Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - 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: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 (/thread-7711.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: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 (/thread-7711.html)
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - BostonCard - 09-08-2014
Fair enough point, but I think the OP's original thought, that Walsh had been criticized at the time for poor playcalling is still relevant. That the "one of the greatest offensive minds in the history of the game" would have been criticized for play calling is a testament to how much we are affected as fans by the outcome of the game. I'm not saying that some day, Shaw will be considered one of the greatest offensive minds in the history of the game, but I can guarantee you that someday we will look longingly towards the Shaw reign when we complain of the playcalling of some future coach.
BC
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - CornFed - 09-08-2014
I took JPRI's comments to be questioning whether or not "one of the greatest offensive minds in history" would, in fact, have necessarily had a better result than Shaw. As I acknowledged previously, we can only conjecture such a scenario, but I would love to know if there are many on this board who believe that Walsh could not have done more offensively with this team than Shaw did on Saturday. In fact, I'd bet that Shaw himself would defer to Walsh's mastery.
If all that was intended was further evidence that fans will criticize anybody for play-calling after a horrible loss, that would not seem to be the least bit controversial. Heck, it's darn near tautological. We criticize play-calling around here after wins. But I would suggest that Shaw has a bigger issue here than just - "fans will be fans".
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - JohnR34231 - 09-08-2014
(09-07-2014, 11:26 PM)CornFed link Wrote:It isn't just "probably" true that we didn't have the depth of talent on the 1978 team as we do now. The talent pool differential was, I think, sufficient to render the attempted comparison ineffective.
I think the wistful comment is more of an honorific to Bill Walsh. I think he was probably one of the greatest offensive minds in the history of the game. I don't know for sure he would have made better decisions than Shaw last Saturday. But I sure do know that trying to use the 1978 example as evidence that he occasionally suffered the same shortcomings as Shaw is probably not valid.
As the saying goes, that's why they have horseraces, people have differences of opinion. Obviously there's no way of knowing for sure and the matter is subjective anyway, but I disagree with the notion that the talent pool under Walsh was so inferior to what we have now that a comparison is invalid.
At any rate I wasn't suggesting that Shaw is Walsh's equal as a play caller or that there isn't currently room for improvement in that area. I just found it a bit ironic that someone would call for Walsh when in fact he didn't have any better record of putting points on the board against U$C than we saw on Saturday.
I also agree with BC that there will be sometime in the future that we will look wistfully back on the Shaw regime. Maybe not the playcalling, but at least the time we went to three BCS (equivalent, I realize the BCS is now defunct) bowls in a row.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - CornFed - 09-08-2014
I didn't intend to come off as one who is jumping ugly on Shaw. I was reacting to the effort to rationalize the failure of our play calling in the red zone by implying that even Walsh would struggle. We certainly have a complete body of work in assessing Walsh and certainly do not have that in evaluating Shaw. Hopefully, the U.SC game is useful to Shaw in iterating his approach to using the array of talent on the team. But I don't think this board's expressed concerns about these issues are nothing more than various commenters' "sour grapes" after losses. These concerns have been fairly consistently raised since at least the Fiesta Bowl and can have validity without implying that Shaw is worthless (although there are fringe elements that do go there).
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - CornFed - 09-08-2014
(09-08-2014, 05:44 AM)garvin link Wrote:Quote:I would love to know if there are many on this board who believe that Walsh could not have done more offensively with this team than Shaw did on Saturday
Walsh's Blockbuster Bowl team scored a total of 20 points in losses to Texas A&M, Arizona and Washington. I didn't hear the word "genius" used much after any of those games.
I find it sort of hard to reconcile Shaw's supposedly terrible play-calling Saturday with our 400-plus yards in total offense. So if he had called plays decently, we would have had 800?
No, I think we would have had roughly the same 400 yards and scored about 14 or 17 more points.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - Extra Point - 09-08-2014
(09-08-2014, 12:26 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Fair enough point, but I think the OP's original thought, that Walsh had been criticized at the time for poor playcalling is still relevant. That the "one of the greatest offensive minds in the history of the game" would have been criticized for play calling is a testament to how much we are affected as fans by the outcome of the game. I'm not saying that some day, Shaw will be considered one of the greatest offensive minds in the history of the game, but I can guarantee you that someday we will look longingly towards the Shaw reign when we complain of the playcalling of some future coach.
BC
I am encouraged by the fact that there were only 3 or 4 posters with the knee jerk "fire the coach" reaction.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - CornFed - 09-08-2014
I am surprised that there were ANY calling for Shaw to be fired, but that does go to BC's post about fans being driven to criticism of play-calling by the outcome and not so much by the circumstances and choices being confronted.
Re: Final: U=S=C 13, Stanford 10 - Roberton3 - 09-08-2014
(09-08-2014, 09:09 AM)Extra Point link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10559.msg97368#msg97368 date=1410161191]
Fair enough point, but I think the OP's original thought, that Walsh had been criticized at the time for poor playcalling is still relevant. That the "one of the greatest offensive minds in the history of the game" would have been criticized for play calling is a testament to how much we are affected as fans by the outcome of the game. I'm not saying that some day, Shaw will be considered one of the greatest offensive minds in the history of the game, but I can guarantee you that someday we will look longingly towards the Shaw reign when we complain of the playcalling of some future coach.
BC
I am encouraged by the fact that there were only 3 or 4 posters with the knee jerk "fire the coach" reaction.
[/quote]
True. But that's still roughly 5 or 6 more than the facts justify. ;)