[Oasis]

Rick Neuheisel's post-game comments made sense to me.  He said Stanford tries to run but the defenses know now that they can stop that with 8-9 guys up front.  And they know we are going to come straight at them. Stanford's only answer is to throw to Zach Ertz, who is clearly an athlete of the first rank.  But the defenses can usually cover him. (Nonetheless Ertz usually gets open for one or two spectacular catches a game.)  If Stanford is going to compete with Oregon, says Neuheisel, we need a lot more weapons.  He is right.

I think we have the weapons.  We have Terrell, Whitfield, Toilolo et al.  We need to use them a lot more.  We also need an OUTSIDE running game and some kind of misdirection. 

Taylor is phenomenal.  He is almost always getting hit by unblocked defenders and making his three yards after contact.  I saw only one play yesterday where the o-line really nailed their blocks for Taylor.  He gained eleven yards.  The o-line is not knocking the defense off the line of scrimmage because there are so many defenders up and our offense is too predictable.

Another mystery for me yesterday was why Shaw didn't leave Hogan in long enough to give him a chance to show what he can do. Shaw certainly isn't shy about leaving Nunes in for one ineffective series after another.  Is every series so precious that Shaw couldn't put Hogan in and leave him in?

One positive yesterday on offense was that the pass blocking was usually good.

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

[Oasis]

Rick Neuheisel's post-game comments made sense to me.  He said Stanford tries to run but the defenses know now that they can stop that with 8-9 guys up front.  And they know we are going to come straight at them. Stanford's only answer is to throw to Zach Ertz, who is clearly an athlete of the first rank.  But the defenses can usually cover him. (Nonetheless Ertz usually gets open for one or two spectacular catches a game.)  If Stanford is going to compete with Oregon, says Neuheisel, we need a lot more weapons.  He is right.

I think we have the weapons.  We have Terrell, Whitfield, Toilolo et al.  We need to use them a lot more.  We also need an OUTSIDE running game and some kind of misdirection. 

Taylor is phenomenal.  He is almost always getting hit by unblocked defenders and making his three yards after contact.  I saw only one play yesterday where the o-line really nailed their blocks for Taylor.  He gained eleven yards.  The o-line is not knocking the defense off the line of scrimmage because there are so many defenders up and our offense is too predictable.

Another mystery for me yesterday was why Shaw didn't leave Hogan in long enough to give him a chance to show what he can do. Shaw certainly isn't shy about leaving Nunes in for one ineffective series after another.  Is every series so precious that Shaw couldn't put Hogan in and leave him in?

One positive yesterday on offense was that the pass blocking was usually good.

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

[Oasis]

Rick Neuheisel's post-game comments made sense to me.  He said Stanford tries to run but the defenses know now that they can stop that with 8-9 guys up front.  And they know we are going to come straight at them. Stanford's only answer is to throw to Zach Ertz, who is clearly an athlete of the first rank.  But the defenses can usually cover him. (Nonetheless Ertz usually gets open for one or two spectacular catches a game.)  If Stanford is going to compete with Oregon, says Neuheisel, we need a lot more weapons.  He is right.

I think we have the weapons.  We have Terrell, Whitfield, Toilolo et al.  We need to use them a lot more.  We also need an OUTSIDE running game and some kind of misdirection. 

Taylor is phenomenal.  He is almost always getting hit by unblocked defenders and making his three yards after contact.  I saw only one play yesterday where the o-line really nailed their blocks for Taylor.  He gained eleven yards.  The o-line is not knocking the defense off the line of scrimmage because there are so many defenders up and our offense is too predictable.

Another mystery for me yesterday was why Shaw didn't leave Hogan in long enough to give him a chance to show what he can do. Shaw certainly isn't shy about leaving Nunes in for one ineffective series after another.  Is every series so precious that Shaw couldn't put Hogan in and leave him in?

One positive yesterday on offense was that the pass blocking was usually good.

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

[Oasis]

Rick Neuheisel's post-game comments made sense to me.  He said Stanford tries to run but the defenses know now that they can stop that with 8-9 guys up front.  And they know we are going to come straight at them. Stanford's only answer is to throw to Zach Ertz, who is clearly an athlete of the first rank.  But the defenses can usually cover him. (Nonetheless Ertz usually gets open for one or two spectacular catches a game.)  If Stanford is going to compete with Oregon, says Neuheisel, we need a lot more weapons.  He is right.

I think we have the weapons.  We have Terrell, Whitfield, Toilolo et al.  We need to use them a lot more.  We also need an OUTSIDE running game and some kind of misdirection. 

Taylor is phenomenal.  He is almost always getting hit by unblocked defenders and making his three yards after contact.  I saw only one play yesterday where the o-line really nailed their blocks for Taylor.  He gained eleven yards.  The o-line is not knocking the defense off the line of scrimmage because there are so many defenders up and our offense is too predictable.

Another mystery for me yesterday was why Shaw didn't leave Hogan in long enough to give him a chance to show what he can do. Shaw certainly isn't shy about leaving Nunes in for one ineffective series after another.  Is every series so precious that Shaw couldn't put Hogan in and leave him in?

One positive yesterday on offense was that the pass blocking was usually good.

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

[doubledub]

I agree that Shaw is likely not an asshole...if he were it would probably be reflected in all aspects of his job as coach, including recruiting kids.  But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else.  I recall the press conference where he said all the fans were ready to bronze Nunes' arm after the USC game...no fans said anything like that!  We all - at least on this board and in the stands - agreed that Nunes still sucks.  Either Shaw is out of touch with reality, or just thinks by making strong statements, we should just believe him.  As if he can see something in Nunes that none of us can.  I don't expect him to throw players under the bus when talking to the media, but pretending like things are good insults all of us.  No one wants to be treated like a dummy, let alone a Stanford educated fan, and certainly not by a coach who keeps going to battle with the worst QB in the Pac-12 without a good explanation as to why.

There is something personal between Shaw and Nottingham(Nottingham family).  There is no other reason why Nottingham wouldn't get at least one series.  What harm would one series do? End in a pic-six? C'mon.

[doubledub]

I agree that Shaw is likely not an asshole...if he were it would probably be reflected in all aspects of his job as coach, including recruiting kids.  But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else.  I recall the press conference where he said all the fans were ready to bronze Nunes' arm after the USC game...no fans said anything like that!  We all - at least on this board and in the stands - agreed that Nunes still sucks.  Either Shaw is out of touch with reality, or just thinks by making strong statements, we should just believe him.  As if he can see something in Nunes that none of us can.  I don't expect him to throw players under the bus when talking to the media, but pretending like things are good insults all of us.  No one wants to be treated like a dummy, let alone a Stanford educated fan, and certainly not by a coach who keeps going to battle with the worst QB in the Pac-12 without a good explanation as to why.

There is something personal between Shaw and Nottingham(Nottingham family).  There is no other reason why Nottingham wouldn't get at least one series.  What harm would one series do? End in a pic-six? C'mon.

[doubledub]

I agree that Shaw is likely not an asshole...if he were it would probably be reflected in all aspects of his job as coach, including recruiting kids.  But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else.  I recall the press conference where he said all the fans were ready to bronze Nunes' arm after the USC game...no fans said anything like that!  We all - at least on this board and in the stands - agreed that Nunes still sucks.  Either Shaw is out of touch with reality, or just thinks by making strong statements, we should just believe him.  As if he can see something in Nunes that none of us can.  I don't expect him to throw players under the bus when talking to the media, but pretending like things are good insults all of us.  No one wants to be treated like a dummy, let alone a Stanford educated fan, and certainly not by a coach who keeps going to battle with the worst QB in the Pac-12 without a good explanation as to why.

There is something personal between Shaw and Nottingham(Nottingham family).  There is no other reason why Nottingham wouldn't get at least one series.  What harm would one series do? End in a pic-six? C'mon.

[doubledub]

I agree that Shaw is likely not an asshole...if he were it would probably be reflected in all aspects of his job as coach, including recruiting kids.  But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else.  I recall the press conference where he said all the fans were ready to bronze Nunes' arm after the USC game...no fans said anything like that!  We all - at least on this board and in the stands - agreed that Nunes still sucks.  Either Shaw is out of touch with reality, or just thinks by making strong statements, we should just believe him.  As if he can see something in Nunes that none of us can.  I don't expect him to throw players under the bus when talking to the media, but pretending like things are good insults all of us.  No one wants to be treated like a dummy, let alone a Stanford educated fan, and certainly not by a coach who keeps going to battle with the worst QB in the Pac-12 without a good explanation as to why.

There is something personal between Shaw and Nottingham(Nottingham family).  There is no other reason why Nottingham wouldn't get at least one series.  What harm would one series do? End in a pic-six? C'mon.

[Extra Point]

"But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else. "

I am not apologizing for Shaw and I would like to see what Nottingham can do too. But, the vast majority of the people in the press have never played football, coached at any level, broken down game film, devised a game plan, or evaluated players' abilities. Shaw, on the other hand, has been involved with football most of his life and coached at the highest levels. For every hour that a sports writer has evaluated Stanford football, Shaw has spent hundreds. Of course he knows more than the sports writers that we hold in such high esteem, like Willner, Chrumpacker and Ratto.

Shaw's main objective is to put the best football team he can on the field. His career depends upon it. The main objective of sports writers is to find quick "story lines" that will attract readers. Two things that every sport writer knows will get attention are a quarterback controversy and coaching incompetency. Most of the questions that Shaw had to address yesterday were in this vain. If I had to defend myself under similar conditions I would be pissed too. And, I doubt that I could conceal my emotion as well as Shaw did.

[Extra Point]

"But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else. "

I am not apologizing for Shaw and I would like to see what Nottingham can do too. But, the vast majority of the people in the press have never played football, coached at any level, broken down game film, devised a game plan, or evaluated players' abilities. Shaw, on the other hand, has been involved with football most of his life and coached at the highest levels. For every hour that a sports writer has evaluated Stanford football, Shaw has spent hundreds. Of course he knows more than the sports writers that we hold in such high esteem, like Willner, Chrumpacker and Ratto.

Shaw's main objective is to put the best football team he can on the field. His career depends upon it. The main objective of sports writers is to find quick "story lines" that will attract readers. Two things that every sport writer knows will get attention are a quarterback controversy and coaching incompetency. Most of the questions that Shaw had to address yesterday were in this vain. If I had to defend myself under similar conditions I would be pissed too. And, I doubt that I could conceal my emotion as well as Shaw did.

[Extra Point]

"But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else. "

I am not apologizing for Shaw and I would like to see what Nottingham can do too. But, the vast majority of the people in the press have never played football, coached at any level, broken down game film, devised a game plan, or evaluated players' abilities. Shaw, on the other hand, has been involved with football most of his life and coached at the highest levels. For every hour that a sports writer has evaluated Stanford football, Shaw has spent hundreds. Of course he knows more than the sports writers that we hold in such high esteem, like Willner, Chrumpacker and Ratto.

Shaw's main objective is to put the best football team he can on the field. His career depends upon it. The main objective of sports writers is to find quick "story lines" that will attract readers. Two things that every sport writer knows will get attention are a quarterback controversy and coaching incompetency. Most of the questions that Shaw had to address yesterday were in this vain. If I had to defend myself under similar conditions I would be pissed too. And, I doubt that I could conceal my emotion as well as Shaw did.

[Extra Point]

"But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else. "

I am not apologizing for Shaw and I would like to see what Nottingham can do too. But, the vast majority of the people in the press have never played football, coached at any level, broken down game film, devised a game plan, or evaluated players' abilities. Shaw, on the other hand, has been involved with football most of his life and coached at the highest levels. For every hour that a sports writer has evaluated Stanford football, Shaw has spent hundreds. Of course he knows more than the sports writers that we hold in such high esteem, like Willner, Chrumpacker and Ratto.

Shaw's main objective is to put the best football team he can on the field. His career depends upon it. The main objective of sports writers is to find quick "story lines" that will attract readers. Two things that every sport writer knows will get attention are a quarterback controversy and coaching incompetency. Most of the questions that Shaw had to address yesterday were in this vain. If I had to defend myself under similar conditions I would be pissed too. And, I doubt that I could conceal my emotion as well as Shaw did.

[washingtonismoney]

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

Of course, Hannibal had some great battles but lost the war, decisively.

Shaw, like the Roman generals, looks ugly but is winning the war (so far).

I wouldn't get too attached to the analogy, were I Shaw. After all, the Romans--like almost everyone successful--depended a great deal on luck. And Shaw? Well, given the number of close games, you're always riding your luck.

[washingtonismoney]

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

Of course, Hannibal had some great battles but lost the war, decisively.

Shaw, like the Roman generals, looks ugly but is winning the war (so far).

I wouldn't get too attached to the analogy, were I Shaw. After all, the Romans--like almost everyone successful--depended a great deal on luck. And Shaw? Well, given the number of close games, you're always riding your luck.

[washingtonismoney]

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

Of course, Hannibal had some great battles but lost the war, decisively.

Shaw, like the Roman generals, looks ugly but is winning the war (so far).

I wouldn't get too attached to the analogy, were I Shaw. After all, the Romans--like almost everyone successful--depended a great deal on luck. And Shaw? Well, given the number of close games, you're always riding your luck.

[washingtonismoney]

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

Of course, Hannibal had some great battles but lost the war, decisively.

Shaw, like the Roman generals, looks ugly but is winning the war (so far).

I wouldn't get too attached to the analogy, were I Shaw. After all, the Romans--like almost everyone successful--depended a great deal on luck. And Shaw? Well, given the number of close games, you're always riding your luck.

[81alum]

I wouldn't get too attached to the analogy, were I Shaw. After all, the Romans--like almost everyone successful--depended a great deal on luck. And Shaw? Well, given the number of close games, you're always riding your luck.

And some would say he rode his Luck for an entire year!  :P  Seriously, I am dismayed by the quarterbacking situation but I am as yet unwilling to give up on Shaw.  I do wonder a lot about the assistant coaches.  Are our quarterbacks, receivers, and offensive line getting the kind of instruction they need to improve?

[81alum]

I wouldn't get too attached to the analogy, were I Shaw. After all, the Romans--like almost everyone successful--depended a great deal on luck. And Shaw? Well, given the number of close games, you're always riding your luck.

And some would say he rode his Luck for an entire year!  :P  Seriously, I am dismayed by the quarterbacking situation but I am as yet unwilling to give up on Shaw.  I do wonder a lot about the assistant coaches.  Are our quarterbacks, receivers, and offensive line getting the kind of instruction they need to improve?

[81alum]

I wouldn't get too attached to the analogy, were I Shaw. After all, the Romans--like almost everyone successful--depended a great deal on luck. And Shaw? Well, given the number of close games, you're always riding your luck.

And some would say he rode his Luck for an entire year!  :P  Seriously, I am dismayed by the quarterbacking situation but I am as yet unwilling to give up on Shaw.  I do wonder a lot about the assistant coaches.  Are our quarterbacks, receivers, and offensive line getting the kind of instruction they need to improve?

[81alum]

I wouldn't get too attached to the analogy, were I Shaw. After all, the Romans--like almost everyone successful--depended a great deal on luck. And Shaw? Well, given the number of close games, you're always riding your luck.

And some would say he rode his Luck for an entire year!  :P  Seriously, I am dismayed by the quarterbacking situation but I am as yet unwilling to give up on Shaw.  I do wonder a lot about the assistant coaches.  Are our quarterbacks, receivers, and offensive line getting the kind of instruction they need to improve?

[washingtonismoney]

And some would say he rode his Luck for an entire year!

Yeah, some would say it. It might end up being fair, too. I don't want to judge too early. Anyway, just look at U.S.C. for evidence that not-screwing-up is a highly underrated achievement. Last year's team went 11-1 last season...and I would guess it's less talented than U.S.C. this year.

[washingtonismoney]

And some would say he rode his Luck for an entire year!

Yeah, some would say it. It might end up being fair, too. I don't want to judge too early. Anyway, just look at U.S.C. for evidence that not-screwing-up is a highly underrated achievement. Last year's team went 11-1 last season...and I would guess it's less talented than U.S.C. this year.

[washingtonismoney]

And some would say he rode his Luck for an entire year!

Yeah, some would say it. It might end up being fair, too. I don't want to judge too early. Anyway, just look at U.S.C. for evidence that not-screwing-up is a highly underrated achievement. Last year's team went 11-1 last season...and I would guess it's less talented than U.S.C. this year.

[washingtonismoney]

And some would say he rode his Luck for an entire year!

Yeah, some would say it. It might end up being fair, too. I don't want to judge too early. Anyway, just look at U.S.C. for evidence that not-screwing-up is a highly underrated achievement. Last year's team went 11-1 last season...and I would guess it's less talented than U.S.C. this year.

[oman]

I love Shaw as the face of the Stanford program.

He seems a bit conservative and his offensive isn't as wide open as I would like.

Despite that, if Stanford continues to develop its rep for producing solid offensive players for the NFL, this overall conservative approach would likely bode well for the long term. 

[oman]

I love Shaw as the face of the Stanford program.

He seems a bit conservative and his offensive isn't as wide open as I would like.

Despite that, if Stanford continues to develop its rep for producing solid offensive players for the NFL, this overall conservative approach would likely bode well for the long term. 

[oman]

I love Shaw as the face of the Stanford program.

He seems a bit conservative and his offensive isn't as wide open as I would like.

Despite that, if Stanford continues to develop its rep for producing solid offensive players for the NFL, this overall conservative approach would likely bode well for the long term. 

[oman]

I love Shaw as the face of the Stanford program.

He seems a bit conservative and his offensive isn't as wide open as I would like.

Despite that, if Stanford continues to develop its rep for producing solid offensive players for the NFL, this overall conservative approach would likely bode well for the long term. 

[Oasis]

"Of course, Hannibal had some great battles but lost the war, decisively."

So what? Are we supposed to think that not using surprise and deception is the formula for victory?  Our two losses came in games where the other side shut down our predictable offense with its straight-ahead approach, much like the Romans' early on against Hannibal.  Shaw's war at 6-2 is not going nearly as well as it should be at 8-0. 

The Domers stuffed our straight-up-the-middle plays, twice. Instead of providing more momentum our ponderous pile of people were impediments to Stepfan.  Something similar happened to the Romans vs. Hannibal -- three times, the most famous being the massacre of the plodding legions at Cannae.  The Romans finally defeated Hannibal only when finally they did to him what he had been doing to them for 16 years. 

Somebody up in the press box could use some inspiration and Hannibal is as good a source as any.

[Oasis]

"Of course, Hannibal had some great battles but lost the war, decisively."

So what? Are we supposed to think that not using surprise and deception is the formula for victory?  Our two losses came in games where the other side shut down our predictable offense with its straight-ahead approach, much like the Romans' early on against Hannibal.  Shaw's war at 6-2 is not going nearly as well as it should be at 8-0. 

The Domers stuffed our straight-up-the-middle plays, twice. Instead of providing more momentum our ponderous pile of people were impediments to Stepfan.  Something similar happened to the Romans vs. Hannibal -- three times, the most famous being the massacre of the plodding legions at Cannae.  The Romans finally defeated Hannibal only when finally they did to him what he had been doing to them for 16 years. 

Somebody up in the press box could use some inspiration and Hannibal is as good a source as any.

[Oasis]

"Of course, Hannibal had some great battles but lost the war, decisively."

So what? Are we supposed to think that not using surprise and deception is the formula for victory?  Our two losses came in games where the other side shut down our predictable offense with its straight-ahead approach, much like the Romans' early on against Hannibal.  Shaw's war at 6-2 is not going nearly as well as it should be at 8-0. 

The Domers stuffed our straight-up-the-middle plays, twice. Instead of providing more momentum our ponderous pile of people were impediments to Stepfan.  Something similar happened to the Romans vs. Hannibal -- three times, the most famous being the massacre of the plodding legions at Cannae.  The Romans finally defeated Hannibal only when finally they did to him what he had been doing to them for 16 years. 

Somebody up in the press box could use some inspiration and Hannibal is as good a source as any.

[Oasis]

"Of course, Hannibal had some great battles but lost the war, decisively."

So what? Are we supposed to think that not using surprise and deception is the formula for victory?  Our two losses came in games where the other side shut down our predictable offense with its straight-ahead approach, much like the Romans' early on against Hannibal.  Shaw's war at 6-2 is not going nearly as well as it should be at 8-0. 

The Domers stuffed our straight-up-the-middle plays, twice. Instead of providing more momentum our ponderous pile of people were impediments to Stepfan.  Something similar happened to the Romans vs. Hannibal -- three times, the most famous being the massacre of the plodding legions at Cannae.  The Romans finally defeated Hannibal only when finally they did to him what he had been doing to them for 16 years. 

Somebody up in the press box could use some inspiration and Hannibal is as good a source as any.

[Ratmandoo]

I agree that Shaw is likely not an Jerk...if he were it would probably be reflected in all aspects of his job as coach, including recruiting kids.  But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else. 

Have you ever seen a press conference by any other football coach other than Shaw? If you want to see smug and arrogant, take a look at how Nick Saban, Chip Kelly, Bill Belichick, Bill Parcells, Jim Harbaugh, etc, etc, etc, treat the press.

How about this Saban gem - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06...62950.html

Seriously, Shaw has made mistakes and the jury is still out on his overall coaching abilities. If you want to complain how he responds to the media, go ahead. But let's have a little perspective. There aren't many coaches who would be "nicer" to the media right now. Not every coach is Mike Riley. If Shaw's answers in press conferences still bother you, I hope you rip on Harbaugh for his press conferences. Or are his results enough to let him skate by?

[Ratmandoo]

I agree that Shaw is likely not an Jerk...if he were it would probably be reflected in all aspects of his job as coach, including recruiting kids.  But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else. 

Have you ever seen a press conference by any other football coach other than Shaw? If you want to see smug and arrogant, take a look at how Nick Saban, Chip Kelly, Bill Belichick, Bill Parcells, Jim Harbaugh, etc, etc, etc, treat the press.

How about this Saban gem - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06...62950.html

Seriously, Shaw has made mistakes and the jury is still out on his overall coaching abilities. If you want to complain how he responds to the media, go ahead. But let's have a little perspective. There aren't many coaches who would be "nicer" to the media right now. Not every coach is Mike Riley. If Shaw's answers in press conferences still bother you, I hope you rip on Harbaugh for his press conferences. Or are his results enough to let him skate by?

[Ratmandoo]

I agree that Shaw is likely not an Jerk...if he were it would probably be reflected in all aspects of his job as coach, including recruiting kids.  But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else. 

Have you ever seen a press conference by any other football coach other than Shaw? If you want to see smug and arrogant, take a look at how Nick Saban, Chip Kelly, Bill Belichick, Bill Parcells, Jim Harbaugh, etc, etc, etc, treat the press.

How about this Saban gem - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06...62950.html

Seriously, Shaw has made mistakes and the jury is still out on his overall coaching abilities. If you want to complain how he responds to the media, go ahead. But let's have a little perspective. There aren't many coaches who would be "nicer" to the media right now. Not every coach is Mike Riley. If Shaw's answers in press conferences still bother you, I hope you rip on Harbaugh for his press conferences. Or are his results enough to let him skate by?

[Ratmandoo]

I agree that Shaw is likely not an Jerk...if he were it would probably be reflected in all aspects of his job as coach, including recruiting kids.  But he is smug and arrogant.  He treats the press with disdain.  Watch all of his press conferences and he talks to the press as if they are all total idiots and as if he knows better than everyone else. 

Have you ever seen a press conference by any other football coach other than Shaw? If you want to see smug and arrogant, take a look at how Nick Saban, Chip Kelly, Bill Belichick, Bill Parcells, Jim Harbaugh, etc, etc, etc, treat the press.

How about this Saban gem - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06...62950.html

Seriously, Shaw has made mistakes and the jury is still out on his overall coaching abilities. If you want to complain how he responds to the media, go ahead. But let's have a little perspective. There aren't many coaches who would be "nicer" to the media right now. Not every coach is Mike Riley. If Shaw's answers in press conferences still bother you, I hope you rip on Harbaugh for his press conferences. Or are his results enough to let him skate by?

[KartyFan]

I recall the press conference where he said all the fans were ready to bronze Nunes' arm after the the team Under Stanford Control game...no fans said anything like that!  We all - at least on this board and in the stands - agreed that Nunes still sucks.

That is inaccurate (unless you saw a different press conference I did) - Shaw said that it would be premature to crown Nunes after the USC game. He did not say fans were ready to bronze his arm.

If you think it can't be worse at QB, take a look at Sean Mannion yesterday. He threw 4 interceptions, which likely cost OSU the game. Nunes was not good, but he did not turn the ball over, which was just enough to win. If Nottingham had come in and thrown two quick interceptions, would you still have thought it was the right call?

[KartyFan]

I recall the press conference where he said all the fans were ready to bronze Nunes' arm after the the team Under Stanford Control game...no fans said anything like that!  We all - at least on this board and in the stands - agreed that Nunes still sucks.

That is inaccurate (unless you saw a different press conference I did) - Shaw said that it would be premature to crown Nunes after the USC game. He did not say fans were ready to bronze his arm.

If you think it can't be worse at QB, take a look at Sean Mannion yesterday. He threw 4 interceptions, which likely cost OSU the game. Nunes was not good, but he did not turn the ball over, which was just enough to win. If Nottingham had come in and thrown two quick interceptions, would you still have thought it was the right call?

[KartyFan]

I recall the press conference where he said all the fans were ready to bronze Nunes' arm after the the team Under Stanford Control game...no fans said anything like that!  We all - at least on this board and in the stands - agreed that Nunes still sucks.

That is inaccurate (unless you saw a different press conference I did) - Shaw said that it would be premature to crown Nunes after the USC game. He did not say fans were ready to bronze his arm.

If you think it can't be worse at QB, take a look at Sean Mannion yesterday. He threw 4 interceptions, which likely cost OSU the game. Nunes was not good, but he did not turn the ball over, which was just enough to win. If Nottingham had come in and thrown two quick interceptions, would you still have thought it was the right call?

[KartyFan]

I recall the press conference where he said all the fans were ready to bronze Nunes' arm after the the team Under Stanford Control game...no fans said anything like that!  We all - at least on this board and in the stands - agreed that Nunes still sucks.

That is inaccurate (unless you saw a different press conference I did) - Shaw said that it would be premature to crown Nunes after the USC game. He did not say fans were ready to bronze his arm.

If you think it can't be worse at QB, take a look at Sean Mannion yesterday. He threw 4 interceptions, which likely cost OSU the game. Nunes was not good, but he did not turn the ball over, which was just enough to win. If Nottingham had come in and thrown two quick interceptions, would you still have thought it was the right call?