[troyc]

New show is up...against USC, the Card are done in by four turnovers and zero first-half defense. Postgame thoughts from David Shaw, Tanner McKee, and Jonathan McGill. Plus, the evolution of Stanford's offense continues (with some neat new wrinkles), Shaw said what about the defense?, and how the team is approaching the early bye week.

Download, subscribe, rate & review, and react!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Give It Away (September 12, 2022)

[troyc]

New show is up...against USC, the Card are done in by four turnovers and zero first-half defense. Postgame thoughts from David Shaw, Tanner McKee, and Jonathan McGill. Plus, the evolution of Stanford's offense continues (with some neat new wrinkles), Shaw said what about the defense?, and how the team is approaching the early bye week.

Download, subscribe, rate & review, and react!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Give It Away (September 12, 2022)

[JJJ]

New show is up...against USC, the Card are done in by four turnovers and zero first-half defense. Postgame thoughts from David Shaw, Tanner McKee, and Jonathan McGill. Plus, the evolution of Stanford's offense continues (with some neat new wrinkles), Shaw said what about the defense?, and how the team is approaching the early bye week.

Download, subscribe, rate & review, and react!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Give It Away (September 12, 2022)

Thanks. I don't know how you find the time to keep churning stuff out. H/T to you.

[JJJ]

New show is up...against USC, the Card are done in by four turnovers and zero first-half defense. Postgame thoughts from David Shaw, Tanner McKee, and Jonathan McGill. Plus, the evolution of Stanford's offense continues (with some neat new wrinkles), Shaw said what about the defense?, and how the team is approaching the early bye week.

Download, subscribe, rate & review, and react!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Give It Away (September 12, 2022)

Thanks. I don't know how you find the time to keep churning stuff out. H/T to you.

[winflop]

Great as usual Troy. And yes, the Malachi Crunch from Murphy & Parry personified the PartyInTheBackfield era. And yes, Barkley never truly recovered from that hit.

As excited as I am about the offense this year (assuming turnover issues can be resolved), I am equally depressed about the TreeFense. Next game will tell us a lot.

[winflop]

Great as usual Troy. And yes, the Malachi Crunch from Murphy & Parry personified the PartyInTheBackfield era. And yes, Barkley never truly recovered from that hit.

As excited as I am about the offense this year (assuming turnover issues can be resolved), I am equally depressed about the TreeFense. Next game will tell us a lot.

[MV72018]

New show is up...against USC, the Card are done in by four turnovers and zero first-half defense. Postgame thoughts from David Shaw, Tanner McKee, and Jonathan McGill. Plus, the evolution of Stanford's offense continues (with some neat new wrinkles), Shaw said what about the defense?, and how the team is approaching the early bye week.

Download, subscribe, rate & review, and react!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Give It Away (September 12, 2022)

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

[MV72018]

New show is up...against USC, the Card are done in by four turnovers and zero first-half defense. Postgame thoughts from David Shaw, Tanner McKee, and Jonathan McGill. Plus, the evolution of Stanford's offense continues (with some neat new wrinkles), Shaw said what about the defense?, and how the team is approaching the early bye week.

Download, subscribe, rate & review, and react!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Give It Away (September 12, 2022)

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

[Brickcity]

New show is up...against USC, the Card are done in by four turnovers and zero first-half defense. Postgame thoughts from David Shaw, Tanner McKee, and Jonathan McGill. Plus, the evolution of Stanford's offense continues (with some neat new wrinkles), Shaw said what about the defense?, and how the team is approaching the early bye week.

Download, subscribe, rate & review, and react!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Give It Away (September 12, 2022)

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

Just another proof point that there's zero accountability from our head coach. As for Troy C...yikes!

[Brickcity]

New show is up...against USC, the Card are done in by four turnovers and zero first-half defense. Postgame thoughts from David Shaw, Tanner McKee, and Jonathan McGill. Plus, the evolution of Stanford's offense continues (with some neat new wrinkles), Shaw said what about the defense?, and how the team is approaching the early bye week.

Download, subscribe, rate & review, and react!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Give It Away (September 12, 2022)

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

Just another proof point that there's zero accountability from our head coach. As for Troy C...yikes!

[troyc]

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

Thank you for checking out the show! I'd suggest giving it another listen, though. When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. Appreciate you listening!

Troy C

[troyc]

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

Thank you for checking out the show! I'd suggest giving it another listen, though. When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. Appreciate you listening!

Troy C

[JohnR34231]

It seemed to me that what Shaw was saying is that it wasn't as though our defense was that bad, it's just that U$C's offense was that good.
Also they didn't get much help from the offense, which squandered several opportunities to score and make it a tight game.
Shaw is always going to try to put a positive spin on things, and we ought to be used to it by now.

[JohnR34231]

It seemed to me that what Shaw was saying is that it wasn't as though our defense was that bad, it's just that U$C's offense was that good.
Also they didn't get much help from the offense, which squandered several opportunities to score and make it a tight game.
Shaw is always going to try to put a positive spin on things, and we ought to be used to it by now.

[CTcard]

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

... When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. ...

Well, it's not possible that this means something like "compared to what USC could have done" because USC scored a touchdown every time they had the ball ... except when the half ran out. And they did so quickly as well (their first third down play was just as the half was running out). 
Well, it is possible Shaw could have meant that, just not possible it could be true. 

I will have to go listen, but my first thought is Shaw must have meant something more like that not everyone on defense was lost, but without everyone in sync the whole thing falls apart. 
And while ennui on the trojans part was likely the main reason, the results were far better the second half. The trojeys scored no touchdowns, six points, gained only 129 drive-yards* in the half. 

* I don't have half by half statistics, but these are the cumulative yards SC gained in their second half yards. Penalty yards will affect the total versus how yards gained are typically counted. [A quick check seems to indicate it might be 139 yards from scrimmage.]

[CTcard]

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

... When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. ...

Well, it's not possible that this means something like "compared to what USC could have done" because USC scored a touchdown every time they had the ball ... except when the half ran out. And they did so quickly as well (their first third down play was just as the half was running out). 
Well, it is possible Shaw could have meant that, just not possible it could be true. 

I will have to go listen, but my first thought is Shaw must have meant something more like that not everyone on defense was lost, but without everyone in sync the whole thing falls apart. 
And while ennui on the trojans part was likely the main reason, the results were far better the second half. The trojeys scored no touchdowns, six points, gained only 129 drive-yards* in the half. 

* I don't have half by half statistics, but these are the cumulative yards SC gained in their second half yards. Penalty yards will affect the total versus how yards gained are typically counted. [A quick check seems to indicate it might be 139 yards from scrimmage.]

[msqueri]

Shaw lied and then got caught in a lie and knew it. Watch through Harold Gutmann's question. There is no explaining Shaw's comment in light of USC's offense not being challenged to even get to third down. I'll copy below what I wrote about this exchange in my morning after thoughts and offer one new thought: I think the way to read Shaw's comments is that you can't judge the defense as being as bad as it was because the offense's turnovers knee-capped the defense; Shaw was saying something negative about the offense more than something positive about the defense, it's just that his wording came out as a moronic lie. And then he bristled when a young buck reporter "contradicted" him, because it's embarrassing for the Great Man Stanford Football GOAT to be called out for a very stupid comment. But saying the defense was not terrible in the first half is very, very stupid. Anyway, what I wrote Sunday: 

6. Shaw's post-game comments about the defense not being terrible in the first half do not hold up to scrutiny and Harold Gutmann was quite right to point out that there was no evidence to support Shaw's assertion. Yes, we handed USC short fields but if the defense weren't terrible there would have been more positive plays. Two tackles for loss and a pass defended in a half is not putting up much resistance, no matter where you are on the field. The brightest spot for the defense was third down, only giving up two conversions....but USC didn't even have to try a third down until the last plays of the first half! We didn't actually stop them until the third quarter, and because the second half started with another bomb to Addison USC scored on that drive anyway. No, the defense was terrible. The culprit, contrary to our norm, was the pass defense, which was absolutely roasted to the tune of 12.6 yards per attempt, the most we've given up since the conference championship against USC in 2017 and the third most ever given up by a Shaw team. The enemy gets a vote and USC's passing attack is spectacular, but not that spectacular. 12.6 yards per attempt is worse than Rice allowed and worse than all but two Oklahoma opponents in 2021. Several DBs were victimized (and lack of pass rush plays a role too) but Kelly really stands out. I know Addison is the Biletnikoff winner and incredible, but a DB even close to the totally undeserved hype Kelly gets wouldn't give up a bomb every other game, which is his norm going back a long while now. In contrast, I will eat some crow, at least for a week, on Bonner, who had a very nice (totally quiet, as one likes to see for a corner) game. Granted, that may have been because Williams didn't need to target Bonner since Kelly and Wyrick were proving vulnerable, but still a very nice game for Bonner.

[msqueri]

Shaw lied and then got caught in a lie and knew it. Watch through Harold Gutmann's question. There is no explaining Shaw's comment in light of USC's offense not being challenged to even get to third down. I'll copy below what I wrote about this exchange in my morning after thoughts and offer one new thought: I think the way to read Shaw's comments is that you can't judge the defense as being as bad as it was because the offense's turnovers knee-capped the defense; Shaw was saying something negative about the offense more than something positive about the defense, it's just that his wording came out as a moronic lie. And then he bristled when a young buck reporter "contradicted" him, because it's embarrassing for the Great Man Stanford Football GOAT to be called out for a very stupid comment. But saying the defense was not terrible in the first half is very, very stupid. Anyway, what I wrote Sunday: 

6. Shaw's post-game comments about the defense not being terrible in the first half do not hold up to scrutiny and Harold Gutmann was quite right to point out that there was no evidence to support Shaw's assertion. Yes, we handed USC short fields but if the defense weren't terrible there would have been more positive plays. Two tackles for loss and a pass defended in a half is not putting up much resistance, no matter where you are on the field. The brightest spot for the defense was third down, only giving up two conversions....but USC didn't even have to try a third down until the last plays of the first half! We didn't actually stop them until the third quarter, and because the second half started with another bomb to Addison USC scored on that drive anyway. No, the defense was terrible. The culprit, contrary to our norm, was the pass defense, which was absolutely roasted to the tune of 12.6 yards per attempt, the most we've given up since the conference championship against USC in 2017 and the third most ever given up by a Shaw team. The enemy gets a vote and USC's passing attack is spectacular, but not that spectacular. 12.6 yards per attempt is worse than Rice allowed and worse than all but two Oklahoma opponents in 2021. Several DBs were victimized (and lack of pass rush plays a role too) but Kelly really stands out. I know Addison is the Biletnikoff winner and incredible, but a DB even close to the totally undeserved hype Kelly gets wouldn't give up a bomb every other game, which is his norm going back a long while now. In contrast, I will eat some crow, at least for a week, on Bonner, who had a very nice (totally quiet, as one likes to see for a corner) game. Granted, that may have been because Williams didn't need to target Bonner since Kelly and Wyrick were proving vulnerable, but still a very nice game for Bonner.

[gailtate]

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

... When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. ...

Well, it's not possible that this means something like "compared to what USC could have done" because USC scored a touchdown every time they had the ball ... except when the half ran out. And they did so quickly as well (their first third down play was just as the half was running out). 
Well, it is possible Shaw could have meant that, just not possible it could be true. 

I will have to go listen, but my first thought is Shaw must have meant something more like that not everyone on defense was lost, but without everyone in sync the whole thing falls apart. 
And while ennui on the trojans part was likely the main reason, the results were far better the second half. The trojeys scored no touchdowns, six points, gained only 129 drive-yards* in the half. 

* I don't have half by half statistics, but these are the cumulative yards SC gained in their second half yards. Penalty yards will affect the total versus how yards gained are typically counted. [A quick check seems to indicate it might be 139 yards from scrimmage.]

I won't knock the indefatigable David Shaw (although I could) for putting a coach's positive spin on a decisive loss; he is looking bravely at the assets side of the ledger, not the liabilities. Still, the outcome of this mismatch just stands to underscore how far the program must progress to get to where USC now lives. Not to mention how far and fast it's fallen. Not so long ago, Stanford was playing the Trojans straight up, year after year. This, unfortunately, is certainly not the case today as everyone can see, and it may never be again. Commentator Kirk Herbstreit's observation that Stanford "can no longer impose its will" was a polite appraisal when he referenced the recent past that had Stanford on prime-time.
What Troy Clardy conspicuously did not cite was Shaw's cringe-inducing statement about the TOs: "We don't turn it over four times and it's a different outcome".  Shades of his "we were four plays away (from victory in the 2021 Big Game)": a game Cal won 41-11? More and more, this is Shaw being Shaw.

[gailtate]

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

... When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. ...

Well, it's not possible that this means something like "compared to what USC could have done" because USC scored a touchdown every time they had the ball ... except when the half ran out. And they did so quickly as well (their first third down play was just as the half was running out). 
Well, it is possible Shaw could have meant that, just not possible it could be true. 

I will have to go listen, but my first thought is Shaw must have meant something more like that not everyone on defense was lost, but without everyone in sync the whole thing falls apart. 
And while ennui on the trojans part was likely the main reason, the results were far better the second half. The trojeys scored no touchdowns, six points, gained only 129 drive-yards* in the half. 

* I don't have half by half statistics, but these are the cumulative yards SC gained in their second half yards. Penalty yards will affect the total versus how yards gained are typically counted. [A quick check seems to indicate it might be 139 yards from scrimmage.]

I won't knock the indefatigable David Shaw (although I could) for putting a coach's positive spin on a decisive loss; he is looking bravely at the assets side of the ledger, not the liabilities. Still, the outcome of this mismatch just stands to underscore how far the program must progress to get to where USC now lives. Not to mention how far and fast it's fallen. Not so long ago, Stanford was playing the Trojans straight up, year after year. This, unfortunately, is certainly not the case today as everyone can see, and it may never be again. Commentator Kirk Herbstreit's observation that Stanford "can no longer impose its will" was a polite appraisal when he referenced the recent past that had Stanford on prime-time.
What Troy Clardy conspicuously did not cite was Shaw's cringe-inducing statement about the TOs: "We don't turn it over four times and it's a different outcome".  Shades of his "we were four plays away (from victory in the 2021 Big Game)": a game Cal won 41-11? More and more, this is Shaw being Shaw.

[SamuelMcF]

What Troy Clardy conspicuously did not cite was Shaw's cringe-inducing statement about the TOs: "We don't turn it over four times and it's a different outcome".  Shades of his "we were four plays away (from victory in the 2021 Big Game)": a game Cal won 41-11? More and more, this is Shaw being Shaw.

The first statement is correct. The second statement (from Big Game) was completely ludicrous.

[SamuelMcF]

What Troy Clardy conspicuously did not cite was Shaw's cringe-inducing statement about the TOs: "We don't turn it over four times and it's a different outcome".  Shades of his "we were four plays away (from victory in the 2021 Big Game)": a game Cal won 41-11? More and more, this is Shaw being Shaw.

The first statement is correct. The second statement (from Big Game) was completely ludicrous.

[MV72018]

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

... When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. ...

Well, it's not possible that this means something like "compared to what USC could have done" because USC scored a touchdown every time they had the ball ... except when the half ran out. And they did so quickly as well (their first third down play was just as the half was running out). 
Well, it is possible Shaw could have meant that, just not possible it could be true. 

I will have to go listen, but my first thought is Shaw must have meant something more like that not everyone on defense was lost, but without everyone in sync the whole thing falls apart. 
And while ennui on the trojans part was likely the main reason, the results were far better the second half. The trojeys scored no touchdowns, six points, gained only 129 drive-yards* in the half. 

* I don't have half by half statistics, but these are the cumulative yards SC gained in their second half yards. Penalty yards will affect the total versus how yards gained are typically counted. [A quick check seems to indicate it might be 139 yards from scrimmage.]

i was addressing Shaw's comments about the D's performance IN THE FIRST HALF, saying that 'we weren't terrible' and 'we didn't play perfectly,' the first being false and the second meriting a "DUH!!" Agreed, we seemed less porous in H2, whatever the reason or combination of factors. 

I didn't like two familiar play calls in H1: the incomplete pass to Tremayne at the back right corner of the endzone and the intercepted lob to Harris on the front left of the endzone.   

Shaw is prickly and often "bristles" when asked a probing question by reporters that challenges what he has said. I can't remember him ever saying in response to a question, 'well, that's a good point, I hadn't thought of that/looked at it in that way.' I do give him credit for introducing a new O approach. Let's see what our RPO does the next few games. 

Anyone think Filkens might be promoted to start over E. J. before long, and not for injury reasons? Could elicit a strong response.

[MV72018]

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

... When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. ...

Well, it's not possible that this means something like "compared to what USC could have done" because USC scored a touchdown every time they had the ball ... except when the half ran out. And they did so quickly as well (their first third down play was just as the half was running out). 
Well, it is possible Shaw could have meant that, just not possible it could be true. 

I will have to go listen, but my first thought is Shaw must have meant something more like that not everyone on defense was lost, but without everyone in sync the whole thing falls apart. 
And while ennui on the trojans part was likely the main reason, the results were far better the second half. The trojeys scored no touchdowns, six points, gained only 129 drive-yards* in the half. 

* I don't have half by half statistics, but these are the cumulative yards SC gained in their second half yards. Penalty yards will affect the total versus how yards gained are typically counted. [A quick check seems to indicate it might be 139 yards from scrimmage.]

i was addressing Shaw's comments about the D's performance IN THE FIRST HALF, saying that 'we weren't terrible' and 'we didn't play perfectly,' the first being false and the second meriting a "DUH!!" Agreed, we seemed less porous in H2, whatever the reason or combination of factors. 

I didn't like two familiar play calls in H1: the incomplete pass to Tremayne at the back right corner of the endzone and the intercepted lob to Harris on the front left of the endzone.   

Shaw is prickly and often "bristles" when asked a probing question by reporters that challenges what he has said. I can't remember him ever saying in response to a question, 'well, that's a good point, I hadn't thought of that/looked at it in that way.' I do give him credit for introducing a new O approach. Let's see what our RPO does the next few games. 

Anyone think Filkens might be promoted to start over E. J. before long, and not for injury reasons? Could elicit a strong response.

[gailtate]

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

... When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. ...

Well, it's not possible that this means something like "compared to what USC could have done" because USC scored a touchdown every time they had the ball ... except when the half ran out. And they did so quickly as well (their first third down play was just as the half was running out). 
Well, it is possible Shaw could have meant that, just not possible it could be true. 

I will have to go listen, but my first thought is Shaw must have meant something more like that not everyone on defense was lost, but without everyone in sync the whole thing falls apart. 
And while ennui on the trojans part was likely the main reason, the results were far better the second half. The trojeys scored no touchdowns, six points, gained only 129 drive-yards* in the half. 

* I don't have half by half statistics, but these are the cumulative yards SC gained in their second half yards. Penalty yards will affect the total versus how yards gained are typically counted. [A quick check seems to indicate it might be 139 yards from scrimmage.]

i was addressing Shaw's comments about the D's performance IN THE FIRST HALF, saying that 'we weren't terrible' and 'we didn't play perfectly,' the first being false and the second meriting a "DUH!!" Agreed, we seemed less porous in H2, whatever the reason or combination of factors. 

I didn't like two familiar play calls in H1: the incomplete pass to Tremayne at the back right corner of the endzone and the intercepted lob to Harris on the front left of the endzone.   

Shaw is prickly and often "bristles" when asked a probing question by reporters that challenges what he has said. I can't remember him ever saying in response to a question, 'well, that's a good point, I hadn't thought of that/looked at it in that way.' I do give him credit for introducing a new O approach. Let's see what our RPO does the next few games. 

Anyone think Filkens might be promoted to start over E. J. before long, and not for injury reasons? Could elicit a strong response.

Would either one have seen the field between 2012 and 2018?  Or been recruited?

[gailtate]

In his presser, Shaw actually said: "Defensively, in the first half, we weren't terrible. I'm not saying we played perfectly on the defensive side." Oh, I see: 366 yards and 5 TDs in H1 isn't evidence or proof of terrible D. Troy then suggests that whatt Shaw was actually saying is that compared to what USC could have done, holding them to 366 yards and 5 TDs wasn't terrible. Good Lord!!!

... When you come to that segment again, pay closer attention to my initial reaction to his quote, my actual interpretation of what he meant (which you inaccurately represent), and the soundbite from Shaw later in the presser that perhaps seemed to explain his perspective a bit better. ...

Well, it's not possible that this means something like "compared to what USC could have done" because USC scored a touchdown every time they had the ball ... except when the half ran out. And they did so quickly as well (their first third down play was just as the half was running out). 
Well, it is possible Shaw could have meant that, just not possible it could be true. 

I will have to go listen, but my first thought is Shaw must have meant something more like that not everyone on defense was lost, but without everyone in sync the whole thing falls apart. 
And while ennui on the trojans part was likely the main reason, the results were far better the second half. The trojeys scored no touchdowns, six points, gained only 129 drive-yards* in the half. 

* I don't have half by half statistics, but these are the cumulative yards SC gained in their second half yards. Penalty yards will affect the total versus how yards gained are typically counted. [A quick check seems to indicate it might be 139 yards from scrimmage.]

i was addressing Shaw's comments about the D's performance IN THE FIRST HALF, saying that 'we weren't terrible' and 'we didn't play perfectly,' the first being false and the second meriting a "DUH!!" Agreed, we seemed less porous in H2, whatever the reason or combination of factors. 

I didn't like two familiar play calls in H1: the incomplete pass to Tremayne at the back right corner of the endzone and the intercepted lob to Harris on the front left of the endzone.   

Shaw is prickly and often "bristles" when asked a probing question by reporters that challenges what he has said. I can't remember him ever saying in response to a question, 'well, that's a good point, I hadn't thought of that/looked at it in that way.' I do give him credit for introducing a new O approach. Let's see what our RPO does the next few games. 

Anyone think Filkens might be promoted to start over E. J. before long, and not for injury reasons? Could elicit a strong response.

Would either one have seen the field between 2012 and 2018?  Or been recruited?

[BostonCard]

“Not long ago” was last year.

I don’t know why you guys get worked up about what Shaw says at press conferences.  I think maybe you want to extract some satisfaction at Shaw prostrating himself or something, but there is very little Shaw can say.  If he tries to find silver linings, complaints line up that he is lying. Conversely, if he says anything negative, even if it is along the lines of “we struggled on defense” people will complain that he is throwing the players under the bus.

I’ve long said that Shaw’s goals at a press conference are to get out of there as quickly as possible, saying as little as possible. Obsessive can sometimes get a nugget or two of the coaching staff’s thinking, but more often than not, his comments are carefully couched coach-speak mostly designed to box check an activity that he clearly doesn’t enjoy (even, in many cases, after wins).

BC

[BostonCard]

“Not long ago” was last year.

I don’t know why you guys get worked up about what Shaw says at press conferences.  I think maybe you want to extract some satisfaction at Shaw prostrating himself or something, but there is very little Shaw can say.  If he tries to find silver linings, complaints line up that he is lying. Conversely, if he says anything negative, even if it is along the lines of “we struggled on defense” people will complain that he is throwing the players under the bus.

I’ve long said that Shaw’s goals at a press conference are to get out of there as quickly as possible, saying as little as possible. Obsessive can sometimes get a nugget or two of the coaching staff’s thinking, but more often than not, his comments are carefully couched coach-speak mostly designed to box check an activity that he clearly doesn’t enjoy (even, in many cases, after wins).

BC

[old spanish trail]

Agree, BC.

[old spanish trail]

Agree, BC.

[gailtate]

“Not long ago” was last year.

I don’t know why you guys get worked up about what Shaw says at press conferences.  I think maybe you want to extract some satisfaction at Shaw prostrating himself or something, but there is very little Shaw can say.  If he tries to find silver linings, complaints line up that he is lying. Conversely, if he says anything negative, even if it is along the lines of “we struggled on defense” people will complain that he is throwing the players under the bus.

I’ve long said that Shaw’s goals at a press conference are to get out of there as quickly as possible, saying as little as possible. Obsessive can sometimes get a nugget or two of the coaching staff’s thinking, but more often than not, his comments are carefully couched coach-speak mostly designed to box check an activity that he clearly doesn’t enjoy (even, in many cases, after wins).

BC

I don't get "worked up" so much as get repeatedly reminded of how thin-skinned this coach becomes with every galling loss. Arrogance on parade. As if he and his program are entitled to perpetual approbation and fealty because, after all, his is the Greatest and Winningest Football Program in Stanford history, fergawdsakes! What is with you Philistines? Can't you assent to a GOAT when you're in his presence? Can you not acknowledge the Greatness of The GOAT? On your knees, wretches!

[gailtate]

“Not long ago” was last year.

I don’t know why you guys get worked up about what Shaw says at press conferences.  I think maybe you want to extract some satisfaction at Shaw prostrating himself or something, but there is very little Shaw can say.  If he tries to find silver linings, complaints line up that he is lying. Conversely, if he says anything negative, even if it is along the lines of “we struggled on defense” people will complain that he is throwing the players under the bus.

I’ve long said that Shaw’s goals at a press conference are to get out of there as quickly as possible, saying as little as possible. Obsessive can sometimes get a nugget or two of the coaching staff’s thinking, but more often than not, his comments are carefully couched coach-speak mostly designed to box check an activity that he clearly doesn’t enjoy (even, in many cases, after wins).

BC

I don't get "worked up" so much as get repeatedly reminded of how thin-skinned this coach becomes with every galling loss. Arrogance on parade. As if he and his program are entitled to perpetual approbation and fealty because, after all, his is the Greatest and Winningest Football Program in Stanford history, fergawdsakes! What is with you Philistines? Can't you assent to a GOAT when you're in his presence? Can you not acknowledge the Greatness of The GOAT? On your knees, wretches!

[Spiny_Norman]

I don't get "worked up" so much as get repeatedly reminded of how thin-skinned this coach becomes with every galling loss. Arrogance on parade. As if he and his program are entitled to perpetual approbation and fealty because, after all, his is the Greatest and Winningest Football Program in Stanford history, fergawdsakes! What is with you Philistines? Can't you assent to a GOAT when you're in his presence? Can you not acknowledge the Greatness of The GOAT? On your knees, wretches!

Shaw is now officially the losingest coach in Stanford football history. No coach has lost more games. Of course, no one has coached more games to win or lose than Shaw.

[Spiny_Norman]

I don't get "worked up" so much as get repeatedly reminded of how thin-skinned this coach becomes with every galling loss. Arrogance on parade. As if he and his program are entitled to perpetual approbation and fealty because, after all, his is the Greatest and Winningest Football Program in Stanford history, fergawdsakes! What is with you Philistines? Can't you assent to a GOAT when you're in his presence? Can you not acknowledge the Greatness of The GOAT? On your knees, wretches!

Shaw is now officially the losingest coach in Stanford football history. No coach has lost more games. Of course, no one has coached more games to win or lose than Shaw.

[MV72018]

“Not long ago” was last year.

I don’t know why you guys get worked up about what Shaw says at press conferences.  I think maybe you want to extract some satisfaction at Shaw prostrating himself or something, but there is very little Shaw can say.  If he tries to find silver linings, complaints line up that he is lying. Conversely, if he says anything negative, even if it is along the lines of “we struggled on defense” people will complain that he is throwing the players under the bus.

I’ve long said that Shaw’s goals at a press conference are to get out of there as quickly as possible, saying as little as possible. Obsessive can sometimes get a nugget or two of the coaching staff’s thinking, but more often than not, his comments are carefully couched coach-speak mostly designed to box check an activity that he clearly doesn’t enjoy (even, in many cases, after wins).

BC

I get "worked up"?! I want Shaw to "prostrate" himself?! You are evidently a devotee of the strawman approach to disagreement: exaggerate the other person's point of view, then knock it down. Impressive -- NOT.

[MV72018]

“Not long ago” was last year.

I don’t know why you guys get worked up about what Shaw says at press conferences.  I think maybe you want to extract some satisfaction at Shaw prostrating himself or something, but there is very little Shaw can say.  If he tries to find silver linings, complaints line up that he is lying. Conversely, if he says anything negative, even if it is along the lines of “we struggled on defense” people will complain that he is throwing the players under the bus.

I’ve long said that Shaw’s goals at a press conference are to get out of there as quickly as possible, saying as little as possible. Obsessive can sometimes get a nugget or two of the coaching staff’s thinking, but more often than not, his comments are carefully couched coach-speak mostly designed to box check an activity that he clearly doesn’t enjoy (even, in many cases, after wins).

BC

I get "worked up"?! I want Shaw to "prostrate" himself?! You are evidently a devotee of the strawman approach to disagreement: exaggerate the other person's point of view, then knock it down. Impressive -- NOT.

[BostonCard]

My post evidently hit a nerve, because it engendered two posts so defensive it would have made Shaw blush.  It seems that nobody enjoys being criticized, whether you are a Power 5 football coach or an anonymous poster on a message board (nb, I include myself here).  Now imagine having to do that in front of TV cameras every week.  If you want to get worked up about the loss, go ahead, but for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone would care about a press conference.  If it bothers you so much, maybe, change the channel?

BC

[BostonCard]

My post evidently hit a nerve, because it engendered two posts so defensive it would have made Shaw blush.  It seems that nobody enjoys being criticized, whether you are a Power 5 football coach or an anonymous poster on a message board (nb, I include myself here).  Now imagine having to do that in front of TV cameras every week.  If you want to get worked up about the loss, go ahead, but for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone would care about a press conference.  If it bothers you so much, maybe, change the channel?

BC

[gailtate]

My post evidently hit a nerve, because it engendered two posts so defensive it would have made Shaw blush.  It seems that nobody enjoys being criticized, whether you are a Power 5 football coach or an anonymous poster on a message board (nb, I include myself here).  Now imagine having to do that in front of TV cameras every week.  If you want to get worked up about the loss, go ahead, but for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone would care about a press conference.  If it bothers you so much, maybe, change the channel?

BC

Your thin-ness of skin is showing. Chill.

[gailtate]

My post evidently hit a nerve, because it engendered two posts so defensive it would have made Shaw blush.  It seems that nobody enjoys being criticized, whether you are a Power 5 football coach or an anonymous poster on a message board (nb, I include myself here).  Now imagine having to do that in front of TV cameras every week.  If you want to get worked up about the loss, go ahead, but for the life of me I don’t understand why anyone would care about a press conference.  If it bothers you so much, maybe, change the channel?

BC

Your thin-ness of skin is showing. Chill.