Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - 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: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon (/thread-23521.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: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon (/thread-23521.html)
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - winflop - 10-03-2022
(10-03-2022, 04:37 PM)81alum Wrote: I submit that SHAW is the single most important reason for Stanford football success since the bad old days. Of course, it is a different Shaw than most people think.
I submit that HARBAUGH is the single most important reason for Stanford football success since the bad old days. Shaw's early success was at least in part due to the coaching staff and recruits from the Harbaugh era.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - 81alum - 10-03-2022
(10-03-2022, 05:15 PM)winflop Wrote:You may not have read the rest of my post. It was an ironic comment implying that Richard "Rick" Shaw (Director of Admissions since 2005) is the reason for our success. Mamlet made it impossible to recruit competitively. Harbaugh was able to recruit an entirely different class of athletes than his two failed predecessors, thanks to the fact that Rick Shaw arrived just in time to make his job easier.(10-03-2022, 04:37 PM)81alum Wrote: I submit that SHAW is the single most important reason for Stanford football success since the bad old days. Of course, it is a different Shaw than most people think.
I submit that HARBAUGH is the single most important reason for Stanford football success since the bad old days. Shaw's early success was at least in part due to the coaching staff and recruits from the Harbaugh era.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - BostonCard - 10-03-2022
(10-03-2022, 06:39 AM)Mick Wrote:(10-02-2022, 03:07 PM)msqueri Wrote:(10-02-2022, 02:25 PM)george Wrote:(10-02-2022, 02:09 PM)msqueri Wrote: Anybody would do better, or at least close enough to anybody if we halfway tried with a hire.Well, we ended up with Walt after we fired Teevens. At the time of Buddy's dismissal it was hard to believe that we could do worse, but we clearly could.
I was one of the people in those days saying be careful what you wish for. Eventually I came around to supporting firing Teevens but it was pretty grudgingly. 2004 Teevens was harder to replace than 2022 Shaw. When we fired Teevens we were the sixth best of ten Pac-12 teams and on the doorstep of top 40 nationally. Shaw's team is currently 10th of 12 Pac-12 teams and #61 in Sagarin, which is a big improvement (and maybe a high point going forward) compared to last year's #89. To be honest, Shaw hasn't been on Teevens' level in almost half a decade. It's easier to replace the losingest Power Five coach in the nation than to replace a somewhat sub-par Power Five coach.
Regardless, even if one holds that Shaw 2022 is similar to Teevens (which I think it's increasingly clear is an insult to Teevens), the point is that moving on from Teevens allowed us to shoot higher. We replaced him with a coach coming off a BCS bowl and rolled the dice it would be better. It wasn't, but then we had another shot at a hire and that turned out spectacularly. If we move on from Shaw and suck, the worst that's happened is we're as bad as we are now. Even say Shaw gets replaced by Pritchard or Anderson and we have 2-3 more bad seasons. That's a risk worth taking. It's not even really a gamble given how low we are now. And if it doesn't work, you get to have another coaching search to look for a better coach, but this time without Shaw's shadow. As Big John said, coaching changes for losing teams are about finding some reason for hope. We have none now. We could by turning the page. That's the bottom line.
Two things about Teevens. In his last season, the Cardinal finished 4-7. They lost to #1 USC by three points. I don't see a Shaw team losing to an AP #1 team by less than fifty. Teevens also started out 4-2 that season, annihilating San Jose State and BYU, and beating Washington and WSU. Five of their seven losses were by eight points or fewer. But then they lost to Cal 41-6.
Second, at least Teevens improved. He was 2-9 his first year, went to 4-7 his next year getting killed in virtually all of his losses, but the team was actually competitive in 9 of 11 games by Teevens' last year.
Not saying I want him back. And Teevens has gone 9-1 in four of his last seven seasons at Dartmouth, including the last three in a row. He's likely happy there.
Let’s be clear, that 2004 Washington Huskies team ended the season 0-8 in the PAC-10 and 1-10 overall. Their only win was against San Jose State. Washington Statw was 3-5 (5-6 overall). BYU also had a losing season (5-6), and San Jose State was pittiful.
BC