[msqueri]

I appreciate the discussion after my post asking which former coaches would be preferable - going forward.

I'm not surprised to see some prefer Green.  The way Willingham was vilified, I am a little surprised that some prefer him, but maybe its the detachment of time and distance that allow a more favorable view in hindsight.

But it is stunning to suggest Teevens, especially if based on results.

In any case, its interesting to see the depths of disapproval and despair with Shaw.

My attachment to Stanford sports grew in a time that involved regular hope against hope, sometimes rewarded and then the more sweet for it.   I was a student from 90-95 and our record over that period was just over 500.  

The nadir for the program was Walt's last season, 1-11 after years of nothing but futility.

In my time we've had 2 coaches who've had more winning seasons than losing, and they both got heaps of crap from the fan boards.

Shaw, even while delivering winning seasons.

edit:  As far as I'm concerned, and not just in hindsight, I give a near complete pass for what occurred during the Covid affected seasons.  It's just an entirely different set of luck and skills that determines outcomes in such circumstances.

I knew you'd be stunned by the Teevens comparison. Teevens was given practically no chance at all to succeed because Willingham bequeathed no offensive line (almost literally) and yet still gave us Sagarin #74, #69, and #46 teams. One needs to look at computer rankings to be serious because the Pac-12 has declined so considerably in two decades that it's much easier for Shaw to get wins than it was for Teevens. Shaw's last three seasons were #73, #38 (but without the Pac-12 playing non-conference games to lower its ranking in the algorithms as typically happens these years), and #89. You telling me Stanford football today is better than when Teevens was coach? And, again, Teevens coached with an arm tied behind his back and a blindfold on given what he inherited, whereas Shaw built everything he presides over.

I am the biggest Willingham hater there is. I'm not viewing him any more favorably in hindsight. Preferring Willingham over 2022 Shaw is more about 2022 Shaw.

I think it's wrongheaded to hand wave Shaw's failures because of COVID-19. By far the best feather in 2019-2022 Shaw's cap was the 2020 Road Dog year, by far the most pandemic-affected year! It's everything before and after the pandemic limitations that make it clear Shaw is now a very poor coach. The only way your argument would hold water is if we won 8+ games this year. If that happened, I might chuckle at how much we fans impatiently and rashly read too much into an understandable, explainable, and correctable dip. I'd be delighted to eat that crow. I don't expect to sadly.

[msqueri]

I appreciate the discussion after my post asking which former coaches would be preferable - going forward.

I'm not surprised to see some prefer Green.  The way Willingham was vilified, I am a little surprised that some prefer him, but maybe its the detachment of time and distance that allow a more favorable view in hindsight.

But it is stunning to suggest Teevens, especially if based on results.

In any case, its interesting to see the depths of disapproval and despair with Shaw.

My attachment to Stanford sports grew in a time that involved regular hope against hope, sometimes rewarded and then the more sweet for it.   I was a student from 90-95 and our record over that period was just over 500.  

The nadir for the program was Walt's last season, 1-11 after years of nothing but futility.

In my time we've had 2 coaches who've had more winning seasons than losing, and they both got heaps of crap from the fan boards.

Shaw, even while delivering winning seasons.

edit:  As far as I'm concerned, and not just in hindsight, I give a near complete pass for what occurred during the Covid affected seasons.  It's just an entirely different set of luck and skills that determines outcomes in such circumstances.

I knew you'd be stunned by the Teevens comparison. Teevens was given practically no chance at all to succeed because Willingham bequeathed no offensive line (almost literally) and yet still gave us Sagarin #74, #69, and #46 teams. One needs to look at computer rankings to be serious because the Pac-12 has declined so considerably in two decades that it's much easier for Shaw to get wins than it was for Teevens. Shaw's last three seasons were #73, #38 (but without the Pac-12 playing non-conference games to lower its ranking in the algorithms as typically happens these years), and #89. You telling me Stanford football today is better than when Teevens was coach? And, again, Teevens coached with an arm tied behind his back and a blindfold on given what he inherited, whereas Shaw built everything he presides over.

I am the biggest Willingham hater there is. I'm not viewing him any more favorably in hindsight. Preferring Willingham over 2022 Shaw is more about 2022 Shaw.

I think it's wrongheaded to hand wave Shaw's failures because of COVID-19. By far the best feather in 2019-2022 Shaw's cap was the 2020 Road Dog year, by far the most pandemic-affected year! It's everything before and after the pandemic limitations that make it clear Shaw is now a very poor coach. The only way your argument would hold water is if we won 8+ games this year. If that happened, I might chuckle at how much we fans impatiently and rashly read too much into an understandable, explainable, and correctable dip. I'd be delighted to eat that crow. I don't expect to sadly.

[gailtate]

I appreciate the discussion after my post asking which former coaches would be preferable - going forward.

I'm not surprised to see some prefer Green.  The way Willingham was vilified, I am a little surprised that some prefer him, but maybe its the detachment of time and distance that allow a more favorable view in hindsight.

But it is stunning to suggest Teevens, especially if based on results.

In any case, its interesting to see the depths of disapproval and despair with Shaw.

My attachment to Stanford sports grew in a time that involved regular hope against hope, sometimes rewarded and then the more sweet for it.   I was a student from 90-95 and our record over that period was just over 500.  

The nadir for the program was Walt's last season, 1-11 after years of nothing but futility.

In my time we've had 2 coaches who've had more winning seasons than losing, and they both got heaps of crap from the fan boards.

Shaw, even while delivering winning seasons.

edit:  As far as I'm concerned, and not just in hindsight, I give a near complete pass for what occurred during the Covid affected seasons.  It's just an entirely different set of luck and skills that determines outcomes in such circumstances.

I knew you'd be stunned by the Teevens comparison. Teevens was given practically no chance at all to succeed because Willingham bequeathed no offensive line (almost literally) and yet still gave us Sagarin #74, #69, and #46 teams. One needs to look at computer rankings to be serious because the Pac-12 has declined so considerably in two decades that it's much easier for Shaw to get wins than it was for Teevens. Shaw's last three seasons were #73, #38 (but without the Pac-12 playing non-conference games to lower its ranking in the algorithms as typically happens these years), and #89. You telling me Stanford football today is better than when Teevens was coach? And, again, Teevens coached with an arm tied behind his back and a blindfold on given what he inherited, whereas Shaw built everything he presides over.

I am the biggest Willingham hater there is. I'm not viewing him any more favorably in hindsight. Preferring Willingham over 2022 Shaw is more about 2022 Shaw.

I think it's wrongheaded to hand wave Shaw's failures because of COVID-19. By far the best feather in 2019-2022 Shaw's cap was the 2020 Road Dog year, by far the most pandemic-affected year! It's everything before and after the pandemic limitations that make it clear Shaw is now a very poor coach. The only way your argument would hold water is if we won 8+ games this year. If that happened, I might chuckle at how much we fans impatiently and rashly read too much into an understandable, explainable, and correctable dip. I'd be delighted to eat that crow. I don't expect to sadly.

We now have a re-boot of Walsh. We now have Shaw I and Shaw II. There was the winning Shaw followed by the losing Shaw. Precisely where you draw the line of demarcation between them is matter of interpretation. But there are definitely two Shaw eras. So who was or is the real Shaw? He may not want to hang around long enough to reveal conclusive evidence. Okay by me. IF it's a short hang. If the rumblings are based on fact, he has another year (maybe two?) to coach himself out of his current job. Maybe a "promotion" elsewhere on campus?

[gailtate]

I appreciate the discussion after my post asking which former coaches would be preferable - going forward.

I'm not surprised to see some prefer Green.  The way Willingham was vilified, I am a little surprised that some prefer him, but maybe its the detachment of time and distance that allow a more favorable view in hindsight.

But it is stunning to suggest Teevens, especially if based on results.

In any case, its interesting to see the depths of disapproval and despair with Shaw.

My attachment to Stanford sports grew in a time that involved regular hope against hope, sometimes rewarded and then the more sweet for it.   I was a student from 90-95 and our record over that period was just over 500.  

The nadir for the program was Walt's last season, 1-11 after years of nothing but futility.

In my time we've had 2 coaches who've had more winning seasons than losing, and they both got heaps of crap from the fan boards.

Shaw, even while delivering winning seasons.

edit:  As far as I'm concerned, and not just in hindsight, I give a near complete pass for what occurred during the Covid affected seasons.  It's just an entirely different set of luck and skills that determines outcomes in such circumstances.

I knew you'd be stunned by the Teevens comparison. Teevens was given practically no chance at all to succeed because Willingham bequeathed no offensive line (almost literally) and yet still gave us Sagarin #74, #69, and #46 teams. One needs to look at computer rankings to be serious because the Pac-12 has declined so considerably in two decades that it's much easier for Shaw to get wins than it was for Teevens. Shaw's last three seasons were #73, #38 (but without the Pac-12 playing non-conference games to lower its ranking in the algorithms as typically happens these years), and #89. You telling me Stanford football today is better than when Teevens was coach? And, again, Teevens coached with an arm tied behind his back and a blindfold on given what he inherited, whereas Shaw built everything he presides over.

I am the biggest Willingham hater there is. I'm not viewing him any more favorably in hindsight. Preferring Willingham over 2022 Shaw is more about 2022 Shaw.

I think it's wrongheaded to hand wave Shaw's failures because of COVID-19. By far the best feather in 2019-2022 Shaw's cap was the 2020 Road Dog year, by far the most pandemic-affected year! It's everything before and after the pandemic limitations that make it clear Shaw is now a very poor coach. The only way your argument would hold water is if we won 8+ games this year. If that happened, I might chuckle at how much we fans impatiently and rashly read too much into an understandable, explainable, and correctable dip. I'd be delighted to eat that crow. I don't expect to sadly.

We now have a re-boot of Walsh. We now have Shaw I and Shaw II. There was the winning Shaw followed by the losing Shaw. Precisely where you draw the line of demarcation between them is matter of interpretation. But there are definitely two Shaw eras. So who was or is the real Shaw? He may not want to hang around long enough to reveal conclusive evidence. Okay by me. IF it's a short hang. If the rumblings are based on fact, he has another year (maybe two?) to coach himself out of his current job. Maybe a "promotion" elsewhere on campus?

[McKenwood]

We now have a re-boot of Walsh. We now have Shaw I and Shaw II. There was the winning Shaw followed by the losing Shaw. Precisely where you draw the line of demarcation between them is matter of interpretation. But there are definitely two Shaw eras. So who was or is the real Shaw? He may not want to hang around long enough to reveal conclusive evidence. Okay by me. IF it's a short hang. If the rumblings are based on fact, he has another year (maybe two?) to coach himself out of his current job. Maybe a "promotion" elsewhere on campus?
[/quote]

Good analogy using Walsh 1 and Walsh 2. Walsh 1 built on what Christiansen had, developed players on the roster and recruited better. Walsh 2 was filled with hubris including rookie coaches and a head coach that thought he could outcoach anyone he came up against. He didn't do much with players already on the roster (although there were talent shortfalls) and relied on his recruits too early in their development. Ultimately he came to the realization he wasn't the man to turn the program around. Let's hope Shaw comes to the same conclusion if he cannot get it done this season.

[McKenwood]

We now have a re-boot of Walsh. We now have Shaw I and Shaw II. There was the winning Shaw followed by the losing Shaw. Precisely where you draw the line of demarcation between them is matter of interpretation. But there are definitely two Shaw eras. So who was or is the real Shaw? He may not want to hang around long enough to reveal conclusive evidence. Okay by me. IF it's a short hang. If the rumblings are based on fact, he has another year (maybe two?) to coach himself out of his current job. Maybe a "promotion" elsewhere on campus?
[/quote]

Good analogy using Walsh 1 and Walsh 2. Walsh 1 built on what Christiansen had, developed players on the roster and recruited better. Walsh 2 was filled with hubris including rookie coaches and a head coach that thought he could outcoach anyone he came up against. He didn't do much with players already on the roster (although there were talent shortfalls) and relied on his recruits too early in their development. Ultimately he came to the realization he wasn't the man to turn the program around. Let's hope Shaw comes to the same conclusion if he cannot get it done this season.

[Jamesy]

Regarding the generic replacement coach argument, I think we schedule way too hard in non-conference. 2, if not all 3, non-conference games should be easy victories, particularly if you're trying to rebuild a program. The generic replacement coach in a P5 school usually schedules as such so you're going to get 1-2 more losses here than you otherwise would with a generic replacement.  

In general, we need to schedule to go 2-1, if not 3-0 most years non-conference. You go 3-0 non-conference, you only need 3 conference wins to make a bowl. Next year, with Hawaii and Sac State, our schedule is a little easier. TCU and Notre Dame in 2024, not so much.

[Jamesy]

Regarding the generic replacement coach argument, I think we schedule way too hard in non-conference. 2, if not all 3, non-conference games should be easy victories, particularly if you're trying to rebuild a program. The generic replacement coach in a P5 school usually schedules as such so you're going to get 1-2 more losses here than you otherwise would with a generic replacement.  

In general, we need to schedule to go 2-1, if not 3-0 most years non-conference. You go 3-0 non-conference, you only need 3 conference wins to make a bowl. Next year, with Hawaii and Sac State, our schedule is a little easier. TCU and Notre Dame in 2024, not so much.