[msqueri]

I have never seen a deal where a departing goal insists on assistants staying on.  I expect Shaw will help his now former assistants find a decent landing spot, but I’d be surprised if that is at Stanford, with maybe one or two exceptions (at the discretion of the incoming coach) for continuity and to maintain the 2023 recruiting class.  It does help to have someone on the staff who knows things like admissions, though that could be someone like Mike Eubanks who is an employee of the AD and not the football team.

BC

Hard to prove the "insist" part of it I guess, but assistants having continuity across regimes happens. Dave Tipton coached 18 years at Stanford under four different head coaches. And all three of the head coaches who retained him after Walsh II came from outside the program (Willingham, Teevens, and Harris), with the latter two certainly being well outside of the program.

Just a Stanford example. It occasionally happens elsewhere too. Tip, by the way, is a good example of why it's crucial to give the new guy autonomy. Many at Stanford found it galling that Harbaugh gave the heave-ho to one of the most legendary and beloved Cardinal of all time (a Thunder Chicken for the uninitiated), thinking it an unfeeling, un-Stanford-like radical break from continuity, but Harbaugh thought Lance Anderson and DJ Durkin were more important for the staff he wanted (he would have been unable to bring one of those guys if he kept Tip). After what we subsequently saw, who could possibly argue Harbaugh was wrong?

[msqueri]

I have never seen a deal where a departing goal insists on assistants staying on.  I expect Shaw will help his now former assistants find a decent landing spot, but I’d be surprised if that is at Stanford, with maybe one or two exceptions (at the discretion of the incoming coach) for continuity and to maintain the 2023 recruiting class.  It does help to have someone on the staff who knows things like admissions, though that could be someone like Mike Eubanks who is an employee of the AD and not the football team.

BC

Hard to prove the "insist" part of it I guess, but assistants having continuity across regimes happens. Dave Tipton coached 18 years at Stanford under four different head coaches. And all three of the head coaches who retained him after Walsh II came from outside the program (Willingham, Teevens, and Harris), with the latter two certainly being well outside of the program.

Just a Stanford example. It occasionally happens elsewhere too. Tip, by the way, is a good example of why it's crucial to give the new guy autonomy. Many at Stanford found it galling that Harbaugh gave the heave-ho to one of the most legendary and beloved Cardinal of all time (a Thunder Chicken for the uninitiated), thinking it an unfeeling, un-Stanford-like radical break from continuity, but Harbaugh thought Lance Anderson and DJ Durkin were more important for the staff he wanted (he would have been unable to bring one of those guys if he kept Tip). After what we subsequently saw, who could possibly argue Harbaugh was wrong?

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bransonbragg/status/1596977819082317824?s=61&t=xVlrb2kTCIPC31rxa2s8Sg[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/originalmcgill3/status/1596789440365543426?s=61&t=xVlrb2kTCIPC31rxa2s8Sg[/tweet]

Trying to see what current and recent athletes are saying about Shaw.  so far, it is mostly along this vein, which suggests that either they are being diplomatic (no point in burning bridges) or the rumors of an impending revolt are overblown.  To be fair, I have a limited sample size, and haven’t looked through all 85 players’ twitter feeds, but  I do contrast these tweets with reactions that leaked out after Harris’ and Harbaugh’s departures, which were, shall we say, less diplomatic.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bransonbragg/status/1596977819082317824?s=61&t=xVlrb2kTCIPC31rxa2s8Sg[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/originalmcgill3/status/1596789440365543426?s=61&t=xVlrb2kTCIPC31rxa2s8Sg[/tweet]

Trying to see what current and recent athletes are saying about Shaw.  so far, it is mostly along this vein, which suggests that either they are being diplomatic (no point in burning bridges) or the rumors of an impending revolt are overblown.  To be fair, I have a limited sample size, and haven’t looked through all 85 players’ twitter feeds, but  I do contrast these tweets with reactions that leaked out after Harris’ and Harbaugh’s departures, which were, shall we say, less diplomatic.

BC

[msqueri]

It's interesting to keep an eye on but the differences are so significant as to make a comparison fraught. David Shaw is literally one of the greatest (in terms of accomplishments) black coaches in American sports history. Icon. 50 years old so he has lots of time left in his life as a respected wise man, forever affiliated with the university these young men have hitched their stars to. Saying anything against him is a brave, public burning of a bridge that draws attention (hence how interesting Ben Gardner's comments have been). For many others publicly saying nice things, regardless of whatever nuance may be in their private hearts (or not, some surely view him as an unparalleled role model), is a classy, low cost gesture. Walt Harris was, shall we say, a different situation.

Anyway, as much as I had to give thought about how to characterize Shaw in my post, it's so much more fraught for those he views as his mentees. Big-time power dynamic here (I mean, in the most basic sense, think letters of recommendation) and, beyond power, just the genuine force of what he's meant for Stanford, black men, etc.

[msqueri]

It's interesting to keep an eye on but the differences are so significant as to make a comparison fraught. David Shaw is literally one of the greatest (in terms of accomplishments) black coaches in American sports history. Icon. 50 years old so he has lots of time left in his life as a respected wise man, forever affiliated with the university these young men have hitched their stars to. Saying anything against him is a brave, public burning of a bridge that draws attention (hence how interesting Ben Gardner's comments have been). For many others publicly saying nice things, regardless of whatever nuance may be in their private hearts (or not, some surely view him as an unparalleled role model), is a classy, low cost gesture. Walt Harris was, shall we say, a different situation.

Anyway, as much as I had to give thought about how to characterize Shaw in my post, it's so much more fraught for those he views as his mentees. Big-time power dynamic here (I mean, in the most basic sense, think letters of recommendation) and, beyond power, just the genuine force of what he's meant for Stanford, black men, etc.

[Goose]

I think the new coach, whoever that is, should have the complete freedom to choose his assistants. That said, if that guy is as smart as we hope he is, he should interview the guys that are already there. Some of them may tell him something that he needs to know that nobody else will. Some of them he may want to keep, possibly in a different capacity. It is probable many of the assistants won't want to stay anyway. Some are probably ready to retire. Others have (for a long time IMO) need to move on and flesh out their resume. Presumably Shaw will help them do that, in so far as he can. The important thing is that the new guy decides who, if anyone, he keeps.

By the way, does anybody know when the assistants found out Shaw was going? Was it the same time as the team? If not, congrats on keeping it quiet.

[Goose]

I think the new coach, whoever that is, should have the complete freedom to choose his assistants. That said, if that guy is as smart as we hope he is, he should interview the guys that are already there. Some of them may tell him something that he needs to know that nobody else will. Some of them he may want to keep, possibly in a different capacity. It is probable many of the assistants won't want to stay anyway. Some are probably ready to retire. Others have (for a long time IMO) need to move on and flesh out their resume. Presumably Shaw will help them do that, in so far as he can. The important thing is that the new guy decides who, if anyone, he keeps.

By the way, does anybody know when the assistants found out Shaw was going? Was it the same time as the team? If not, congrats on keeping it quiet.

[French Rage]

Anybody's guess how much of Shaw's departure was his decision or Stanford's. I did always think that if Shaw were fired, it would be presented to the public as though it was his decision.

I did find interesting his comment about how two weeks ago it wasn't even something he was contemplating. Did he suddenly have an epiphany or was it a notice from the University?

Would Shaw choose to retire rather than be fired to same the school the cost of the rest of his contract?  (Assuming he had more years on it, I honestly don't know.)  I suppose there's being selfless and there's giving up millions upon millions of dollars, so maybe that's a bit too much.

[French Rage]

Anybody's guess how much of Shaw's departure was his decision or Stanford's. I did always think that if Shaw were fired, it would be presented to the public as though it was his decision.

I did find interesting his comment about how two weeks ago it wasn't even something he was contemplating. Did he suddenly have an epiphany or was it a notice from the University?

Would Shaw choose to retire rather than be fired to same the school the cost of the rest of his contract?  (Assuming he had more years on it, I honestly don't know.)  I suppose there's being selfless and there's giving up millions upon millions of dollars, so maybe that's a bit too much.

[BostonCard]

It's interesting to keep an eye on but the differences are so significant as to make a comparison fraught. David Shaw is literally one of the greatest (in terms of accomplishments) black coaches in American sports history. Icon. 50 years old so he has lots of time left in his life as a respected wise man, forever affiliated with the university these young men have hitched their stars to. Saying anything against him is a brave, public burning of a bridge that draws attention (hence how interesting Ben Gardner's comments have been). For many others publicly saying nice things, regardless of whatever nuance may be in their private hearts (or not, some surely view him as an unparalleled role model), is a classy, low cost gesture. Walt Harris was, shall we say, a different situation.

Anyway, as much as I had to give thought about how to characterize Shaw in my post, it's so much more fraught for those he views as his mentees. Big-time power dynamic here (I mean, in the most basic sense, think letters of recommendation) and, beyond power, just the genuine force of what he's meant for Stanford, black men, etc.

That’s why I also highlighted the reaction amongst players and former players to Harbaugh’s departure, where criticizing a future NFL coach publicly would not be without cost. I agree, and noted, that the diplomatic move would be to wish the guy well and say diplomatically positive things. But it turns out that many humans just can’t help themselves, and their feelings will come out one way or another.

Btw, notwithstanding what Gardner wrote during the season, which was very direct, here’s what he tweeted upon Shaw’s announcement.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bennyg49/status/1596890620144259073?s=61&t=xVlrb2kTCIPC31rxa2s8Sg[/tweet]

Again, whether it’s current players or former players, the worst I have seen is sadness and frustration over the results, but not any indication that his players didn’t respect or like him personally, or were about to instigate a mass revolt, as some here suspected (or hoped).

BC

[BostonCard]

It's interesting to keep an eye on but the differences are so significant as to make a comparison fraught. David Shaw is literally one of the greatest (in terms of accomplishments) black coaches in American sports history. Icon. 50 years old so he has lots of time left in his life as a respected wise man, forever affiliated with the university these young men have hitched their stars to. Saying anything against him is a brave, public burning of a bridge that draws attention (hence how interesting Ben Gardner's comments have been). For many others publicly saying nice things, regardless of whatever nuance may be in their private hearts (or not, some surely view him as an unparalleled role model), is a classy, low cost gesture. Walt Harris was, shall we say, a different situation.

Anyway, as much as I had to give thought about how to characterize Shaw in my post, it's so much more fraught for those he views as his mentees. Big-time power dynamic here (I mean, in the most basic sense, think letters of recommendation) and, beyond power, just the genuine force of what he's meant for Stanford, black men, etc.

That’s why I also highlighted the reaction amongst players and former players to Harbaugh’s departure, where criticizing a future NFL coach publicly would not be without cost. I agree, and noted, that the diplomatic move would be to wish the guy well and say diplomatically positive things. But it turns out that many humans just can’t help themselves, and their feelings will come out one way or another.

Btw, notwithstanding what Gardner wrote during the season, which was very direct, here’s what he tweeted upon Shaw’s announcement.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bennyg49/status/1596890620144259073?s=61&t=xVlrb2kTCIPC31rxa2s8Sg[/tweet]

Again, whether it’s current players or former players, the worst I have seen is sadness and frustration over the results, but not any indication that his players didn’t respect or like him personally, or were about to instigate a mass revolt, as some here suspected (or hoped).

BC

[washingtonismoney]

The real question...what about all the whiny venture capitalists who hated Shaw? Actually, don't answer that one.

[washingtonismoney]

The real question...what about all the whiny venture capitalists who hated Shaw? Actually, don't answer that one.

[Goose]

Anybody's guess how much of Shaw's departure was his decision or Stanford's. I did always think that if Shaw were fired, it would be presented to the public as though it was his decision.

I did find interesting his comment about how two weeks ago it wasn't even something he was contemplating. Did he suddenly have an epiphany or was it a notice from the University?

Would Shaw choose to retire rather than be fired to save the school the cost of the rest of his contract?  (Assuming he had more years on it, I honestly don't know.)  I suppose there's being selfless and there's giving up millions upon millions of dollars, so maybe that's a bit too much.

I don't think Shaw would retire rather than being fired to save Stanford the buyout money. If they are ready to fire him, they are ready to pay the cost. I do think it entirely possible he would do so to avoid the drama, stigma to his "legacy", and damage to the program's image that would result from him being fired. However, under those circumstances I doubt that Stanford would forgo paying him at least most of the buyout in any case. Not worth the potential bad blood. What actually happened, we may never know. Then again, it may all come out next week, especially is it was truly a "mutual decision". I can't believe Shaw was looking forward to next year with all the issues his team has and the seat scorching hot, even if that was an option.

[Goose]

Anybody's guess how much of Shaw's departure was his decision or Stanford's. I did always think that if Shaw were fired, it would be presented to the public as though it was his decision.

I did find interesting his comment about how two weeks ago it wasn't even something he was contemplating. Did he suddenly have an epiphany or was it a notice from the University?

Would Shaw choose to retire rather than be fired to save the school the cost of the rest of his contract?  (Assuming he had more years on it, I honestly don't know.)  I suppose there's being selfless and there's giving up millions upon millions of dollars, so maybe that's a bit too much.

I don't think Shaw would retire rather than being fired to save Stanford the buyout money. If they are ready to fire him, they are ready to pay the cost. I do think it entirely possible he would do so to avoid the drama, stigma to his "legacy", and damage to the program's image that would result from him being fired. However, under those circumstances I doubt that Stanford would forgo paying him at least most of the buyout in any case. Not worth the potential bad blood. What actually happened, we may never know. Then again, it may all come out next week, especially is it was truly a "mutual decision". I can't believe Shaw was looking forward to next year with all the issues his team has and the seat scorching hot, even if that was an option.

[Hurlburt88]

I can’t help but wonder if Shaw and Luck have had lunch together recently

[Hurlburt88]

I can’t help but wonder if Shaw and Luck have had lunch together recently

[qwerty49]

It's interesting to keep an eye on but the differences are so significant as to make a comparison fraught. David Shaw is literally one of the greatest (in terms of accomplishments) black coaches in American sports history. Icon. 50 years old so he has lots of time left in his life as a respected wise man, forever affiliated with the university these young men have hitched their stars to. Saying anything against him is a brave, public burning of a bridge that draws attention (hence how interesting Ben Gardner's comments have been). For many others publicly saying nice things, regardless of whatever nuance may be in their private hearts (or not, some surely view him as an unparalleled role model), is a classy, low cost gesture. Walt Harris was, shall we say, a different situation.

Anyway, as much as I had to give thought about how to characterize Shaw in my post, it's so much more fraught for those he views as his mentees. Big-time power dynamic here (I mean, in the most basic sense, think letters of recommendation) and, beyond power, just the genuine force of what he's meant for Stanford, black men, etc.

That’s why I also highlighted the reaction amongst players and former players to Harbaugh’s departure, where criticizing a future NFL coach publicly would not be without cost. I agree, and noted, that the diplomatic move would be to wish the guy well and say diplomatically positive things. But it turns out that many humans just can’t help themselves, and their feelings will come out one way or another.

Btw, notwithstanding what Gardner wrote during the season, which was very direct, here’s what he tweeted upon Shaw’s announcement.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bennyg49/status/1596890620144259073?s=61&t=xVlrb2kTCIPC31rxa2s8Sg[/tweet]

Again, whether it’s current players or former players, the worst I have seen is sadness and frustration over the results, but not any indication that his players didn’t respect or like him personally, or were about to instigate a mass revolt, as some here suspected (or hoped).

BC

BC, IMHO this is the kind of transition where it’s best to simply move on than to linger and spit on someone’s legacy. As you point out, it does no player with any kind of NFL ambitions any good to disrespect Shaw at this point.

Along the same lines, I’m one of many here who were calling for Shaw’s ouster. Fine. It happened, I’m happy with the way it happened. No need for me to crow about it. Now it’s simply a matter of moving on and hopefully finding the right coach AND administrative mindset to resurrect the program so many of us have invested time, travel and emotional energy into for so long. And hopefully keep key players and recruits in the process.

With all due respect, I just think looking for further negative comments about Shaw at this point is an unnecessary exercise to prove a somewhat meaningless and irrelevant point.

[qwerty49]

It's interesting to keep an eye on but the differences are so significant as to make a comparison fraught. David Shaw is literally one of the greatest (in terms of accomplishments) black coaches in American sports history. Icon. 50 years old so he has lots of time left in his life as a respected wise man, forever affiliated with the university these young men have hitched their stars to. Saying anything against him is a brave, public burning of a bridge that draws attention (hence how interesting Ben Gardner's comments have been). For many others publicly saying nice things, regardless of whatever nuance may be in their private hearts (or not, some surely view him as an unparalleled role model), is a classy, low cost gesture. Walt Harris was, shall we say, a different situation.

Anyway, as much as I had to give thought about how to characterize Shaw in my post, it's so much more fraught for those he views as his mentees. Big-time power dynamic here (I mean, in the most basic sense, think letters of recommendation) and, beyond power, just the genuine force of what he's meant for Stanford, black men, etc.

That’s why I also highlighted the reaction amongst players and former players to Harbaugh’s departure, where criticizing a future NFL coach publicly would not be without cost. I agree, and noted, that the diplomatic move would be to wish the guy well and say diplomatically positive things. But it turns out that many humans just can’t help themselves, and their feelings will come out one way or another.

Btw, notwithstanding what Gardner wrote during the season, which was very direct, here’s what he tweeted upon Shaw’s announcement.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bennyg49/status/1596890620144259073?s=61&t=xVlrb2kTCIPC31rxa2s8Sg[/tweet]

Again, whether it’s current players or former players, the worst I have seen is sadness and frustration over the results, but not any indication that his players didn’t respect or like him personally, or were about to instigate a mass revolt, as some here suspected (or hoped).

BC

BC, IMHO this is the kind of transition where it’s best to simply move on than to linger and spit on someone’s legacy. As you point out, it does no player with any kind of NFL ambitions any good to disrespect Shaw at this point.

Along the same lines, I’m one of many here who were calling for Shaw’s ouster. Fine. It happened, I’m happy with the way it happened. No need for me to crow about it. Now it’s simply a matter of moving on and hopefully finding the right coach AND administrative mindset to resurrect the program so many of us have invested time, travel and emotional energy into for so long. And hopefully keep key players and recruits in the process.

With all due respect, I just think looking for further negative comments about Shaw at this point is an unnecessary exercise to prove a somewhat meaningless and irrelevant point.

[old spanish trail]

It's interesting to keep an eye on but the differences are so significant as to make a comparison fraught. David Shaw is literally one of the greatest (in terms of accomplishments) black coaches in American sports history. Icon. 50 years old so he has lots of time left in his life as a respected wise man, forever affiliated with the university these young men have hitched their stars to. Saying anything against him is a brave, public burning of a bridge that draws attention (hence how interesting Ben Gardner's comments have been). For many others publicly saying nice things, regardless of whatever nuance may be in their private hearts (or not, some surely view him as an unparalleled role model), is a classy, low cost gesture. Walt Harris was, shall we say, a different situation.

Anyway, as much as I had to give thought about how to characterize Shaw in my post, it's so much more fraught for those he views as his mentees. Big-time power dynamic here (I mean, in the most basic sense, think letters of recommendation) and, beyond power, just the genuine force of what he's meant for Stanford, black men, etc.

Yes Squeri. Excellent points. I think he is indeed an icon to many.

[old spanish trail]

It's interesting to keep an eye on but the differences are so significant as to make a comparison fraught. David Shaw is literally one of the greatest (in terms of accomplishments) black coaches in American sports history. Icon. 50 years old so he has lots of time left in his life as a respected wise man, forever affiliated with the university these young men have hitched their stars to. Saying anything against him is a brave, public burning of a bridge that draws attention (hence how interesting Ben Gardner's comments have been). For many others publicly saying nice things, regardless of whatever nuance may be in their private hearts (or not, some surely view him as an unparalleled role model), is a classy, low cost gesture. Walt Harris was, shall we say, a different situation.

Anyway, as much as I had to give thought about how to characterize Shaw in my post, it's so much more fraught for those he views as his mentees. Big-time power dynamic here (I mean, in the most basic sense, think letters of recommendation) and, beyond power, just the genuine force of what he's meant for Stanford, black men, etc.

Yes Squeri. Excellent points. I think he is indeed an icon to many.

[Mick]

It's interesting to keep an eye on but the differences are so significant as to make a comparison fraught. David Shaw is literally one of the greatest (in terms of accomplishments) black coaches in American sports history. Icon. 50 years old so he has lots of time left in his life as a respected wise man, forever affiliated with the university these young men have hitched their stars to. Saying anything against him is a brave, public burning of a bridge that draws attention (hence how interesting Ben Gardner's comments have been). For many others publicly saying nice things, regardless of whatever nuance may be in their private hearts (or not, some surely view him as an unparalleled role model), is a classy, low cost gesture. Walt Harris was, shall we say, a different situation.

Anyway, as much as I had to give thought about how to characterize Shaw in my post, it's so much more fraught for those he views as his mentees. Big-time power dynamic here (I mean, in the most basic sense, think letters of recommendation) and, beyond power, just the genuine force of what he's meant for Stanford, black men, etc.

Gardner seemed to be impressed with Shaw:

(14) Ben Gardner on Twitter: "Stanford has been outscored 117-18 in their last 10 quarters at Stanford Stadium. I can’t believe I just typed that." / Twitter

[Mick]

It's interesting to keep an eye on but the differences are so significant as to make a comparison fraught. David Shaw is literally one of the greatest (in terms of accomplishments) black coaches in American sports history. Icon. 50 years old so he has lots of time left in his life as a respected wise man, forever affiliated with the university these young men have hitched their stars to. Saying anything against him is a brave, public burning of a bridge that draws attention (hence how interesting Ben Gardner's comments have been). For many others publicly saying nice things, regardless of whatever nuance may be in their private hearts (or not, some surely view him as an unparalleled role model), is a classy, low cost gesture. Walt Harris was, shall we say, a different situation.

Anyway, as much as I had to give thought about how to characterize Shaw in my post, it's so much more fraught for those he views as his mentees. Big-time power dynamic here (I mean, in the most basic sense, think letters of recommendation) and, beyond power, just the genuine force of what he's meant for Stanford, black men, etc.

Gardner seemed to be impressed with Shaw:

(14) Ben Gardner on Twitter: "Stanford has been outscored 117-18 in their last 10 quarters at Stanford Stadium. I can’t believe I just typed that." / Twitter

[BostonCard]

Yea, Gardner has a long stretch of tweets about Stanford’s futility the last few years. The tweet prior to the one I posted was:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bennyg49/status/1594189596493238274?s=46&t=vkcrQZpH1sR69Unu1yeOhw[/tweet]

It was clear he wasn’t happy with our futility. But after he stepped aside, Gardner tweeted he was proud to have played for him.  So, it doesn’t seem to have been personal (or he’s being diplomatic).

BC

[BostonCard]

Yea, Gardner has a long stretch of tweets about Stanford’s futility the last few years. The tweet prior to the one I posted was:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bennyg49/status/1594189596493238274?s=46&t=vkcrQZpH1sR69Unu1yeOhw[/tweet]

It was clear he wasn’t happy with our futility. But after he stepped aside, Gardner tweeted he was proud to have played for him.  So, it doesn’t seem to have been personal (or he’s being diplomatic).

BC

[Goose]

Yea, Gardner has a long stretch of tweets about Stanford’s futility the last few years. The tweet prior to the one I posted was:

https://twitter.com/bennyg49/status/1594...9Unu1yeOhw

It was clear he wasn’t happy with our futility. But after he stepped aside, Gardner tweeted he was proud to have played for him.  So, it doesn’t seem to have been personal (or he’s being diplomatic).

BC

Both things equally true perhaps?

[Goose]

Yea, Gardner has a long stretch of tweets about Stanford’s futility the last few years. The tweet prior to the one I posted was:

https://twitter.com/bennyg49/status/1594...9Unu1yeOhw

It was clear he wasn’t happy with our futility. But after he stepped aside, Gardner tweeted he was proud to have played for him.  So, it doesn’t seem to have been personal (or he’s being diplomatic).

BC

Both things equally true perhaps?

[washingtonismoney]

Both things equally true perhaps?

Gardner's tweets really aren't too much different than most of the valedictions posted here.

[washingtonismoney]

Both things equally true perhaps?

Gardner's tweets really aren't too much different than most of the valedictions posted here.

[French Rage]

Yea, Gardner has a long stretch of tweets about Stanford’s futility the last few years. The tweet prior to the one I posted was:

https://twitter.com/bennyg49/status/1594...9Unu1yeOhw

It was clear he wasn’t happy with our futility. But after he stepped aside, Gardner tweeted he was proud to have played for him.  So, it doesn’t seem to have been personal (or he’s being diplomatic).

BC

Both things equally true perhaps?

Possibly.  He may be able to look at his years under Shaw and the years that came later, and look at them in two different lights.  He also might feel that maybe university support (or lack thereof) in other areas (maybe recruiting?) hamstrung Shaw a bit.

[French Rage]

Yea, Gardner has a long stretch of tweets about Stanford’s futility the last few years. The tweet prior to the one I posted was:

https://twitter.com/bennyg49/status/1594...9Unu1yeOhw

It was clear he wasn’t happy with our futility. But after he stepped aside, Gardner tweeted he was proud to have played for him.  So, it doesn’t seem to have been personal (or he’s being diplomatic).

BC

Both things equally true perhaps?

Possibly.  He may be able to look at his years under Shaw and the years that came later, and look at them in two different lights.  He also might feel that maybe university support (or lack thereof) in other areas (maybe recruiting?) hamstrung Shaw a bit.

[BostonCard]

BC, IMHO this is the kind of transition where it’s best to simply move on than to linger and spit on someone’s legacy. As you point out, it does no player with any kind of NFL ambitions any good to disrespect Shaw at this point.

Along the same lines, I’m one of many here who were calling for Shaw’s ouster. Fine. It happened, I’m happy with the way it happened. No need for me to crow about it. Now it’s simply a matter of moving on and hopefully finding the right coach AND administrative mindset to resurrect the program so many of us have invested time, travel and emotional energy into for so long. And hopefully keep key players and recruits in the process.

With all due respect, I just think looking for further negative comments about Shaw at this point is an unnecessary exercise to prove a somewhat meaningless and irrelevant point.

To be clear, I'm not looking for further negative comments about Shaw; I'm just looking at what current and former players are saying about him, and Cardinal Sagehen did a pretty comprehensive roundup here: https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=23797

Sure, the comments are likely biased (the old saw about "if you don't have anything nice to say..."), and there is likely some self-censoring going on for other reasons.  But the comments I've seen so far have been universally positive.  Maybe Shaw recruits and signs guys who are uniquely in his mold (and thus, diplomatic to a fault), but a guy like Richard Sherman, whose tweet was amongst those compiled by Sagehen, is not exactly known for his filter.  I think if there were personal animus towards Shaw from players or former players (as some posters seemed to intimate in pre-resignation posts), we'd eventually start seeing it in the comments/tweets, because humans can't help but offer their opinions, even when not saying something might be in their better interest, and we have not seen that.

BC

[BostonCard]

BC, IMHO this is the kind of transition where it’s best to simply move on than to linger and spit on someone’s legacy. As you point out, it does no player with any kind of NFL ambitions any good to disrespect Shaw at this point.

Along the same lines, I’m one of many here who were calling for Shaw’s ouster. Fine. It happened, I’m happy with the way it happened. No need for me to crow about it. Now it’s simply a matter of moving on and hopefully finding the right coach AND administrative mindset to resurrect the program so many of us have invested time, travel and emotional energy into for so long. And hopefully keep key players and recruits in the process.

With all due respect, I just think looking for further negative comments about Shaw at this point is an unnecessary exercise to prove a somewhat meaningless and irrelevant point.

To be clear, I'm not looking for further negative comments about Shaw; I'm just looking at what current and former players are saying about him, and Cardinal Sagehen did a pretty comprehensive roundup here: https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=23797

Sure, the comments are likely biased (the old saw about "if you don't have anything nice to say..."), and there is likely some self-censoring going on for other reasons.  But the comments I've seen so far have been universally positive.  Maybe Shaw recruits and signs guys who are uniquely in his mold (and thus, diplomatic to a fault), but a guy like Richard Sherman, whose tweet was amongst those compiled by Sagehen, is not exactly known for his filter.  I think if there were personal animus towards Shaw from players or former players (as some posters seemed to intimate in pre-resignation posts), we'd eventually start seeing it in the comments/tweets, because humans can't help but offer their opinions, even when not saying something might be in their better interest, and we have not seen that.

BC

[yvonne]

BC, IMHO this is the kind of transition where it’s best to simply move on than to linger and spit on someone’s legacy. As you point out, it does no player with any kind of NFL ambitions any good to disrespect Shaw at this point.



Along the same lines, I’m one of many here who were calling for Shaw’s ouster. Fine. It happened, I’m happy with the way it happened. No need for me to crow about it. Now it’s simply a matter of moving on and hopefully finding the right coach AND administrative mindset to resurrect the program so many of us have invested time, travel and emotional energy into for so long. And hopefully keep key players and recruits in the process.



With all due respect, I just think looking for further negative comments about Shaw at this point is an unnecessary exercise to prove a somewhat meaningless and irrelevant point.

This kinda reminds me of the story of the rabbi and the gossip. There are various versions of it, but essentially, it's the following:

A man went around the town gossiping about people, sometimes embellishing stories to make them more interesting. Sometimes, he'd rationalize by saying some stories or parts of them were true. One day, he said something about a local business person, causing damage to the person's sales. The storyteller thought that what he had said, and felt remorseful when he heard of the damage.

So, the storyteller went to the local rabbi and asked what he could do to make things better. The rabbi asked, "Do you have a large feather pillow?" Perplexed, the storyteller affirmed that he had one. The rabbi told him to bring the pillow to his office. When the storyteller returned, still perplexed, the rabbi told him to go to the second floor, open the window, break open the pillow, and shake out all the feathers, leaving none in the pillow.

The storyteller came downstairs and asked, "I've finished that. What must I do next?"

The rabbi replied, "Go gather each of the feathers and place them back into the pillow."

Half shocked, the storyteller scoffed, "I can't possibly do that. The wind has already blown most of them away!"

"You are correct," the rabbi replied, "and so it is with your words. Once they are out, they cannot be returned."

It really burned me up when someone made up a negative rumor out of whole cloth without any evidence. I get that we're an internet message board and part of its purpose is to complain and moan, but we still need to be careful of our speech.

(yeah, this is me as yvonne)

[yvonne]

BC, IMHO this is the kind of transition where it’s best to simply move on than to linger and spit on someone’s legacy. As you point out, it does no player with any kind of NFL ambitions any good to disrespect Shaw at this point.



Along the same lines, I’m one of many here who were calling for Shaw’s ouster. Fine. It happened, I’m happy with the way it happened. No need for me to crow about it. Now it’s simply a matter of moving on and hopefully finding the right coach AND administrative mindset to resurrect the program so many of us have invested time, travel and emotional energy into for so long. And hopefully keep key players and recruits in the process.



With all due respect, I just think looking for further negative comments about Shaw at this point is an unnecessary exercise to prove a somewhat meaningless and irrelevant point.

This kinda reminds me of the story of the rabbi and the gossip. There are various versions of it, but essentially, it's the following:

A man went around the town gossiping about people, sometimes embellishing stories to make them more interesting. Sometimes, he'd rationalize by saying some stories or parts of them were true. One day, he said something about a local business person, causing damage to the person's sales. The storyteller thought that what he had said, and felt remorseful when he heard of the damage.

So, the storyteller went to the local rabbi and asked what he could do to make things better. The rabbi asked, "Do you have a large feather pillow?" Perplexed, the storyteller affirmed that he had one. The rabbi told him to bring the pillow to his office. When the storyteller returned, still perplexed, the rabbi told him to go to the second floor, open the window, break open the pillow, and shake out all the feathers, leaving none in the pillow.

The storyteller came downstairs and asked, "I've finished that. What must I do next?"

The rabbi replied, "Go gather each of the feathers and place them back into the pillow."

Half shocked, the storyteller scoffed, "I can't possibly do that. The wind has already blown most of them away!"

"You are correct," the rabbi replied, "and so it is with your words. Once they are out, they cannot be returned."

It really burned me up when someone made up a negative rumor out of whole cloth without any evidence. I get that we're an internet message board and part of its purpose is to complain and moan, but we still need to be careful of our speech.

(yeah, this is me as yvonne)