[BostonCard]

I think he is below average on all of it - way too many many examples of poor in-game decisions, indecisiveness, and no sense of going with what his eyes tell him.

Just three points up you were disagreeing with me for suggesting that constant second-guessing is bad.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think he is below average on all of it - way too many many examples of poor in-game decisions, indecisiveness, and no sense of going with what his eyes tell him.

Just three points up you were disagreeing with me for suggesting that constant second-guessing is bad.

BC

[teejers1]

I think he is below average on all of it - way too many many examples of poor in-game decisions, indecisiveness, and no sense of going with what his eyes tell him.

Just three points up you were disagreeing with me for suggesting that constant second-guessing is bad.

BC

I was alluding to failing to get plays in on time for DOG penalties and having to burn TOs to avoid same.
That is so basic . . . and yet we still see it game after game, season after season.  Indeed, fans have just accepted this mediocrity (and that is a euphemistic descriptor).

[teejers1]

I think he is below average on all of it - way too many many examples of poor in-game decisions, indecisiveness, and no sense of going with what his eyes tell him.

Just three points up you were disagreeing with me for suggesting that constant second-guessing is bad.

BC

I was alluding to failing to get plays in on time for DOG penalties and having to burn TOs to avoid same.
That is so basic . . . and yet we still see it game after game, season after season.  Indeed, fans have just accepted this mediocrity (and that is a euphemistic descriptor).

[fullmetal]

So let me ask you point blank:  do you think Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working), and a good implementation of his offense?  I think he is below average on all of it - way too many many examples of poor in-game decisions, indecisiveness, and no sense of going with what his eyes tell him.

I heard a rumor that Tavita was calling the plays outside of the red zone and that Shaw took over red zone play calling...no?

Also, wouldn't Tavita be able to advise Shaw on things like timeouts and situational game flow?

[fullmetal]

So let me ask you point blank:  do you think Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working), and a good implementation of his offense?  I think he is below average on all of it - way too many many examples of poor in-game decisions, indecisiveness, and no sense of going with what his eyes tell him.

I heard a rumor that Tavita was calling the plays outside of the red zone and that Shaw took over red zone play calling...no?

Also, wouldn't Tavita be able to advise Shaw on things like timeouts and situational game flow?

[oldalum]

Pure speculation: maybe contributing to indecisiveness are too many plays in the playbook and a sense that to succeed we need the advantage that calling the precise best play would give?

[oldalum]

Pure speculation: maybe contributing to indecisiveness are too many plays in the playbook and a sense that to succeed we need the advantage that calling the precise best play would give?

[lex24]

Couldn't disagree more strongly. The only thing worse than a coach who makes bad decisions is a coach who doesn't acknowledge and learn from them because they will make the same bad decisions the next time too.

I don't actually care if the coach acknowledges his bad decisions. Might be nice in terms of perception, but the only thing that matters is whether the coach gets better over time. Lots of the decisions people on sports boards call "bad" are matters of opinion. Naturally, those who assert the decision was "bad" are always right, at least in their own mind.

I've seen so many excuses like your post, Goose, about Shaw's play calling decisions being just a matter of opinion.
So let me ask you point blank:  do you think Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working), and a good implementation of his offense?  I think he is below average on all of it - way too many many examples of poor in-game decisions, indecisiveness, and no sense of going with what his eyes tell him.  It's incredible.  And he is now into his 10th season as the man calling plays for Stanford's offenses, and the raw numbers (and the particulars) reveal mediocrity on that front. 

I truly am astounded by people who continue to defend him.  And lex, you never responded to the "it's okay to pass on 2nd and 3 at Oregon 33, if you're willing to run it on third and fourth down because you anticipate going for it on fourth down, if necessary."  Shaw reveals this myopia repeatedly, and no one calls him on it.

You know like:  "Hey coach, when you had second and 3 at Oregon's 33 yard line, were you thinking that you were in four-down territory?"  (Obviously, he cannot say "yes," given what he called - but it at least presents the issue to him).  And then follow up with "Why not?"

Didn’t need a response.  I said already that I thought the second down call was fine, but would have run on 3d and 3, on the assumption that if they gain a yard or two, they go on 4th.  I don’t think, however, that Shaw is “incapable” of that thought process.

One question - In the old days as I understood it they would give the quarterback both a running play and a passing play and the quarterback would choose or be able to change what was given (say the run) at the line of scrimmage (to the pass). Does that still go on? Does anybody know. Because of course it’s always possible that the plays originally is a run that the quarterback checks to the pass – or vice a versa. This is not a “defense” of anybody. It’s just a question asking if they still do this. I’m curious

[lex24]

Couldn't disagree more strongly. The only thing worse than a coach who makes bad decisions is a coach who doesn't acknowledge and learn from them because they will make the same bad decisions the next time too.

I don't actually care if the coach acknowledges his bad decisions. Might be nice in terms of perception, but the only thing that matters is whether the coach gets better over time. Lots of the decisions people on sports boards call "bad" are matters of opinion. Naturally, those who assert the decision was "bad" are always right, at least in their own mind.

I've seen so many excuses like your post, Goose, about Shaw's play calling decisions being just a matter of opinion.
So let me ask you point blank:  do you think Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working), and a good implementation of his offense?  I think he is below average on all of it - way too many many examples of poor in-game decisions, indecisiveness, and no sense of going with what his eyes tell him.  It's incredible.  And he is now into his 10th season as the man calling plays for Stanford's offenses, and the raw numbers (and the particulars) reveal mediocrity on that front. 

I truly am astounded by people who continue to defend him.  And lex, you never responded to the "it's okay to pass on 2nd and 3 at Oregon 33, if you're willing to run it on third and fourth down because you anticipate going for it on fourth down, if necessary."  Shaw reveals this myopia repeatedly, and no one calls him on it.

You know like:  "Hey coach, when you had second and 3 at Oregon's 33 yard line, were you thinking that you were in four-down territory?"  (Obviously, he cannot say "yes," given what he called - but it at least presents the issue to him).  And then follow up with "Why not?"

Didn’t need a response.  I said already that I thought the second down call was fine, but would have run on 3d and 3, on the assumption that if they gain a yard or two, they go on 4th.  I don’t think, however, that Shaw is “incapable” of that thought process.

One question - In the old days as I understood it they would give the quarterback both a running play and a passing play and the quarterback would choose or be able to change what was given (say the run) at the line of scrimmage (to the pass). Does that still go on? Does anybody know. Because of course it’s always possible that the plays originally is a run that the quarterback checks to the pass – or vice a versa. This is not a “defense” of anybody. It’s just a question asking if they still do this. I’m curious

[Goose]

I don't actually care if the coach acknowledges his bad decisions. Might be nice in terms of perception, but the only thing that matters is whether the coach gets better over time. Lots of the decisions people on sports boards call "bad" are matters of opinion. Naturally, those who assert the decision was "bad" are always right, at least in their own mind.

I've seen so many excuses like your post, Goose, about Shaw's play calling decisions being just a matter of opinion.

So let me ask you point blank:  do you think Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working), and a good implementation of his offense?  I think he is below average on all of it - way too many many examples of poor in-game decisions, indecisiveness, and no sense of going with what his eyes tell him.  It's incredible.  And he is now into his 10th season as the man calling plays for Stanford's offenses, and the raw numbers (and the particulars) reveal mediocrity on that front. 

Teejers1, it is by definition a "matter of opinion" whether any conterfactual  play would have worked any better. It didn't happen, so nobody can know the result. It is certainly possible to believe the result would have been better, and I may share that belief in many cases. However, it is still of necessity an opinion.

I am pretty sure that if somebody had asked David Shaw what happened on the three fades, he would have replied something like the following:
"We got the matchups we wanted. Given the defense they presented, the fade was the correct call". You may not like that analysis, but it is certainly a rational one. It is, in my opinion, probable that Shaw could have added (but would not) "We complete that pass 65% of the time against our own defense in single coverage press man. Our own defense knows exactly what is coming. I like those odds. I would do it again. We just failed to execute". Continuing my counterfactual interview, if somebody asked Shaw "Why didn't you run?", he would have said "We liked the matchups we had". He would be thinking "Five or six years ago, I would for sure have run three times, and if we didn't score, kicked a FG. However, back then the PAC-12 didn't have an answer for our power running. Now they do. They recruited bigger guys on defense, and if we never throw the ball near the end zone, they play the safeties like linebackers. I remember losses cause by not getting in the endzone, particularly against USC. I realized we needed to change, and we did. If we get a good matchup, we will take it every damn time. Didn't you listen to my previous answer?" Consider his response about Weaver vs Parkinson in the endzone on the pass that was simply lead too far. "I will take that matchup any day of the week".

You ask do I think "Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working) ...". I think Shaw believes he understands what his team does well  and does not do well. I think he also believes that the game plan and the analysis behind that are generally more reliable than what he "feels" about the flow of the game. As he says, he "doesn't panic" and change everything because he doesn't like what he sees at the moment.

Teejers1 seems to prefer a coach who is more responsive to what the "eye test" tells him. Is Shaw "stubborn"? He would probably say that he and the staff have studied the opponent extensively and have determined what gives them the best chance to win. They will not easily abandon that. I think Shaw has shown that he will adjust in the game if there is a clear reason, i.e. the opponent running a defense he did not expect. He won't do so just because things aren't working, because he believes the strategy is correct and the alternatives will be worse. Others may not agree.

One question - In the old days as I understood it they would give the quarterback both a running play and a passing play and the quarterback would choose or be able to change what was given (say the run) at the line of scrimmage (to the pass). Does that still go on? Does anybody know. Because of course it’s always possible that the plays originally is a run that the quarterback checks to the pass – or vice a versa. This is not a “defense” of anybody. It’s just a question asking if they still do this. I’m curious

Me too. McKee may have got to the line, recognized the defense, and followed his read. If that is what happened, it is consistent with Stanford Football as it is presently constituted. It also may be McKee just didn't want to hand off, but if it was a misread, I am pretty sure Shaw would have pulled him.

[Goose]

I don't actually care if the coach acknowledges his bad decisions. Might be nice in terms of perception, but the only thing that matters is whether the coach gets better over time. Lots of the decisions people on sports boards call "bad" are matters of opinion. Naturally, those who assert the decision was "bad" are always right, at least in their own mind.

I've seen so many excuses like your post, Goose, about Shaw's play calling decisions being just a matter of opinion.

So let me ask you point blank:  do you think Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working), and a good implementation of his offense?  I think he is below average on all of it - way too many many examples of poor in-game decisions, indecisiveness, and no sense of going with what his eyes tell him.  It's incredible.  And he is now into his 10th season as the man calling plays for Stanford's offenses, and the raw numbers (and the particulars) reveal mediocrity on that front. 

Teejers1, it is by definition a "matter of opinion" whether any conterfactual  play would have worked any better. It didn't happen, so nobody can know the result. It is certainly possible to believe the result would have been better, and I may share that belief in many cases. However, it is still of necessity an opinion.

I am pretty sure that if somebody had asked David Shaw what happened on the three fades, he would have replied something like the following:
"We got the matchups we wanted. Given the defense they presented, the fade was the correct call". You may not like that analysis, but it is certainly a rational one. It is, in my opinion, probable that Shaw could have added (but would not) "We complete that pass 65% of the time against our own defense in single coverage press man. Our own defense knows exactly what is coming. I like those odds. I would do it again. We just failed to execute". Continuing my counterfactual interview, if somebody asked Shaw "Why didn't you run?", he would have said "We liked the matchups we had". He would be thinking "Five or six years ago, I would for sure have run three times, and if we didn't score, kicked a FG. However, back then the PAC-12 didn't have an answer for our power running. Now they do. They recruited bigger guys on defense, and if we never throw the ball near the end zone, they play the safeties like linebackers. I remember losses cause by not getting in the endzone, particularly against USC. I realized we needed to change, and we did. If we get a good matchup, we will take it every damn time. Didn't you listen to my previous answer?" Consider his response about Weaver vs Parkinson in the endzone on the pass that was simply lead too far. "I will take that matchup any day of the week".

You ask do I think "Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working) ...". I think Shaw believes he understands what his team does well  and does not do well. I think he also believes that the game plan and the analysis behind that are generally more reliable than what he "feels" about the flow of the game. As he says, he "doesn't panic" and change everything because he doesn't like what he sees at the moment.

Teejers1 seems to prefer a coach who is more responsive to what the "eye test" tells him. Is Shaw "stubborn"? He would probably say that he and the staff have studied the opponent extensively and have determined what gives them the best chance to win. They will not easily abandon that. I think Shaw has shown that he will adjust in the game if there is a clear reason, i.e. the opponent running a defense he did not expect. He won't do so just because things aren't working, because he believes the strategy is correct and the alternatives will be worse. Others may not agree.

One question - In the old days as I understood it they would give the quarterback both a running play and a passing play and the quarterback would choose or be able to change what was given (say the run) at the line of scrimmage (to the pass). Does that still go on? Does anybody know. Because of course it’s always possible that the plays originally is a run that the quarterback checks to the pass – or vice a versa. This is not a “defense” of anybody. It’s just a question asking if they still do this. I’m curious

Me too. McKee may have got to the line, recognized the defense, and followed his read. If that is what happened, it is consistent with Stanford Football as it is presently constituted. It also may be McKee just didn't want to hand off, but if it was a misread, I am pretty sure Shaw would have pulled him.

[teejers1]

Teejers1, it is by definition a "matter of opinion" whether any conterfactual  play would have worked any better. It didn't happen, so nobody can know the result. It is certainly possible to believe the result would have been better, and I may share that belief in many cases. However, it is still of necessity an opinion.

I am pretty sure that if somebody had asked David Shaw what happened on the three fades, he would have replied something like the following:
"We got the matchups we wanted. Given the defense they presented, the fade was the correct call". You may not like that analysis, but it is certainly a rational one. It is, in my opinion, probable that Shaw could have added (but would not) "We complete that pass 65% of the time against our own defense in single coverage press man. Our own defense knows exactly what is coming. I like those odds. I would do it again. We just failed to execute". Continuing my counterfactual interview, if somebody asked Shaw "Why didn't you run?", he would have said "We liked the matchups we had". He would be thinking "Five or six years ago, I would for sure have run three times, and if we didn't score, kicked a FG. However, back then the PAC-12 didn't have an answer for our power running. Now they do. They recruited bigger guys on defense, and if we never throw the ball near the end zone, they play the safeties like linebackers. I remember losses cause by not getting in the endzone, particularly against USC. I realized we needed to change, and we did. If we get a good matchup, we will take it every damn time. Didn't you listen to my previous answer?" Consider his response about Weaver vs Parkinson in the endzone on the pass that was simply lead too far. "I will take that matchup any day of the week".

You ask do I think "Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working) ...". I think Shaw believes he understands what his team does well  and does not do well. I think he also believes that the game plan and the analysis behind that are generally more reliable than what he "feels" about the flow of the game. As he says, he "doesn't panic" and change everything because he doesn't like what he sees at the moment.

Teejers1 seems to prefer a coach who is more responsive to what the "eye test" tells him. Is Shaw "stubborn"? He would probably say that he and the staff have studied the opponent extensively and have determined what gives them the best chance to win. They will not easily abandon that. I think Shaw has shown that he will adjust in the game if there is a clear reason, i.e. the opponent running a defense he did not expect. He won't do so just because things aren't working, because he believes the strategy is correct and the alternatives will be worse. Others may not agree.

Whether a coach thinks he is in 4 down territory on the opponent's 35 yard line is not a matter of opinion.  He either does, or he doesn't.  And whether you call plays with that mindset or not is also not a matter of opinion - you either do or you don't.  

And yes, the eye test matters - WAY more than some pre-game formula.  Just ask the Dodgers manager who stuck with Urias for multiple innings to close out games - including the WS winner - because his eyes told him "it was working."   

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

[teejers1]

Teejers1, it is by definition a "matter of opinion" whether any conterfactual  play would have worked any better. It didn't happen, so nobody can know the result. It is certainly possible to believe the result would have been better, and I may share that belief in many cases. However, it is still of necessity an opinion.

I am pretty sure that if somebody had asked David Shaw what happened on the three fades, he would have replied something like the following:
"We got the matchups we wanted. Given the defense they presented, the fade was the correct call". You may not like that analysis, but it is certainly a rational one. It is, in my opinion, probable that Shaw could have added (but would not) "We complete that pass 65% of the time against our own defense in single coverage press man. Our own defense knows exactly what is coming. I like those odds. I would do it again. We just failed to execute". Continuing my counterfactual interview, if somebody asked Shaw "Why didn't you run?", he would have said "We liked the matchups we had". He would be thinking "Five or six years ago, I would for sure have run three times, and if we didn't score, kicked a FG. However, back then the PAC-12 didn't have an answer for our power running. Now they do. They recruited bigger guys on defense, and if we never throw the ball near the end zone, they play the safeties like linebackers. I remember losses cause by not getting in the endzone, particularly against USC. I realized we needed to change, and we did. If we get a good matchup, we will take it every damn time. Didn't you listen to my previous answer?" Consider his response about Weaver vs Parkinson in the endzone on the pass that was simply lead too far. "I will take that matchup any day of the week".

You ask do I think "Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working) ...". I think Shaw believes he understands what his team does well  and does not do well. I think he also believes that the game plan and the analysis behind that are generally more reliable than what he "feels" about the flow of the game. As he says, he "doesn't panic" and change everything because he doesn't like what he sees at the moment.

Teejers1 seems to prefer a coach who is more responsive to what the "eye test" tells him. Is Shaw "stubborn"? He would probably say that he and the staff have studied the opponent extensively and have determined what gives them the best chance to win. They will not easily abandon that. I think Shaw has shown that he will adjust in the game if there is a clear reason, i.e. the opponent running a defense he did not expect. He won't do so just because things aren't working, because he believes the strategy is correct and the alternatives will be worse. Others may not agree.

Whether a coach thinks he is in 4 down territory on the opponent's 35 yard line is not a matter of opinion.  He either does, or he doesn't.  And whether you call plays with that mindset or not is also not a matter of opinion - you either do or you don't.  

And yes, the eye test matters - WAY more than some pre-game formula.  Just ask the Dodgers manager who stuck with Urias for multiple innings to close out games - including the WS winner - because his eyes told him "it was working."   

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

[Goose]

Whether a coach thinks he is in 4 down territory on the opponent's 35 yard line is not a matter of opinion.  He either does, or he doesn't.  And whether you call plays with that mindset or not is also not a matter of opinion - you either do or you don't. 

Unless being in 4 down territory is not solely dependent on being on/inside the opponent's 35 yard line, which by even your own standards may be modulated by the "eye test". Do you feel you can make 4th and 10? If you don't, maybe you kick a FG. If you do, yo go for it. If it is the end of the game and a FG won't help you, you go for it. It clearly isn't a dichotomy where you do the same thing because of where you are on the field.

And yes, the eye test matters - WAY more than some pre-game formula.  Just ask the Dodgers manager who stuck with Urias for multiple innings to close out games - including the WS winner - because his eyes told him "it was working."

I guess you aren't much of an analytics guy either. I am not of the opinion that the eye test matters way more than some pre-game formula. It can in some circumstances, but in most cases chasing success based on what didn't work on the last play doesn't work IMHO. If you find something that is working, ride it, but if you have a situation where the plays you run well against the defense the opponent is playing aren't working, switching to plays that you don't run well and/or are not indicated against the opposing defense probably isn't going to help.

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.



This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

And so many of us here are that Stanford could save lots of money by letting one of us call the plays?

[Goose]

Whether a coach thinks he is in 4 down territory on the opponent's 35 yard line is not a matter of opinion.  He either does, or he doesn't.  And whether you call plays with that mindset or not is also not a matter of opinion - you either do or you don't. 

Unless being in 4 down territory is not solely dependent on being on/inside the opponent's 35 yard line, which by even your own standards may be modulated by the "eye test". Do you feel you can make 4th and 10? If you don't, maybe you kick a FG. If you do, yo go for it. If it is the end of the game and a FG won't help you, you go for it. It clearly isn't a dichotomy where you do the same thing because of where you are on the field.

And yes, the eye test matters - WAY more than some pre-game formula.  Just ask the Dodgers manager who stuck with Urias for multiple innings to close out games - including the WS winner - because his eyes told him "it was working."

I guess you aren't much of an analytics guy either. I am not of the opinion that the eye test matters way more than some pre-game formula. It can in some circumstances, but in most cases chasing success based on what didn't work on the last play doesn't work IMHO. If you find something that is working, ride it, but if you have a situation where the plays you run well against the defense the opponent is playing aren't working, switching to plays that you don't run well and/or are not indicated against the opposing defense probably isn't going to help.

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.



This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

And so many of us here are that Stanford could save lots of money by letting one of us call the plays?

[gailtate]

Whether a coach thinks he is in 4 down territory on the opponent's 35 yard line is not a matter of opinion.  He either does, or he doesn't.  And whether you call plays with that mindset or not is also not a matter of opinion - you either do or you don't. 

Unless being in 4 down territory is not solely dependent on being on/inside the opponent's 35 yard line, which by even your own standards may be modulated by the "eye test". Do you feel you can make 4th and 10? If you don't, maybe you kick a FG. If you do, yo go for it. If it is the end of the game and a FG won't help you, you go for it. It clearly isn't a dichotomy where you do the same thing because of where you are on the field.

And yes, the eye test matters - WAY more than some pre-game formula.  Just ask the Dodgers manager who stuck with Urias for multiple innings to close out games - including the WS winner - because his eyes told him "it was working."

I guess you aren't much of an analytics guy either. I am not of the opinion that the eye test matters way more than some pre-game formula. It can in some circumstances, but in most cases chasing success based on what didn't work on the last play doesn't work IMHO. If you find something that is working, ride it, but if you have a situation where the plays you run well against the defense the opponent is playing aren't working, switching to plays that you don't run well and/or are not indicated against the opposing defense probably isn't going to help.

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.







This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

And so many of us here are that Stanford could save lots of money by letting one of us call the plays?

The issue here is part of a larger truth about Shaw, one his apologists refuse to recognize. His biggest fault is his exasperating insistence on playing the same, forced style of "analytics" (percentages) no matter what. This is the antithesis of what the coach he professes to idolize, Bill Walsh, preached and practiced: craft a scheme consistent with your talent on that day and call specific plays tailored to specific situations (down/distance, location, score, time left, etc.). And, yes, Walsh relied on his eyes: Was Roger Craig firing on all cylinders that day? Could J. Rice overcome the double coverage put on him by he Cowboys? Was John Taylor having his way with the corners? It's more complicated than this, of course, but you get the idea. Apparently, Shaw does not. Or will not. I'm scarred for life after those debacles vs. Okie State )'11, Utah '13 and Michigan St. '14. Giveaways.

[gailtate]

Whether a coach thinks he is in 4 down territory on the opponent's 35 yard line is not a matter of opinion.  He either does, or he doesn't.  And whether you call plays with that mindset or not is also not a matter of opinion - you either do or you don't. 

Unless being in 4 down territory is not solely dependent on being on/inside the opponent's 35 yard line, which by even your own standards may be modulated by the "eye test". Do you feel you can make 4th and 10? If you don't, maybe you kick a FG. If you do, yo go for it. If it is the end of the game and a FG won't help you, you go for it. It clearly isn't a dichotomy where you do the same thing because of where you are on the field.

And yes, the eye test matters - WAY more than some pre-game formula.  Just ask the Dodgers manager who stuck with Urias for multiple innings to close out games - including the WS winner - because his eyes told him "it was working."

I guess you aren't much of an analytics guy either. I am not of the opinion that the eye test matters way more than some pre-game formula. It can in some circumstances, but in most cases chasing success based on what didn't work on the last play doesn't work IMHO. If you find something that is working, ride it, but if you have a situation where the plays you run well against the defense the opponent is playing aren't working, switching to plays that you don't run well and/or are not indicated against the opposing defense probably isn't going to help.

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.







This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

And so many of us here are that Stanford could save lots of money by letting one of us call the plays?

The issue here is part of a larger truth about Shaw, one his apologists refuse to recognize. His biggest fault is his exasperating insistence on playing the same, forced style of "analytics" (percentages) no matter what. This is the antithesis of what the coach he professes to idolize, Bill Walsh, preached and practiced: craft a scheme consistent with your talent on that day and call specific plays tailored to specific situations (down/distance, location, score, time left, etc.). And, yes, Walsh relied on his eyes: Was Roger Craig firing on all cylinders that day? Could J. Rice overcome the double coverage put on him by he Cowboys? Was John Taylor having his way with the corners? It's more complicated than this, of course, but you get the idea. Apparently, Shaw does not. Or will not. I'm scarred for life after those debacles vs. Okie State )'11, Utah '13 and Michigan St. '14. Giveaways.

[Mick]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

[Mick]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

[teejers1]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

I don't know.  There were rumors that Harbs demoted Shaw and elevated Roman that last season (and some Pop Psychologists think this is reason Shaw is so stubbornly clinging to calling the plays here).  I have no idea if any of that is true; nor do I care.  I just want Stanford's offense to thrive with the talent it has . . . and it hasn't been happening under Shaw.

This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

[teejers1]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

I don't know.  There were rumors that Harbs demoted Shaw and elevated Roman that last season (and some Pop Psychologists think this is reason Shaw is so stubbornly clinging to calling the plays here).  I have no idea if any of that is true; nor do I care.  I just want Stanford's offense to thrive with the talent it has . . . and it hasn't been happening under Shaw.

This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

[gailtate]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

I don't know.  There were rumors that Harbs demoted Shaw and elevated Roman that last season (and some Pop Psychologists think this is reason Shaw is so stubbornly clinging to calling the plays here).  I have no idea if any of that is true; nor do I care.  I just want Stanford's offense to thrive with the talent it has . . . and it hasn't been happening under Shaw.

This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

"...hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself."

Translation: In the athletic administration of Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics Bernard Montgomery Muir, this is hopeless.

[gailtate]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

I don't know.  There were rumors that Harbs demoted Shaw and elevated Roman that last season (and some Pop Psychologists think this is reason Shaw is so stubbornly clinging to calling the plays here).  I have no idea if any of that is true; nor do I care.  I just want Stanford's offense to thrive with the talent it has . . . and it hasn't been happening under Shaw.

This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

"...hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself."

Translation: In the athletic administration of Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics Bernard Montgomery Muir, this is hopeless.

[Mick]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

I don't know.  There were rumors that Harbs demoted Shaw and elevated Roman that last season (and some Pop Psychologists think this is reason Shaw is so stubbornly clinging to calling the plays here).  I have no idea if any of that is true; nor do I care.  I just want Stanford's offense to thrive with the talent it has . . . and it hasn't been happening under Shaw.

This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

Not that it matters, but Greg Roman was the OC for the Ravens last year, tops in NFL offense as measured by points scored.  And I found it amusing that Roman was fired as the OC of the Buffalo Bills when his team scored 31 points.  Perhaps they should have fired the defensive coordinator, given that the defense gave up 37 points.

[Mick]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

I don't know.  There were rumors that Harbs demoted Shaw and elevated Roman that last season (and some Pop Psychologists think this is reason Shaw is so stubbornly clinging to calling the plays here).  I have no idea if any of that is true; nor do I care.  I just want Stanford's offense to thrive with the talent it has . . . and it hasn't been happening under Shaw.

This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

Not that it matters, but Greg Roman was the OC for the Ravens last year, tops in NFL offense as measured by points scored.  And I found it amusing that Roman was fired as the OC of the Buffalo Bills when his team scored 31 points.  Perhaps they should have fired the defensive coordinator, given that the defense gave up 37 points.

[teejers1]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

I don't know.  There were rumors that Harbs demoted Shaw and elevated Roman that last season (and some Pop Psychologists think this is reason Shaw is so stubbornly clinging to calling the plays here).  I have no idea if any of that is true; nor do I care.  I just want Stanford's offense to thrive with the talent it has . . . and it hasn't been happening under Shaw.

This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

"...hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself."

Translation: In the athletic administration of Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics Bernard Montgomery Muir, this is hopeless.

Hmmmmmm.  From an ESPN article today on Chicago head coach turning over play calling duties:

Nagy had been the Bears' lone offensive playcaller since he took over as head coach in January 2018. The Bears hired Nagy partly because of the time he spent immersed in Andy Reid's offensive system as an assistant in Philadelphia and Kansas City.
"Is it hard to do? Absolutely," Nagy said. "I'd be lying to every one of you guys if I told you that this is easy. It's not easy. It's one of my favorite parts of coaching. I love calling plays. I love it. I love it.
"Is it permanent, like you were asking me before? No, it's not permanent. But guess what? If this is what's best for the team, then that's what I'm gonna do. We need to do what's best for us, not what's best for Matt Nagy. That's where I'm at. . . "

Do ya think . . . ?   Nah, me neither.

[teejers1]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

I don't know.  There were rumors that Harbs demoted Shaw and elevated Roman that last season (and some Pop Psychologists think this is reason Shaw is so stubbornly clinging to calling the plays here).  I have no idea if any of that is true; nor do I care.  I just want Stanford's offense to thrive with the talent it has . . . and it hasn't been happening under Shaw.

This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

"...hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself."

Translation: In the athletic administration of Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics Bernard Montgomery Muir, this is hopeless.

Hmmmmmm.  From an ESPN article today on Chicago head coach turning over play calling duties:

Nagy had been the Bears' lone offensive playcaller since he took over as head coach in January 2018. The Bears hired Nagy partly because of the time he spent immersed in Andy Reid's offensive system as an assistant in Philadelphia and Kansas City.
"Is it hard to do? Absolutely," Nagy said. "I'd be lying to every one of you guys if I told you that this is easy. It's not easy. It's one of my favorite parts of coaching. I love calling plays. I love it. I love it.
"Is it permanent, like you were asking me before? No, it's not permanent. But guess what? If this is what's best for the team, then that's what I'm gonna do. We need to do what's best for us, not what's best for Matt Nagy. That's where I'm at. . . "

Do ya think . . . ?   Nah, me neither.

[lex24]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

I don't know.  There were rumors that Harbs demoted Shaw and elevated Roman that last season (and some Pop Psychologists think this is reason Shaw is so stubbornly clinging to calling the plays here).  I have no idea if any of that is true; nor do I care.  I just want Stanford's offense to thrive with the talent it has . . . and it hasn't been happening under Shaw.

This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

"...hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself."

Translation: In the athletic administration of Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics Bernard Montgomery Muir, this is hopeless.

Hmmmmmm.  From an ESPN article today on Chicago head coach turning over play calling duties:

Nagy had been the Bears' lone offensive playcaller since he took over as head coach in January 2018. The Bears hired Nagy partly because of the time he spent immersed in Andy Reid's offensive system as an assistant in Philadelphia and Kansas City.
"Is it hard to do? Absolutely," Nagy said. "I'd be lying to every one of you guys if I told you that this is easy. It's not easy. It's one of my favorite parts of coaching. I love calling plays. I love it. I love it.
"Is it permanent, like you were asking me before? No, it's not permanent. But guess what? If this is what's best for the team, then that's what I'm gonna do. We need to do what's best for us, not what's best for Matt Nagy. That's where I'm at. . . "

Do ya think . . . ?   Nah, me neither.

Let me translate Nagy’s comment: “my ass is on the line.  So I have to do this.”

[lex24]

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

Am I misremembering, or do I recall that when Shaw was Harbaugh's OC, Harbaugh would overrule him a handful of times per game?

I don't know.  There were rumors that Harbs demoted Shaw and elevated Roman that last season (and some Pop Psychologists think this is reason Shaw is so stubbornly clinging to calling the plays here).  I have no idea if any of that is true; nor do I care.  I just want Stanford's offense to thrive with the talent it has . . . and it hasn't been happening under Shaw.

This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

"...hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself."

Translation: In the athletic administration of Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics Bernard Montgomery Muir, this is hopeless.

Hmmmmmm.  From an ESPN article today on Chicago head coach turning over play calling duties:

Nagy had been the Bears' lone offensive playcaller since he took over as head coach in January 2018. The Bears hired Nagy partly because of the time he spent immersed in Andy Reid's offensive system as an assistant in Philadelphia and Kansas City.
"Is it hard to do? Absolutely," Nagy said. "I'd be lying to every one of you guys if I told you that this is easy. It's not easy. It's one of my favorite parts of coaching. I love calling plays. I love it. I love it.
"Is it permanent, like you were asking me before? No, it's not permanent. But guess what? If this is what's best for the team, then that's what I'm gonna do. We need to do what's best for us, not what's best for Matt Nagy. That's where I'm at. . . "

Do ya think . . . ?   Nah, me neither.

Let me translate Nagy’s comment: “my ass is on the line.  So I have to do this.”

[murky]

...This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

Shaw is a great HC for Stanford.

[murky]

...This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

Shaw is a great HC for Stanford.

[gailtate]

...This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

Shaw is a great HC for Stanford.

Bingo. You nailed it. He is a "great" HC --for Stanford. Problem, at least for some of us, is that he's not a particularly "great" HC.

[gailtate]

...This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

Shaw is a great HC for Stanford.

Bingo. You nailed it. He is a "great" HC --for Stanford. Problem, at least for some of us, is that he's not a particularly "great" HC.

[Phogge]

Yeah he probably will never get a DUI, have to leave town because he dallied with a friend’s wife, told the AD to get out of the locker room because only men can enter, attend a French Laundry party with four households present or let his once in a generation QB actually try to win a game.

[Phogge]

Yeah he probably will never get a DUI, have to leave town because he dallied with a friend’s wife, told the AD to get out of the locker room because only men can enter, attend a French Laundry party with four households present or let his once in a generation QB actually try to win a game.

[winflop]

...This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

Shaw is a great HC for Stanford.

Shaw WAS a great HC for Stanford. He's still a good HC for Stanford.

Make Shaw Great Again! LOLOLOLOL

[winflop]

...This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

Shaw is a great HC for Stanford.

Shaw WAS a great HC for Stanford. He's still a good HC for Stanford.

Make Shaw Great Again! LOLOLOLOL

[teejers1]

...This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

Shaw is a great HC for Stanford.

Please. . . only in the minds of those not paying attention to football (and you used to do that, murky).

But I tell you what, I'm "all in" for changing Shaw's title to Football Program Ambassador - hell, he can keep the oodles of $$ he is making - and he can keep doing all those things he is doing "repping" Stanford and helping the players grow as men.  Just please, for the love of God, hire a real OC and get the hell out of the way!!

[teejers1]

...This doesn't mean Shaw can't still be a good HC for Stanford - great HC's delegate all the time.  But after a decade now, hope is basically gone that he'll ever make this move himself.

Shaw is a great HC for Stanford.

Please. . . only in the minds of those not paying attention to football (and you used to do that, murky).

But I tell you what, I'm "all in" for changing Shaw's title to Football Program Ambassador - hell, he can keep the oodles of $$ he is making - and he can keep doing all those things he is doing "repping" Stanford and helping the players grow as men.  Just please, for the love of God, hire a real OC and get the hell out of the way!!