not think he's stupid.  Those here who perceive him to be some current version of Woody Hayes are welcome to their opinion.  I just don't agree.

You're right. I'm guilty.

[yvonne]

Yeah.  It's like predicting 10 of the last two recessions.  The naysayers have been naysaying almost since Day 1 of the David Shaw era.  Eventually there will be some period during which our system falls out of sync, bad decisions are made, we leave Bloomberg in charge of OL and OL recruitment past his "sell-by" date, the strength and conditioning guru lapses, our success leads to early departures for the NFL, unexpected medical retirements, etc. etc. etc.

The "pounce factor" by Shaw's critics is pathetic.  He has never had fewer than 8 victories.  And 3 games into the season that MAY break that trend we've got folks all too happy to trot out their sense of superior insight to what he's been doing wrong all this time.

I don't think Shaw is comfortable losing.  I respect that he doesn't jerk the program around in a panic every time things don't go our way for a bit.  I suspect that, if we win 6 or fewer games this year, he will not be sleeping soundly, looking forward to the next season of Blacklist.  In that event I will be very interested to see what he does to adjust.  Many very good thoughts have been shared here about what actions he might consider.  But while I agree that he seems stubborn about some things, I do not think he's stupid.  Those here who perceive him to be some current version of Woody Hayes are welcome to their opinion.  I just don't agree.

You're right. I'm guilty.

[cardcrimson]

And 3 games into the season that MAY break that trend we've got folks all too happy to trot out their sense of superior insight to what he's been doing wrong all this time.

You're right. I'm guilty.

Not necessarily wrong. Just things he could be doing better or differently. God help the individual who doesn't strive to improve or who is too stubborn to examine potentially better ways.

[cardcrimson]

And 3 games into the season that MAY break that trend we've got folks all too happy to trot out their sense of superior insight to what he's been doing wrong all this time.

You're right. I'm guilty.

Not necessarily wrong. Just things he could be doing better or differently. God help the individual who doesn't strive to improve or who is too stubborn to examine potentially better ways.

[CardinalSagehen]

Third, and I think this is the most controversial, we should encourage Tavita to go out for a few years, learn a completely new system from a great offensive mind, and then come back with the opportunity to incorporate what he's learned  with the principles he knows to help take Stanford's offense in a new direction.  Everything I've heard about Tavita is that he has the potential to be a great offensive coordinator, and that he is someone we want to keep our eye out for when Shaw eventually finds something else to do.  But I don't think we should hoard coaches.  Tavita should be allowed to, hell, encouraged, to stretch as a coordinator.  The only system he's ever worked with is the one that Harbaugh brought and Shaw developed, and Tavita is now refining.  Yes, he has done a lot to alter the system.  So I think he has it in him to work to improve what we have.  But right now, he needs to learn how to take the next step and integrate a bunch of different things into a coherent offensive philosophy.  And I think some time away from Stanford, under the tutelage of one of the more innovative NFL or college head coaches, would do him wonders.  Then he can come back to revamp the Stanford offense, or take over after Shaw leaves.

BC

Nice post. Though I swear I read similar from folks last year. Probably even the year before. Maybe even the year before that. NONE of the issues are new. What's new though, it's as if EF Hutton is finally bringing up the same concerns.

BC, I really liked your post, but the part about Tavita struck me as a bit mealy-mouthed. If you think he should be fired (which is the same as "encouraged to leave"), just say so. Don't come up with an elaborate fantasy where the Stanford Football hero goes off to expand his horizons elsewhere and then returns triumphantly years down the road to bestow his added knowledge on our program. It's highly unlikely, and if he's gone, he's probably gone for good, just like in most other workplaces. I know it's all coming from a good place of not wanting to be harsh to an alum that has devoted so much time and energy to our program, but it just doesn't hold together, in my opinion. We have even bigger problems on defense right now, too.  

CardCrimson, you are right that history (and message board overreactions) have a tendency to repeat themselves, ad nauseam. For example, here's an interesting and provocative thread entitled, "Mea Culpa"!

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=10597

After the Northwestern debacle, I gave up on the coaching staff and the team. I humbly apologize. Right now, ours in the best team in the country, and will be after we win our next four games. Heart, talent, and coaching has been stellar.

Knowing that, I will be content (but royally pissed off) watching Stanford play in the Rose Bowl on New Years Day after watching LSU, Alabama, OSU, and Clemson play the night before for a spot in the championship.

Sorry, couldn't resist!  If you want to get me back, you can re-post my naive and rosy prediction for the UCF game!  ;-)

[CardinalSagehen]

Third, and I think this is the most controversial, we should encourage Tavita to go out for a few years, learn a completely new system from a great offensive mind, and then come back with the opportunity to incorporate what he's learned  with the principles he knows to help take Stanford's offense in a new direction.  Everything I've heard about Tavita is that he has the potential to be a great offensive coordinator, and that he is someone we want to keep our eye out for when Shaw eventually finds something else to do.  But I don't think we should hoard coaches.  Tavita should be allowed to, hell, encouraged, to stretch as a coordinator.  The only system he's ever worked with is the one that Harbaugh brought and Shaw developed, and Tavita is now refining.  Yes, he has done a lot to alter the system.  So I think he has it in him to work to improve what we have.  But right now, he needs to learn how to take the next step and integrate a bunch of different things into a coherent offensive philosophy.  And I think some time away from Stanford, under the tutelage of one of the more innovative NFL or college head coaches, would do him wonders.  Then he can come back to revamp the Stanford offense, or take over after Shaw leaves.

BC

Nice post. Though I swear I read similar from folks last year. Probably even the year before. Maybe even the year before that. NONE of the issues are new. What's new though, it's as if EF Hutton is finally bringing up the same concerns.

BC, I really liked your post, but the part about Tavita struck me as a bit mealy-mouthed. If you think he should be fired (which is the same as "encouraged to leave"), just say so. Don't come up with an elaborate fantasy where the Stanford Football hero goes off to expand his horizons elsewhere and then returns triumphantly years down the road to bestow his added knowledge on our program. It's highly unlikely, and if he's gone, he's probably gone for good, just like in most other workplaces. I know it's all coming from a good place of not wanting to be harsh to an alum that has devoted so much time and energy to our program, but it just doesn't hold together, in my opinion. We have even bigger problems on defense right now, too.  

CardCrimson, you are right that history (and message board overreactions) have a tendency to repeat themselves, ad nauseam. For example, here's an interesting and provocative thread entitled, "Mea Culpa"!

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=10597

After the Northwestern debacle, I gave up on the coaching staff and the team. I humbly apologize. Right now, ours in the best team in the country, and will be after we win our next four games. Heart, talent, and coaching has been stellar.

Knowing that, I will be content (but royally pissed off) watching Stanford play in the Rose Bowl on New Years Day after watching LSU, Alabama, OSU, and Clemson play the night before for a spot in the championship.

Sorry, couldn't resist!  If you want to get me back, you can re-post my naive and rosy prediction for the UCF game!  ;-)

[cardcrimson]

Third, and I think this is the most controversial, we should encourage Tavita to go out for a few years, learn a completely new system from a great offensive mind, and then come back with the opportunity to incorporate what he's learned  with the principles he knows to help take Stanford's offense in a new direction.  Everything I've heard about Tavita is that he has the potential to be a great offensive coordinator, and that he is someone we want to keep our eye out for when Shaw eventually finds something else to do.  But I don't think we should hoard coaches.  Tavita should be allowed to, hell, encouraged, to stretch as a coordinator.  The only system he's ever worked with is the one that Harbaugh brought and Shaw developed, and Tavita is now refining.  Yes, he has done a lot to alter the system.  So I think he has it in him to work to improve what we have.  But right now, he needs to learn how to take the next step and integrate a bunch of different things into a coherent offensive philosophy.  And I think some time away from Stanford, under the tutelage of one of the more innovative NFL or college head coaches, would do him wonders.  Then he can come back to revamp the Stanford offense, or take over after Shaw leaves.

BC

Nice post. Though I swear I read similar from folks last year. Probably even the year before. Maybe even the year before that. NONE of the issues are new. What's new though, it's as if EF Hutton is finally bringing up the same concerns.

BC, I really liked your post, but the part about Tavita struck me as a bit mealy-mouthed. If you think he should be fired (which is the same as "encouraged to leave"), just say so. Don't come up with an elaborate fantasy where the Stanford Football hero goes off to expand his horizons elsewhere and then returns triumphantly years down the road to bestow his added knowledge on our program. It's highly unlikely, and if he's gone, he's probably gone for good, just like in most other workplaces. I know it's all coming from a good place of not wanting to be harsh to an alum that has devoted so much time and energy to our program, but it just doesn't hold together, in my opinion. We have even bigger problems on defense right now, too.  

CardCrimson, you are right that history (and message board overreactions) have a tendency to repeat themselves, ad nauseam. For example, here's an interesting and provocative thread entitled, "Mea Culpa"!

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=10597

After the Northwestern debacle, I gave up on the coaching staff and the team. I humbly apologize. Right now, ours in the best team in the country, and will be after we win our next four games. Heart, talent, and coaching has been stellar.

Knowing that, I will be content (but royally pissed off) watching Stanford play in the Rose Bowl on New Years Day after watching LSU, Alabama, OSU, and Clemson play the night before for a spot in the championship.

Sorry, couldn't resist!  If you want to get me back, you can re-post my naive and rosy prediction for the UCF game!  ;-)

Not sure the point you're trying to make by digging up a post I made from 4 seasons ago, other than you have a ridiculous amount of time on your hands.

I was wrong in my judgement early that season and admitted it. The team turned it around in game two and played great the rest of the season. Ironically, I made that post right before we lost to unranked Oregon at home. Also that year, we did beat both UCF and USC (twice), and didn't get blown out by them as we did this year. So far this year, we've had one lackluster game and two awful ones.

Glad you're content. As I've mentioned, ad nauseam, complacency is a killer.

AFWIW, I'm still pissed that we had a losing record during my time at Stanford and never made it to a bowl game, and especially that the last play I witnessed as a student was the clusterf**k in Strawberry Canyon in 1982, Elway's last year.

[cardcrimson]

Third, and I think this is the most controversial, we should encourage Tavita to go out for a few years, learn a completely new system from a great offensive mind, and then come back with the opportunity to incorporate what he's learned  with the principles he knows to help take Stanford's offense in a new direction.  Everything I've heard about Tavita is that he has the potential to be a great offensive coordinator, and that he is someone we want to keep our eye out for when Shaw eventually finds something else to do.  But I don't think we should hoard coaches.  Tavita should be allowed to, hell, encouraged, to stretch as a coordinator.  The only system he's ever worked with is the one that Harbaugh brought and Shaw developed, and Tavita is now refining.  Yes, he has done a lot to alter the system.  So I think he has it in him to work to improve what we have.  But right now, he needs to learn how to take the next step and integrate a bunch of different things into a coherent offensive philosophy.  And I think some time away from Stanford, under the tutelage of one of the more innovative NFL or college head coaches, would do him wonders.  Then he can come back to revamp the Stanford offense, or take over after Shaw leaves.

BC

Nice post. Though I swear I read similar from folks last year. Probably even the year before. Maybe even the year before that. NONE of the issues are new. What's new though, it's as if EF Hutton is finally bringing up the same concerns.

BC, I really liked your post, but the part about Tavita struck me as a bit mealy-mouthed. If you think he should be fired (which is the same as "encouraged to leave"), just say so. Don't come up with an elaborate fantasy where the Stanford Football hero goes off to expand his horizons elsewhere and then returns triumphantly years down the road to bestow his added knowledge on our program. It's highly unlikely, and if he's gone, he's probably gone for good, just like in most other workplaces. I know it's all coming from a good place of not wanting to be harsh to an alum that has devoted so much time and energy to our program, but it just doesn't hold together, in my opinion. We have even bigger problems on defense right now, too.  

CardCrimson, you are right that history (and message board overreactions) have a tendency to repeat themselves, ad nauseam. For example, here's an interesting and provocative thread entitled, "Mea Culpa"!

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=10597

After the Northwestern debacle, I gave up on the coaching staff and the team. I humbly apologize. Right now, ours in the best team in the country, and will be after we win our next four games. Heart, talent, and coaching has been stellar.

Knowing that, I will be content (but royally pissed off) watching Stanford play in the Rose Bowl on New Years Day after watching LSU, Alabama, OSU, and Clemson play the night before for a spot in the championship.

Sorry, couldn't resist!  If you want to get me back, you can re-post my naive and rosy prediction for the UCF game!  ;-)

Not sure the point you're trying to make by digging up a post I made from 4 seasons ago, other than you have a ridiculous amount of time on your hands.

I was wrong in my judgement early that season and admitted it. The team turned it around in game two and played great the rest of the season. Ironically, I made that post right before we lost to unranked Oregon at home. Also that year, we did beat both UCF and USC (twice), and didn't get blown out by them as we did this year. So far this year, we've had one lackluster game and two awful ones.

Glad you're content. As I've mentioned, ad nauseam, complacency is a killer.

AFWIW, I'm still pissed that we had a losing record during my time at Stanford and never made it to a bowl game, and especially that the last play I witnessed as a student was the clusterf**k in Strawberry Canyon in 1982, Elway's last year.