The CardBoard
Rose Bowl Prediction - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Rose Bowl Prediction (/thread-10007.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - 81alum - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 07:09 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=12951.msg131316#msg131316 date=1443405621]
We have yet to beat a really good spread team. 

SC doesn't count?
[/quote]
I suppose....they do qualify on the "really good" part, but how "spready" they are....they did not play with nearly as much tempo as the Oregon teams of old, for example.  I'm particularly thinking of those teams that pass to the flats as much as 50% of the time, going side to side to deliberately wear down the line, or jet sweeps with ultra fast runners.  SC did more conventional running and downfield passing compared with the side-to-side stuff that forms the backbone of the spread offenses that we will likely be seeing.  But when SC did do the flare passes and the WR screens, they did quite well with them.  Scored a touchdown at the goal line on one that left us confused. 

UCLA has tried to do the sideline to sideline strategy to us the last couple of years, in a deliberate effort to wear us down--but we had the depth and endurance to hold up.  In general, the spread requires very deep defenses, and I'm not sure we have that with our front seven this year.  We will find out with Arizona, UCLA, WSU and C.al who will probably all play us that way.

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - washingtonismoney - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 07:42 PM)81alum link Wrote:I suppose....they do qualify on the "really good" part, but how "spready" they are....they did not play with nearly as much tempo as the Oregon teams of old, for example.  I'm particularly thinking of those teams that pass to the flats as much as 50% of the time, going side to side to deliberately wear down the line, or jet sweeps with ultra fast runners.  SC did more conventional running and downfield passing compared with the side-to-side stuff that forms the backbone of the spread offenses that we will likely be seeing.  But when SC did do the flare passes and the WR screens, they did quite well with them.  Scored a touchdown at the goal line on one that left us confused. 

UCLA has tried to do the sideline to sideline strategy to us the last couple of years, in a deliberate effort to wear us down--but we had the depth and endurance to hold up.  In general, the spread requires very deep defenses, and I'm not sure we have that with our front seven this year.  We will find out with Arizona, UCLA, WSU and C.al who will probably all play us that way.

I dunno, I disagree. There are a lot of flavors of spreads and SC's is definitely on the Baskin-Robbins' list. A lot of spread offenses emphasize taking shots downfield -- see Oklahoma State's, for instance.* While many spreads do enjoy the dink-and-dunk, many don't. I suppose you're concerned about the ones that do, but it's incorrect to define spreads in that way.

* (Or take one of the most famous spread plays, four verticals: http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/03/getting-vertical-with-dan-gonzalez.html)

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - yvonne - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 07:30 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12951.msg131310#msg131310 date=1443404487]Ps: I find it amusing that some of the biggest Shawtagonist are the biggest bandwaggers.

I think there is a difference between being a "Shawtagonist" and just not being sold on him yet.  The very nature of college athletics, especially football, means that there is a period of time in a new coach's administration when blame - or praise - should be shared with his or her predecessor.  That period is typically 3ish years.  Year four was obviously a big letdown (by Stanford's recent standards).  Year five will tell the tale, and it didn't get off to a good start.  However, it has rebounded.  We'll see come December.
[/quote]

So, by that logic, are you willing to attribute Harbaugh's success in his third year to Harris? I didn't think so.

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 08:29 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12951.msg131323#msg131323 date=1443407418]
[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12951.msg131310#msg131310 date=1443404487]Ps: I find it amusing that some of the biggest Shawtagonist are the biggest bandwaggers.

I think there is a difference between being a "Shawtagonist" and just not being sold on him yet.  The very nature of college athletics, especially football, means that there is a period of time in a new coach's administration when blame - or praise - should be shared with his or her predecessor.  That period is typically 3ish years.  Year four was obviously a big letdown (by Stanford's recent standards).  Year five will tell the tale, and it didn't get off to a good start.  However, it has rebounded.  We'll see come December.
[/quote]

So, by that logic, are you willing to attribute Harbaugh's success in his third year to Harris? I didn't think so.
[/quote]

Harbaugh took over a 1-win team and re-built the program from the ground up.  Shaw took over a ready-made national title contender.  I don't get the comparison.

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - BostonCard - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 08:29 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:So, by that logic, are you willing to attribute Harbaugh's success in his third year to Harris? I didn't think so.

Actually, Harbaugh has to share the Greatest Upset Ever with both Walt Harris and Buddy Teevens.

BC

PS: How did you get by the censor?  IF you put "Harris" without "Walt", does that not trigger the autocorrect?

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - washingtonismoney - 09-27-2015

The Harbaugh-gave-Shaw-so-much argument is an uncomplicated look at a complicated situation. For instance, Harbaugh had barely anything to do with coaching the classes of 2010 and 2011. (He coached the famed 2009 class for two out of their four/five years.)

In essence, it's deceptive to claim Harbaugh somehow gave Shaw a readymade edifice to run. Harbaugh built the foundation and left some nice mortar and bricks.

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 08:42 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The Harbaugh-gave-Shaw-so-much argument is an uncomplicated look at a complicated situation. For instance, Harbaugh had barely anything to do with coaching the classes of 2010 and 2011. (He coached the famed 2009 class for two out of their four/five years.)

In essence, it's deceptive to claim Harbaugh somehow gave Shaw a readymade edifice to run. Harbaugh built the foundation and left some nice mortar and bricks.

To which coach(es) do you ascribe the meteoric rise of the program between '07 and '10?

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - washingtonismoney - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 08:45 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:To which coach(es) do you ascribe the meteoric rise of the program between '07 and '10?

Well, Idiotface and Teevens left some nice talent for Harbs, obviously. Not every day the best cornerback in the NFL is waiting for a new college coach.

But then Harbaugh and staff deserve the lion's share of credit.

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - Hank 91 - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 08:49 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12951.msg131341#msg131341 date=1443411940]
To which coach(es) do you ascribe the meteoric rise of the program between '07 and '10?

Well, Idiotface and Teevens left some nice talent for Harbaugh, obviously. Not every day the best cornerback in the NFL is waiting for a new college coach.

But then Harbaugh and staff deserve the lion's share of credit.
[/quote]

I actually had a conversation with Shaw last spring about this very thing. Apparently when Harbaugh got the job and brought him along, Shaw began getting calls from his coaching contacts in the Pac-10, and they all told him that the team had lots of talent. "So I obviously assumed they were blowing smoke, just based on the record. And they all said the same thing: 'Look at the film. There's lots of talent there, they just weren't doing the right things with that talent.'"

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - Rally - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 08:49 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12951.msg131341#msg131341 date=1443411940]
To which coach(es) do you ascribe the meteoric rise of the program between '07 and '10?

Well, Idiotface and Teevens left some nice talent for Harbaugh, obviously. Not every day the best cornerback in the NFL is waiting for a new college coach
[/quote]

Yes, but as a wide receiver.  Who moved him to corner back?

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 08:49 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12951.msg131341#msg131341 date=1443411940]
To which coach(es) do you ascribe the meteoric rise of the program between '07 and '10?

Well, Idiotface and Teevens left some nice talent for Harbaugh, obviously. Not every day the best cornerback in the NFL is waiting for a new college coach.

But then Harbaugh and staff deserve the lion's share of credit.
[/quote]

Sure, that 2010 team had some nice pieces that Harbaugh inherited.  But it's a bit silly to say he inherited the "best cornerback in the NFL" when, in his final year of eligibility, Sherman wasn't even considered one of the best corners in the Pac-10.  Carroll and his staff did the most to develop Sherman into the kind of player he is today, not Harbaugh, and most certainly not Harris - who only ended up coaching Sherman for one season.

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - BostonCard - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 08:57 PM)ferrari link Wrote:Yes, but as a wide receiver.  Who moved him to corner back?

As has been well documented, Sherman moved himself to defense to get away from Harbaugh.  I suppose you can give Harbaugh credit for that, but this is a case of the right thing happening for the wrong reason.

BC 

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - Rally - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 09:15 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12951.msg131345#msg131345 date=1443412654]

Yes, but as a wide receiver.  Who moved him to corner back?

As has been well documented, Sherman moved himself to defense to get away from Harbaugh.  I suppose you can give Harbaugh credit for that, but this is a case of the right thing happening for the wrong reason.

BC
[/quote]

Did it?

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - BostonCard - 09-27-2015

I think that the 2011 team that Shaw inherited was loaded with talent and the BCS bowl that year (Fiesta) can be rightfully credited substantially to Harbaugh.  I mean, Shaw inherited the first pick of the nFL draft at QB, the top guard taken in the draft, the second (I think) tackle, the second tight end, the Stanford record holder for career rushing yardage, and two receivers who played in the NFL.  That offense was loaded.

But although subsequent years included many important players signed by Harbaugh, let's face it, nobody expected the team to go to two Rose Bowls after Luck went to the NFL.  Harbaugh left a lot of pieces, but lesser coaches would have seen the team start reverting in 2012.

BC

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - yvonne - 09-27-2015

David Shaw has coached 54 games at Stanford. In the last 50 years, the following coaches have coached that many or more games

John Ralston
Tyrone Willingham
Bill Walsh (over two stints)
Jack Elway
and Jack Christiansen

That's it. And yet, somehow, David Shaw still hasn't coached enough games to prove he's a good coach.

Only six coaches in Stanford history have had higher winning percentages than David Shaw, and three of those were single season coaches. Half the guys who are ahead of Shaw are in the College Football Hall of Fame, yet, somehow, David Shaw hasn't proven that he can coach.

Only Clark T-Formation Shaughnessy has a higher conference winning percentage than Shaw, yet somehow, there hasn't been enough time to figure out whether Shaw can coach.

Only one other coach in the last 50 years has had teams in back-to-back Rose Bowls, and yet somehow, David Shaw hasn't had enough time to prove he can coach.

Yes, Harbaugh built a great foundation, and I'm sure everyone here is grateful for that, but it's about time you give this man his due.


Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - BostonCard - 09-27-2015

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11631358/seattle-seahawks-richard-sherman-spends-weekend-david-shaw-stanford-cardinal

Quote:After playing receiver his first two seasons at Stanford, Sherman approached Shaw, then the Cardinal's offensive coordinator and receivers coach, about making the switch to defense. He was rebuffed.

Stanford's offense was short on playmakers, and in Sherman, Shaw saw a guy with big-play potential.

"We thought it was advantageous to have one guy on offense [who], if he touches the ball in the right spot, he can score," Shaw said. "With him, we didn't have to go four yards at a time. It was hard for me for to tell him to go play defense because I didn't have anyone else I thought could go do that. Richard was the only one. I told him, 'I just can't do it, Rich. We need you on offense.'"

But after he missed most of the 2008 season due to injury, Sherman again went to Shaw with his desire to move to defense. It was no secret Sherman had a contentious relationship with Stanford head coach Jim Harbaugh, but Shaw said his discussion with Sherman wasn't about getting away from Harbaugh.

"The conversation between Richard and I was about his mentality," Shaw said. "He told me, 'Coach, I have a defensive player's mentality. I just do.' So I said, 'OK, Richard. The last thing is you have to call Coach Harbaugh and get the OK from him, and he called Jim right after he got off with me. Then I got a text message back from Richard, 'He said OK.'"

So I wasn't exactly right about why, but it is clear that Sherman was the one who wanted to go to defense.

By the way, I didn't know about the note from Sherman to Shaw...

Quote:"Thank you Coach Shaw for being a father to me at Stanford and teaching me how to play the game the right way. You have helped me on and off the field more than you will ever know! I will forever be indebted to you! Thank you, Coach Shaw. Love, R. Sherman."

BC

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 09:22 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:But although subsequent years included many important players signed by Harbaugh, let's face it, nobody expected the team to go to two Rose Bowls after Luck went to the NFL.  Harbaugh left a lot of pieces, but lesser coaches would have seen the team start reverting in 2012.

BC

Lesser coaches than Shaw, perhaps.  What would Harbaugh have done?

Besides, the Harbaugh effect goes beyond just the talent he left behind.  He established a culture here that has facilitated Shaw's success.

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 09:29 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:David Shaw has coached 54 games at Stanford. In the last 50 years, the following coaches have coached that many or more games

John Ralston
Tyrone Willingham
Bill Walsh (over two stints)
Jack Elway
and Jack Christiansen

That's it. And yet, somehow, David Shaw still hasn't coached enough games to prove he's a good coach.

Only six coaches in Stanford history have had higher winning percentages than David Shaw, and three of those were single season coaches. Half the guys who are ahead of Shaw are in the College Football Hall of Fame, yet, somehow, David Shaw hasn't proven that he can coach.

Only Clark T-Formation Shaughnessy has a higher conference winning percentage than Shaw, yet somehow, there hasn't been enough time to figure out whether Shaw can coach.

Only one other coach in the last 50 years has had teams in back-to-back Rose Bowls, and yet somehow, David Shaw hasn't had enough time to prove he can coach.

Yes, Harbaugh built a great foundation, and I'm sure everyone here is grateful for that, but it's about time you give this man his due.

I have never stated nor have I implied that Shaw is not a good coach.  I don't mind having this discussion but I don't appreciate straw men.

If you feel I don't give Shaw his due then perhaps that's my fault.  Shaw has had a very impressive tenure at Stanford.  The issue is whether his tenure would have been as impressive had he not succeeded Harbaugh.  What would Shaw have done if, in a hypothetical universe, he had succeeded Harris in 2007?  Would he have won two conference titles and a Rose Bowl in his first three seasons?  I have a very hard time believing so.  What would you say?

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - yvonne - 09-27-2015

It's not a straw man. You, yourself said

Quote: I think there is a difference between being a "Shawtagonist" and just not being sold on him yet.

What does this man have to do to sell himself to you?

And for what little it's worth, I wasn't even thinking of you when I was referring to some of the biggest Shawtagonists. But if the shoe does end up fitting...

Re: Rose Bowl Prediction - 81alum - 09-27-2015

(09-27-2015, 07:51 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I dunno, I disagree. There are a lot of flavors of spreads and SC's is definitely on the Baskin-Robbins' list. A lot of spread offenses emphasize taking shots downfield -- see Oklahoma State's, for instance.* While many spreads do enjoy the dink-and-dunk, many don't. I suppose you're concerned about the ones that do, but it's incorrect to define spreads in that way.

* (Or take one of the most famous spread plays, four verticals: http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2009/03/getting-vertical-with-dan-gonzalez.html)
OK, I stand corrected.  I'm not quite sure what to call the particular flavor of spread offense that I fear. 

Whatever it is that I fear emphasizes tempo and sideline to sideline plays that are designed to wear down the front seven.  This strategy has been adopted by UCLA and Oregon and WSU and Arizona against us in the past couple of years.  The hope is to pop long plays up the middle once the front seven are exhausted sprinting sideline to sideline.  The defense against it is frequent rotation of players.  It has had limited success against us because we have been deep enough to rotate players.  I fear that our loss of depth will make us more vulnerable to the strategy.