[terry]

ESPN's Ivan Maisel published a nice piece about David Shaw, the coaching job he has done this year, his contract extension, and how he feels about Stanford --

http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowl...e-football

[terry]

ESPN's Ivan Maisel published a nice piece about David Shaw, the coaching job he has done this year, his contract extension, and how he feels about Stanford --

http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowl...e-football

[Redrum]

It's been hard, but I've managed to not get too entangled by the two dominant opposing narratives about David Shaw. 

#1 narrative:  Shaw is just the inheritor of something built by the real talented guy: Jim Harbaugh.  When Harbaugh left he took all the real coaching talent with him.  Harbaugh didn't take Shaw because Shaw's not a mover and a shaker,  just more of a staff guy who has legacy connections w/ Stanford and is therefor acceptable.

#2  David Shaw has already shown he's not just a flash in the pan.  He's the real deal and 2 seasons and two bowl games have proven it.

I think I'll just not go all-in on Shaw for a while longer.  Shaw has done very well, but he hasn't had to face what most new coaches have to: rebuild a program in decline...or in ashes.  Shaw's challenge is to not crash the bus that's already on the high road.  A couple more seasons are needed for me to completely buy in that a really great person and great Stanford success story is also a consistently great (and sometimes lucky) coach in the college football hierarchy.  Meanwhile...glad he got the new contract and it helps him focus without distractions or material reasons to be looking elsewhere.

[Redrum]

It's been hard, but I've managed to not get too entangled by the two dominant opposing narratives about David Shaw. 

#1 narrative:  Shaw is just the inheritor of something built by the real talented guy: Jim Harbaugh.  When Harbaugh left he took all the real coaching talent with him.  Harbaugh didn't take Shaw because Shaw's not a mover and a shaker,  just more of a staff guy who has legacy connections w/ Stanford and is therefor acceptable.

#2  David Shaw has already shown he's not just a flash in the pan.  He's the real deal and 2 seasons and two bowl games have proven it.

I think I'll just not go all-in on Shaw for a while longer.  Shaw has done very well, but he hasn't had to face what most new coaches have to: rebuild a program in decline...or in ashes.  Shaw's challenge is to not crash the bus that's already on the high road.  A couple more seasons are needed for me to completely buy in that a really great person and great Stanford success story is also a consistently great (and sometimes lucky) coach in the college football hierarchy.  Meanwhile...glad he got the new contract and it helps him focus without distractions or material reasons to be looking elsewhere.

[CompSci87]

Maybe Shaw is our George Seifert. He didn't get the same credit as his predecessor, but did very well.

[CompSci87]

Maybe Shaw is our George Seifert. He didn't get the same credit as his predecessor, but did very well.

[yvonne]

I think I'll just not go all-in on Shaw for a while longer.  Shaw has done very well, but he hasn't had to face what most new coaches have to: rebuild a program in decline...or in ashes. 

Yeah, you know that Nick Saban is good, but he hasn't competed for any national championships with Kentucky level talent. Posh!

[yvonne]

I think I'll just not go all-in on Shaw for a while longer.  Shaw has done very well, but he hasn't had to face what most new coaches have to: rebuild a program in decline...or in ashes. 

Yeah, you know that Nick Saban is good, but he hasn't competed for any national championships with Kentucky level talent. Posh!

[Redrum]

And went 10-3 in 1992 with a very good team left over from Denny Green.  Proof positive that Walsh would absolutely own the Pac-10 for years to come.  And so, it came to pass.

You never know.  Actually waiting to see if great expectations come true takes a bit of the edge off the fun,  but it's still more enjoyable than that feeling that you've fallen for the hype yet again. 

So I just go ahead and enjoy game after game that we win; agonize over the games we lose or almost lose; follow recruiting as a bellwether for the chances the good times will continue;  and hope that David Shaw actually does fulfill his early promise.  Scandalous kind of fandom.  Simply scandalous.

[Redrum]

And went 10-3 in 1992 with a very good team left over from Denny Green.  Proof positive that Walsh would absolutely own the Pac-10 for years to come.  And so, it came to pass.

You never know.  Actually waiting to see if great expectations come true takes a bit of the edge off the fun,  but it's still more enjoyable than that feeling that you've fallen for the hype yet again. 

So I just go ahead and enjoy game after game that we win; agonize over the games we lose or almost lose; follow recruiting as a bellwether for the chances the good times will continue;  and hope that David Shaw actually does fulfill his early promise.  Scandalous kind of fandom.  Simply scandalous.

[Nan3cy]

I'd say that Shaw's second year has been a little better than the second year of Walsh II. 

[Nan3cy]

I'd say that Shaw's second year has been a little better than the second year of Walsh II. 

[Redrum]

not whether Shaw has had two really good seasons.  No disagreement on that.    As a long time Stanford fan, from John Ralston on,  one could argue that a person who didn't wait and see how a coach did over time,  well, one could argue that such a person simply wasn't learning the lessons experience keeps trying to teach him/her.

[Redrum]

not whether Shaw has had two really good seasons.  No disagreement on that.    As a long time Stanford fan, from John Ralston on,  one could argue that a person who didn't wait and see how a coach did over time,  well, one could argue that such a person simply wasn't learning the lessons experience keeps trying to teach him/her.

[yvonne]

By that measure, no Stanford coach since Ralston has been successful because no Stanford coach other than Ralston and he who shall not be named has coached for more than  four seasons. Shaw's teams have had almost nowhere to go but down, and most people expected this to be a rebuilding year, and yet unlike the last two years, the team has won the conference. So, he's not only met expectations, but exceeded them.

Sure, he hasn't built the team from nothing. Successful coaches from elite programs rarely do. Is Chip Kelly not a good coach simply because Bellotti had laid much of the groundwork? To say Shaw must first prove his coaching ability by coming back from a losing season is placing an unreasonable impediment for sole purpose of creating your own self-fulfilling prophecy under which you could point to the losing season itself and say, "See, I told you he wasn't a good coach!"

[yvonne]

By that measure, no Stanford coach since Ralston has been successful because no Stanford coach other than Ralston and he who shall not be named has coached for more than  four seasons. Shaw's teams have had almost nowhere to go but down, and most people expected this to be a rebuilding year, and yet unlike the last two years, the team has won the conference. So, he's not only met expectations, but exceeded them.

Sure, he hasn't built the team from nothing. Successful coaches from elite programs rarely do. Is Chip Kelly not a good coach simply because Bellotti had laid much of the groundwork? To say Shaw must first prove his coaching ability by coming back from a losing season is placing an unreasonable impediment for sole purpose of creating your own self-fulfilling prophecy under which you could point to the losing season itself and say, "See, I told you he wasn't a good coach!"

[dabigv13]

I'm with RR on this. Two seasons, no matter how great they are, is not an accurate measure of the quality of a coach.

Larry Coker is an example that comes to mind. Or Barry Switzer in Dallas.

[dabigv13]

I'm with RR on this. Two seasons, no matter how great they are, is not an accurate measure of the quality of a coach.

Larry Coker is an example that comes to mind. Or Barry Switzer in Dallas.

[Hurlburt88]

Slightly different angle . . .

The day he was announced as head coach I felt that he would be a better long term fit than Harbaugh, and that we could have long-term consistent success under Shaw.  He understands how football fits into the university as a whole, not the flight risk that Harbaugh always was--basically a strong foundation point for the long term.  So far all playing out per this hypothesis, so color me a strong Shaw supporter

:)

[Hurlburt88]

Slightly different angle . . .

The day he was announced as head coach I felt that he would be a better long term fit than Harbaugh, and that we could have long-term consistent success under Shaw.  He understands how football fits into the university as a whole, not the flight risk that Harbaugh always was--basically a strong foundation point for the long term.  So far all playing out per this hypothesis, so color me a strong Shaw supporter

:)

[Oasis]

It's been hard, but I've managed to not get too entangled by the two dominant opposing narratives about David Shaw. 

#1 narrative:  Shaw is just the inheritor of something built by the real talented guy: Jim Harbaugh.  When Harbaugh left he took all the real coaching talent with him.  Harbaugh didn't take Shaw because Shaw's not a mover and a shaker,  just more of a staff guy who has legacy connections w/ Stanford and is therefor acceptable.

#2  David Shaw has already shown he's not just a flash in the pan.  He's the real deal and 2 seasons and two bowl games have proven it.

I think I'll just not go all-in on Shaw for a while longer.  Shaw has done very well, but he hasn't had to face what most new coaches have to: rebuild a program in decline...or in ashes.  Shaw's challenge is to not crash the bus that's already on the high road.  A couple more seasons are needed for me to completely buy in that a really great person and great Stanford success story is also a consistently great (and sometimes lucky) coach in the college football hierarchy.  Meanwhile...glad he got the new contract and it helps him focus without distractions or material reasons to be looking elsewhere.

I think you have to lean toward narrative number two.  If what I read is accurate, Shaw is recruiting well so that the program need never go back to ashes.  Depending on how you look at it, Shaw showed remarkable flexibility of mind in moving Hogan to starter.  (You can also argue he didn't do it soon enough.)  But whoever we have as head coach can always be bought off with NFL millions.  If Shaw has two more 11-2 or so seasons that will probably happen with him too. From a personal standpoint it's hard to turn down that kind of guaranteed major wealth for life, even if you fail.  Given that, I think Shaw is about as stable a coach as we could expect to have.  And he seems to be a good one.

[Oasis]

It's been hard, but I've managed to not get too entangled by the two dominant opposing narratives about David Shaw. 

#1 narrative:  Shaw is just the inheritor of something built by the real talented guy: Jim Harbaugh.  When Harbaugh left he took all the real coaching talent with him.  Harbaugh didn't take Shaw because Shaw's not a mover and a shaker,  just more of a staff guy who has legacy connections w/ Stanford and is therefor acceptable.

#2  David Shaw has already shown he's not just a flash in the pan.  He's the real deal and 2 seasons and two bowl games have proven it.

I think I'll just not go all-in on Shaw for a while longer.  Shaw has done very well, but he hasn't had to face what most new coaches have to: rebuild a program in decline...or in ashes.  Shaw's challenge is to not crash the bus that's already on the high road.  A couple more seasons are needed for me to completely buy in that a really great person and great Stanford success story is also a consistently great (and sometimes lucky) coach in the college football hierarchy.  Meanwhile...glad he got the new contract and it helps him focus without distractions or material reasons to be looking elsewhere.

I think you have to lean toward narrative number two.  If what I read is accurate, Shaw is recruiting well so that the program need never go back to ashes.  Depending on how you look at it, Shaw showed remarkable flexibility of mind in moving Hogan to starter.  (You can also argue he didn't do it soon enough.)  But whoever we have as head coach can always be bought off with NFL millions.  If Shaw has two more 11-2 or so seasons that will probably happen with him too. From a personal standpoint it's hard to turn down that kind of guaranteed major wealth for life, even if you fail.  Given that, I think Shaw is about as stable a coach as we could expect to have.  And he seems to be a good one.

[Nan3cy]

Under the heading of "keeping things on an even keel after the all-everything quarterback leaves" -- that makes me think of how much fun our first season without John Elway was in 1983...  :-[

[Nan3cy]

Under the heading of "keeping things on an even keel after the all-everything quarterback leaves" -- that makes me think of how much fun our first season without John Elway was in 1983...  :-[

[Bruce Wang]

I'm all in on Shaw. More fun this way.

Just a reminder that people with more expertise than us (NFL front office types) mention Shaw in the same breath as Chipper and Saban.  They think he's the real deal.

[Bruce Wang]

I'm all in on Shaw. More fun this way.

Just a reminder that people with more expertise than us (NFL front office types) mention Shaw in the same breath as Chipper and Saban.  They think he's the real deal.

[Redrum]

garvin has done a good job pointing out the flaws in each.  I'll just note that I didn't make those up.  They were summaries of the comments that have surfaced over Shaw's two seasons.  Valid or not,  they're a fair  summary the dominant views of Shaw turning up in media and fan comments. 

As for NFL interest,  the NFL has the appetite of an elephant for the next big thing, the next savior.  And it has the loyalty  of a street drug lord.  Sure the NFL is making noises.  While they're planning where to dump the body of their present coach they're floating names of the guys they think can save them from themselves.  Their willingness to try the "next great coach"  shouldn't be confused with wisdom.

[Redrum]

garvin has done a good job pointing out the flaws in each.  I'll just note that I didn't make those up.  They were summaries of the comments that have surfaced over Shaw's two seasons.  Valid or not,  they're a fair  summary the dominant views of Shaw turning up in media and fan comments. 

As for NFL interest,  the NFL has the appetite of an elephant for the next big thing, the next savior.  And it has the loyalty  of a street drug lord.  Sure the NFL is making noises.  While they're planning where to dump the body of their present coach they're floating names of the guys they think can save them from themselves.  Their willingness to try the "next great coach"  shouldn't be confused with wisdom.

[yvonne]

Hence, the name: Not For Long.

[yvonne]

Hence, the name: Not For Long.

[slide]

garvin has done a good job pointing out the flaws in each.  I'll just note that I didn't make those up.  They were summaries of the comments that have surfaced over Shaw's two seasons.  Valid or not,  they're a fair  summary the dominant views of Shaw turning up in media and fan comments. 

I think there was some uncertainty about how much of the offense went through Shaw under Harbaugh.  Roman and Taggart among others also had a big say in the offense's construction. 

I hope it works out well for Shaw.  winning the Pac-12 this year frankly was a shock to me given the QB and OL question marks starting (and remaining through much of) the year.  and recruiting wise, Shaw has definitely put his own mark on how he will recruit at Stanford, building on the positives from Harbaugh's (and even Buddy's) time.  the biggest change is how many scholarships he offers.  looking at the '14 class, we are definitely competing for more nationally ranked players (Peppers, Chryst, Hand etc) than I can recall

[slide]

garvin has done a good job pointing out the flaws in each.  I'll just note that I didn't make those up.  They were summaries of the comments that have surfaced over Shaw's two seasons.  Valid or not,  they're a fair  summary the dominant views of Shaw turning up in media and fan comments. 

I think there was some uncertainty about how much of the offense went through Shaw under Harbaugh.  Roman and Taggart among others also had a big say in the offense's construction. 

I hope it works out well for Shaw.  winning the Pac-12 this year frankly was a shock to me given the QB and OL question marks starting (and remaining through much of) the year.  and recruiting wise, Shaw has definitely put his own mark on how he will recruit at Stanford, building on the positives from Harbaugh's (and even Buddy's) time.  the biggest change is how many scholarships he offers.  looking at the '14 class, we are definitely competing for more nationally ranked players (Peppers, Chryst, Hand etc) than I can recall