Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. (/thread-18182.html)
+- 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: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. (/thread-18182.html)
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - winflop - 09-25-2019
(09-25-2019, 03:15 PM)CrazedZooChimp Wrote:(09-25-2019, 12:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: The only way Troy Walters is coming back to Stanford is as the head coach. Anything else would be taking a step back in his career.
Oh, I dunno about that. Especially since if Frost has another ~.500 year at Nebraska his whole staff might be out of a job. And based on their loss to Colorado and how close Illinois came to beating them, seems very possible.
I think if you look at where Nebraska and Stanford OCs have gone since Harbaugh came on board, it'd be hard to argue that going from Nebraska to Stanford is a step down. Might be lateral but could argue it's a step up. However, I think it'd also be clear that if he were the new OC, it wouldn't be for more than 2-3 years because he'd be going to a college HC or NFL OC job pretty quickly if he's successful.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - StanfordMatt - 09-25-2019
(09-25-2019, 03:34 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-25-2019, 03:15 PM)CrazedZooChimp Wrote:(09-25-2019, 12:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: The only way Troy Walters is coming back to Stanford is as the head coach. Anything else would be taking a step back in his career.
Oh, I dunno about that. Especially since if Frost has another ~.500 year at Nebraska his whole staff might be out of a job. And based on their loss to Colorado and how close Illinois came to beating them, seems very possible.
I think if you look at where Nebraska and Stanford OCs have gone since Harbaugh came on board, it'd be hard to argue that going from Nebraska to Stanford is a step down. Might be lateral but could argue it's a step up. However, I think it'd also be clear that if he were the new OC, it wouldn't be for more than 2-3 years because he'd be going to a college HC or NFL OC job pretty quickly if he's successful.
Lot to digest here...
1) Frost walks on water right now in Lincoln. Yes, they lost to Colorado but if you compare that program now to where it was when Frost took over from Riley, it's night and day better. Frost is the golden child at Nebraska, he's going to be given a long leash (he signed a 7-year deal) and if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet against him.
2) Sure, if you cherry pick the past decade, Stanford has had better results than Nebraska, thus affording Stanford OCs more career advancement opportunities. But historically, Stanford football doesn't hold a candle to the Huskers. And looking forward, the future is much brighter in Lincoln given the respective states of both programs.
3) Shaw might be the best head coach in the country for an assistant to work for in terms of quality of life, but Frost would be a close second. That coaching staff is as tight knit as they come. Consider that when Frost left UCF for Nebraska, he brought his entire staff with him. He even let Troy make a run at the head job at UCF and held the OC spot at NU open for as long as Troy needed. Given the different recruiting landscapes in Orlando compared to Lincoln, the fact that he didn't make a single change to his staff is borderline insane, but it speaks to Frost's loyalty.
4) Troy is making $700K at Nebraska on a multi-year deal (all NU assistants were rolled over after 2018). I haven't seen the numbers but I doubt Stanford is paying its coordinators much, if any, over that amount. I have no doubt, that Troy's standard of living in Lincoln on $700K is head and shoulders above the standard of living that he would have living in Palo Alto as Stanford's OC no matter what Shaw scrounged up for him.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - 82lsju - 09-25-2019
nfm nfm
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - fullmetal - 10-04-2019
Is Nebraska running the same offense they were back in 2017? Because Nebraska in 2017 was also using the duo blocking scheme that was mentioned earlier this season: https://huskerchalktalk.com/2017/10/11/concept-wednesday-duo/
Here's another informative link on duo: https://mgoblog.com/content/what-duo
It would explain why our RBs have "looked slower" as if they were really waiting for blocks to develop. Nope, they're actually trying to read the middle linebacker (hopefully Stanford's double teams aren't getting pushed around by individual opposing DL). And maybe our RBs haven't really gotten good at that. Also, if the RBs are trying to read before choosing a gap, they could be susceptible to a free-running backside rusher (have I seen that? yes I have).
Maybe Tavita's still not used to this -- I believe Carberry was the one who brought the duo philosophy to Stanford last season? I would not guess that Bloomgren did. And making Tavita learn a new philosophy (much less eat/breathe/extemporaneously create plays) might incur some learning curve costs, although this is year two, and that should have been dealt with last year if so.
Too bad we can't throw a fullback in as a lead blocker with duo (make the FB read the Mike, worst case, you still have a blocker in there?). I don't know when Stanford became allergic to lead-blocking fullbacks :( I'll settle for an effective offense though.
Anyway, if Nebraska is running duo, the Troy Walters wouldn't have to rewire his brain to make the leap back to Stanford. The paycheck on the other hand...
Also Scott Frost is playing his star RB, who happens to be facing child porn charges in California:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2019/08/31/maurice-washington-appears-nebraska-cornhuskers-child-porn-charges/2179853001/
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/sports/husker-running-back-maurice-washington-s-case-continued-hearing-pushed/article_b17400c0-ce7d-11e9-a501-9f49638c8a69.html
It's related to the RB's videos of his ex-girlfriend when she was a minor. I don't know if allowing the athlete to play sends the right message, but that's Scott's call to make, not mine.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - slide - 10-04-2019
(09-25-2019, 07:52 PM)StanfordMatt Wrote: 4) Troy is making $700K at Nebraska on a multi-year deal (all NU assistants were rolled over after 2018). I haven't seen the numbers but I doubt Stanford is paying its coordinators much, if any, over that amount. I have no doubt, that Troy's standard of living in Lincoln on $700K is head and shoulders above the standard of living that he would have living in Palo Alto as Stanford's OC no matter what Shaw scrounged up for him.
we aren't paying our coordinators that much
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - Bruce Wang - 10-04-2019
If I believed Troy would come to The Farm and stay put rather than using it as a stepping stone, I would try to get him. The primary reason I continue to support Shaw is I don't think he's going anywhere. He's an unique fit with Stanford and would be less successful elsewhere. So he's the solution to the perennial stepping stone problem. He's represents the program and the school well. He's a good leader and administrator. He recruits well. He can fix his shortcomings (not recruiting a QB every year, conservative play calling, and blind loyalty to his assistants).
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - CTcard - 10-04-2019
(10-04-2019, 05:41 AM)Publius Wrote: The primary reason I continue to support Shaw is I don't think he's going anywhere. He's an unique fit with Stanford and would be less successful elsewhere. So he's the solution to the perennial stepping stone problem. He's represents the program and the school well. He's a good leader and administrator. He recruits well. He can fix his shortcomings (not recruiting a QB every year, conservative play calling, and blind loyalty to his assistants).
The primary reason I continue to support Shaw is that he has the most wins of any coach in Stanford history, so far the worst season he has put on the board has been 8-5, and he has the best winning percentage of any coach at Stanford within my lifetime - and that of most people on this board (I think anyway: Shaughnessy had a better win percentage but over just two seasons, and if you are over 78 you were born before he quit coaching at Stanford; if you are over 87 your birth was before Pop Warner finished up - he edges out Shaw by a few percentage points).
Well that plus the "represents the program well" bit; though I wish that were more than a throw-away line for more people.
I would also point out that of and by itself, conservative play calling and loyalty to assistants are not negatives. While excessively so would be, excessively anything would be.
It might also be worth noting that I think Shaw actually has recruited a QB every year, he just hasn't landed a QB every year. I take that as objective evidence of a failing despite the complicated issue of how many QBs Stanford ought to bring in.]
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - fullmetal - 10-04-2019
Shaw hasn't recruited the full complement of scholarships his team is allotted. The cupboard is threadbare at OL. The QB development has been nil. The head trainer hiring and Turley issues were poorly addressed and arguably reasons 1b and 1c why the offense looks the way it does now. He's promoted someone of questionable effectiveness to a high position and doesn't seem to hold his staff accountable for changes that make a difference in the W-L columns. (I feel like we're looking at a 4 or 5 win season this year.)
Shaw will continue to have the most all-time wins of any Stanford coach even if he goes 1-11 for the next five decades, so I'm not sure that's a great metric by which to judge him. I think Shaw's personal reasons for being the Stanford head coach align very well with the program values and alumni/booster values. I'm just not sure how he intends to have a successful program with the current personnel issues.
We need better management/execution out of him though. Stop the bleeding. Start now. Recruits will not generally jump on board a burning ship.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - cardcrimson - 10-04-2019
(10-04-2019, 05:39 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Shaw will continue to have the most all-time wins of any Stanford coach even if he goes 1-11 for the next five decades, so I'm not sure that's a great metric by which to judge him.
That, is one of the best lines I've read in awhile. Thanks!
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - CTcard - 10-05-2019
(10-04-2019, 05:39 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Shaw will continue to have the most all-time wins of any Stanford coach even if he goes 1-11 for the next five decades
But he wouldn't then fulfill the next two criteria: having a worst ever season of 8-5 and best winning percentage of any Stanford coach in my lifetime.
Which is rather the point. Shaw has my support because he wins football games. Once that is no longer true, for long enough, is when it is time to reconsider.
lex24 - lex24 - 10-05-2019
Actually it’s a straw man. Shaw, one would think, has built up some equity. Obviously as with any coach, if it turns south and he fails for a few years, then it’s time to reassess and/or move-on Losing 3 in a row for the first time in his career, having a losing record for the first time in his career (which I anticipate to be the case) is not enough to start talking about job security. Not close.
But there has always been a strange ambivalence to Shaw. Even when they won. It wasn’t enough for many. Cause they didn’t like the offensive framework in which they built their success. I chalk it up to Stanford historically being QB U and the fans liking more wide open offenses,
Shaw has always been defined by his failures. Hell people keep bringing up the Fiesta Bowl and MSU.
He is the most successful coach in Stanford history. Many seem to have a hard time digesting that. But it’s an unassailable fact.
Then there is the “Shaw compliment”. He’s a good man for the program, for the school etc. Translated- yeah he can’t really coach. But he represents well.
Almost every coach eventually gets fired. Or leaves when the writing is on the wall. That will happen someday.
Maybe when it does, maybe Leach will be available. He wont represent well. But man what an offense.....
(10-04-2019, 05:46 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-04-2019, 05:39 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Shaw will continue to have the most all-time wins of any Stanford coach even if he goes 1-11 for the next five decades, so I'm not sure that's a great metric by which to judge him.
That, is one of the best lines I've read in awhile. Thanks!
RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 10-05-2019
I want Shaw to succeed. I want him to win. There are a lot of question marks at the moment however. One thing though continues to pop into my mind, a great quote from Bum Phillips on Bear Bryant:
"Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."
As great as Shaw's been with Stanford over the previous 8 years, I don't think he quite rises anywhere close to that capability.
In 38 coaching seasons with four different 4 schools, Bryant had one losing season (his first year at A&M), and two other five loss seasons (both 6-5, the last two years Alabama's team was segregated).
(10-05-2019, 02:07 PM)lex24 Wrote: Actually it’s a straw man. Shaw, one would think, has built up some equity. Obviously as with any coach, if it turns south and he fails for a few years, then it’s time to reassess and/or move-on Losing 3 in a row for the first time in his career, having a losing record for the first time in his career (which I anticipate to be the case) is not enough to start talking about job security. Not close.
But there has always been a strange ambivalence to Shaw. Even when they won. It wasn’t enough for many. Cause they didn’t like the offensive framework in which they built their success. I chalk it up to Stanford historically being QB U and the fans liking more wide open offenses,
Shaw has always been defined by his failures. Hell people keep bringing up the Fiesta Bowl and MSU.
He is the most successful coach in Stanford history. Many seem to have a hard time digesting that. But it’s an unassailable fact.
Then there is the “Shaw compliment”. He’s a good man for the program, for the school etc. Translated- yeah he can’t really coach. But he represents well.
Almost every coach eventually gets fired. Or leaves when the writing is on the wall. That will happen someday.
Maybe when it does, maybe Leach will be available. He wont represent well. But man what an offense.....
(10-04-2019, 05:46 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-04-2019, 05:39 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Shaw will continue to have the most all-time wins of any Stanford coach even if he goes 1-11 for the next five decades, so I'm not sure that's a great metric by which to judge him.
That, is one of the best lines I've read in awhile. Thanks!
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - winflop - 10-05-2019
I don't think much about Shaw because I know he's not going anywhere. I hope with all my heart that he is still learning how to be a better head coach, because there remain significant issues.
Recruiting problems are not limited to OL. Our two starting ILBs are a converted OLB and a converted S. Our two starting safeties are converted CBs. SO that means there have been repeated recruiting failures at all three position groups over multiple years, in addition to just not recruiting enough players.
Shaw needs some new personnel on his staff. I hope he recognizes this and takes action after this season, but I worry that his stubbornness will get the better of him.
RE: lex24 - CornFed - 10-05-2019
(10-05-2019, 03:16 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: I want Shaw to succeed. I want him to win. There are a lot of question marks at the moment however. One thing though continues to pop into my mind, a great quote from Bum Phillips on Bear Bryant:
"Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."
As great as Shaw's been with Stanford over the previous 8 years, I don't think he quite rises anywhere close to that capability.
In 38 coaching seasons with four different 4 schools, Bryant had one losing season (his first year at A&M), and two other five loss seasons (both 6-5, the last two years Alabama's team was segregated).
(10-05-2019, 02:07 PM)lex24 Wrote: Actually it’s a straw man. Shaw, one would think, has built up some equity. Obviously as with any coach, if it turns south and he fails for a few years, then it’s time to reassess and/or move-on Losing 3 in a row for the first time in his career, having a losing record for the first time in his career (which I anticipate to be the case) is not enough to start talking about job security. Not close.
But there has always been a strange ambivalence to Shaw. Even when they won. It wasn’t enough for many. Cause they didn’t like the offensive framework in which they built their success. I chalk it up to Stanford historically being QB U and the fans liking more wide open offenses,
Shaw has always been defined by his failures. Hell people keep bringing up the Fiesta Bowl and MSU.
He is the most successful coach in Stanford history. Many seem to have a hard time digesting that. But it’s an unassailable fact.
Then there is the “Shaw compliment”. He’s a good man for the program, for the school etc. Translated- yeah he can’t really coach. But he represents well.
Almost every coach eventually gets fired. Or leaves when the writing is on the wall. That will happen someday.
Maybe when it does, maybe Leach will be available. He wont represent well. But man what an offense.....
(10-04-2019, 05:46 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-04-2019, 05:39 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Shaw will continue to have the most all-time wins of any Stanford coach even if he goes 1-11 for the next five decades, so I'm not sure that's a great metric by which to judge him.
That, is one of the best lines I've read in awhile. Thanks!
The Bear was a legendary coach.
So what was it about him that woul lead another coach to make such an observation? Did he vary his system to utilize the varying talents of his different teams? I thought he had a pretty set system and recruited players suited to that system, much like Shaw has done. Maybe he was more inspirational, like Harbaugh when he first arrived.
RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 10-05-2019
(10-05-2019, 04:00 PM)CornFed Wrote:(10-05-2019, 03:16 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: I want Shaw to succeed. I want him to win. There are a lot of question marks at the moment however. One thing though continues to pop into my mind, a great quote from Bum Phillips on Bear Bryant:
"Bryant can take his'n and beat your'n, and then he can turn around and take your'n and beat his'n."
As great as Shaw's been with Stanford over the previous 8 years, I don't think he quite rises anywhere close to that capability.
In 38 coaching seasons with four different 4 schools, Bryant had one losing season (his first year at A&M), and two other five loss seasons (both 6-5, the last two years Alabama's team was segregated).
(10-05-2019, 02:07 PM)lex24 Wrote: Actually it’s a straw man. Shaw, one would think, has built up some equity. Obviously as with any coach, if it turns south and he fails for a few years, then it’s time to reassess and/or move-on Losing 3 in a row for the first time in his career, having a losing record for the first time in his career (which I anticipate to be the case) is not enough to start talking about job security. Not close.
But there has always been a strange ambivalence to Shaw. Even when they won. It wasn’t enough for many. Cause they didn’t like the offensive framework in which they built their success. I chalk it up to Stanford historically being QB U and the fans liking more wide open offenses,
Shaw has always been defined by his failures. Hell people keep bringing up the Fiesta Bowl and MSU.
He is the most successful coach in Stanford history. Many seem to have a hard time digesting that. But it’s an unassailable fact.
Then there is the “Shaw compliment”. He’s a good man for the program, for the school etc. Translated- yeah he can’t really coach. But he represents well.
Almost every coach eventually gets fired. Or leaves when the writing is on the wall. That will happen someday.
Maybe when it does, maybe Leach will be available. He wont represent well. But man what an offense.....
(10-04-2019, 05:46 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-04-2019, 05:39 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Shaw will continue to have the most all-time wins of any Stanford coach even if he goes 1-11 for the next five decades, so I'm not sure that's a great metric by which to judge him.
That, is one of the best lines I've read in awhile. Thanks!
The Bear was a legendary coach.
So what was it about him that woul lead another coach to make such an observation? Did he vary his system to utilize the varying talents of his different teams? I thought he had a pretty set system and recruited players suited to that system, much like Shaw has done. Maybe he was more inspirational, like Harbaugh when he first arrived.
A little perspective. His first season, World War Two was just wrapping up. His last season at Alabama was John Elway's last season at Stanford. I'd imagine he changed his scheme a time or two over his career.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - martyup - 10-05-2019
If the standard for keep your coaching job is to be as good or better than Bryant, most coaches should be fired.
When Stanford has a recruiting class that is top 30 but not top 15, I would not call that a recruiting failure. It is very difficult to land top 15 recruiting classes when each recruit must be admitted to Stanford. The fact that we can ever crack the top 15 is quite amazing.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - cardcrimson - 10-05-2019
(10-05-2019, 06:45 PM)martyup Wrote: If the standard for keep your coaching job is to be as good or better than Bryant, most coaches should be fired.
When Stanford has a recruiting class that is top 30 but not top 15, I would not call that a recruiting failure. It is very difficult to land top 15 recruiting classes when each recruit must be admitted to Stanford. The fact that we can ever crack the top 15 is quite amazing.
Well good golly. How have we ever won any championships at all? Only 123 so far. How the hell did those kids get in?
Sorry I was clear enough with my comment. A well respected coach said Bryant could beat you, if you switched players. Bryant would find a way to win with Shaw's guys. I hope Shaw can too.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - 2006alum - 10-05-2019
(10-05-2019, 07:17 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-05-2019, 06:45 PM)martyup Wrote: If the standard for keep your coaching job is to be as good or better than Bryant, most coaches should be fired.
When Stanford has a recruiting class that is top 30 but not top 15, I would not call that a recruiting failure. It is very difficult to land top 15 recruiting classes when each recruit must be admitted to Stanford. The fact that we can ever crack the top 15 is quite amazing.
Well good golly. How have we ever won any championships at all? Only 123 so far. How the hell did those kids get in?
They didn't play "revenue" sports. Our one basketball championship dates to World War II, long before basketball was a "revenue" sport. We've never won it all at football.
It's a lot harder to recruit 15-20 Stanford admissible top football players every year than 2 blue chip women's tennis players - due to numbers, demographics, and the nature of those sports. All you need is 2 blue chips + Lele to win a championship every other year or so. Football, no such luck.
Marty is absolutely right: we fight an extreme uphill battle in recruiting, and in some years the chips fall such that we come up well short. And this is hardly exclusive to football. Look at all the years Tara couldn't find one top 10 player who could get admitted as a WBB recruit, and could barely find one or two top *30* players. And a mere handful have turned Stanford down once admitted over the past decade.
There are many upsides to a sub 5% acceptance rate, but athletic recruiting is not one of them.
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - cardcrimson - 10-05-2019
(10-05-2019, 08:10 PM)2006alum Wrote:(10-05-2019, 07:17 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-05-2019, 06:45 PM)martyup Wrote: If the standard for keep your coaching job is to be as good or better than Bryant, most coaches should be fired.
When Stanford has a recruiting class that is top 30 but not top 15, I would not call that a recruiting failure. It is very difficult to land top 15 recruiting classes when each recruit must be admitted to Stanford. The fact that we can ever crack the top 15 is quite amazing.
Well good golly. How have we ever won any championships at all? Only 123 so far. How the hell did those kids get in?
They didn't play "revenue" sports. Our one basketball championship dates to World War II, long before basketball was a "revenue" sport. We've never won it all at football.
It's a lot harder to recruit 15-20 Stanford admissible top football players every year than 2 blue chip women's tennis players - due to numbers, demographics, and the nature of those sports. All you need is 2 blue chips + Lele to win a championship every other year or so. Football, no such luck.
Marty is absolutely right: we fight an extreme uphill battle in recruiting, and in some years the chips fall such that we come up well short. And this is hardly exclusive to football. Look at all the years Tara couldn't find one top 10 player who could get admitted as a WBB recruit, and could barely find one or two top *30* players. And a mere handful have turned Stanford down once admitted over the past decade.
There are many upsides to a sub 5% acceptance rate, but athletic recruiting is not one of them.
So, athletes in non revenue sports are smarter than athletes in revenue sports? Is that really your point?
RE: Zero &%*$&# TDs. Pathetic. - CompSci87 - 10-05-2019
(10-05-2019, 08:35 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: So, athletes in non revenue sports are smarter than athletes in revenue sports? Is that really your point?
No.