An analysis of Shaw, Harbaugh, and the best fit for Stanford - 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: An analysis of Shaw, Harbaugh, and the best fit for Stanford (/thread-22504.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: An analysis of Shaw, Harbaugh, and the best fit for Stanford (/thread-22504.html)
An analysis of Shaw, Harbaugh, and the best fit for Stanford - Snorlax94 - 11-02-2021
I keep seeing a re-hash of praise for Harbaugh.
My view analyzing it is to go beyond "Shaw is good" or "Shaw is bad" and to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each coach, and how those traits relate to a given circumstance. I also start with a score card for how to consider a Power 5 coaching candidate.
The traits I think a >>college<< coach needs are:
1) They need to be an executive who strives for excellence in building their organization, in solving organizational issues, in fundraising.
2) They need to be excellent recruiters of high school kids.
3) They need to be a motivator to get the best out of kids.
4) They should have exceptional knowledge and insights of at least some aspects of the game.
5) They should have exceptional knowledge of current coaches in college football
6) They should be exceptional innovators of the game at the X's and O's level.
And then, they might have additional superpowers.
As an aside, the scorecard for the NFL is totally different.
Let's consider Jim Harbaugh. I'd rate him:
1) Executive/Organization Builder: A+, he is maniacal in his desire to build a college organization up to what is needed to compete against the best.
2) Recruiter: A at first, now a B, At first, his messianic line works great recruiting, but over time, when he doesn't deliver on the goods for his brobdingnagian promises, his stock drops and his routine begins to look like a cheesy "shtick."
3) Motivator: A+ at first, now a B+, At first, his messianic line fires people up -- at Stanford, at the 49ers, at Michigan. But over time, when he doesn't deliver on the goods, people catch on, and it becomes a turn off for some.
4) Knowledge of at least One Aspect: C. He has some ideas, and I think he had good ideas of how to get quarterbacks into a groove, but he's never struck me as an ideas guy, not even of one aspect of the game.
5) Knowledge of College Coaches: A+ at first, but a B now. He did hire some great people at Stanford, but some of the best picks, like Vic Fangio, came from his brother, and the problem with that help is that it may not be forthcoming again in the future.
6) Innovator: D-. Harbaugh tries to find the best and to hire them and get the organization going. I've never seen anyone praise him as an X's and O's kind of guy.
Additional Superpowers: Harbaugh's messianic schtick makes him a perfect turnaround artist. He was a **perfect** fit for Stanford in 2007. He inherited a program that had lost its fire, had no mojo, had a mess of a recruiting system, and had poor systems/resources all over the place. And it's hard to imagine a more perfect fit for that situation. Shaw could not have fixed that mess as well. Maybe no one could. He brought attitude and pride to a hapless program. He demanded many facilities upgrades (even his bathroom!). He streamlined the process for admissions to make Stanford recruiting more competitive.
The odd thing is, when people make odd yearnings for Harbaugh now, I wonder why? He is not a fit for Stanford's current situation. Harbaugh accomplished what he did because his strengths were a perfect fit for that particular time, and that particular set of needs.
Now let's consider David Shaw. I'd rate him:
1) Executive/Organization Builder: C (A+ for niceness, but nice doesn't win games). This is my biggest complaint with him, and I think it's the biggest cause for Stanford's deterioration. He faces a lot of bullsh!t, and he is just too damned passive about it. A fit for Stanford is someone who loves the institution, but can still see the flaws and demand fixes right now. Arguably, one of the root causes of recent problems have been the problems in Strength & Conditioning and sports trainers/medicine? (I don't know the exact source. And in interviews, Shaw just says, "well gosh, this is what we're stuck with so shucks I guess we just have to make do this season with what we have." Shaw is right that if the administration finds that Shannon Turley needs to be fired, he needs to be fired. At Stanford, the institution runs the sports, not the other way around. But after that, you shouldn't just "accept" whatever falls in your lap. It CAN be done at Stanford in a way that still prioritizes the institution over sports.
2) Recruiter: A. Shaw is the perfect fit for Stanford.
3) Motivator: A. I do like that the kids at Stanford play hard and play well. They play like Stanford student athletes. I do wonder, though, why the D line doesn't develop over the years like they used to.
4) Knowledge of at least one aspect: A+. David Shaw is one of the most respected students of the game of football. One of the reasons why people keep mentioning Shaw for the NFL is that this is more important in the NFL.
5) Knowledge of College Coaches: A mostly, C for accountability. I think he's hired some good assistants, but I think there have been duds. And I don't know where to put this -- as a failure as an executive/organization builder or as a hirer of assistants, but his willingness to demand the best staff and to fire when necessary is poor. I get that he wants to be a good guy and cares about people, but part of being a people manager is getting what is needed, and that may require correcting mistakes without demoralizing the staff or being untrue to the university's values.
6) Innovator: B+ average. Shaw is such a great student of the game, he tries a lot of new things, and I think his offense did amazing things from 2010-2015. But Stanford's running game has consistently gotten worse since Bloomgren left. If Shaw, Pritchard, Gould and Heffernan don't have the qualities to get some running yards, some people may need to go. Also, the Pac-12 is a conference where teams know each other intimately and beat each other up like no other Power 5 conference, and it's starting to feel like everyone's getting a feel for Shaw. So, somehow, Stanford needs some new juice here one way or another.
Additional Superpowers: By every account, David Shaw is an exceptional person and an extraordinary representative of the university. He is an A++ as a representative of the university. He is intelligent, he shows great character during games, he clearly cares for the students and for the institution, he works to do things the right away. He gets kids to graduate and sets them on a good path for life. He takes on major issues of the day like sexual assault by athletes and works for solutions for the whole country. The program under his watch has made many efforts to contribute to the field of reducing concussions in football. But the issue is, there are a lot of extraordinary people at Stanford who represent the university well, who make contributions for all of society, who genuinely care for people, and who are among the brightest in their field, but only one of them made $8.9 MILLION dollars in 2019. An extraordinary faculty member can have tenure and can conduct great research with integrity, but you don't pay $8.9 million for that. About $8.5 million for his pay is as an executive manager, and executive management pay is based on results.
Shaw is such a perfect representative of the university and does so many great things outside of football, I hope he is affiliated with the university forever. I also hope he can be the right person to lead the football program, but for that person, the pay beyond what a faculty member earns needs to be based on results.
RE: An analysis of Shaw, Harbaugh, and the best fit for Stanford - winflop - 11-02-2021
So by your metrics Harbaugh has a B- average and Shaw has a B+.That's just laughable. Put down the weed.
Harbs might be B/B- (mainly because of his bad results against rivals OSU/MSU) but there's no way in hell Shaw is that good. If Shaw were anything better than a C there wouldn't be so much angst.
RE: An analysis of Shaw, Harbaugh, and the best fit for Stanford - murky - 11-02-2021
The Pac12 has been around for 11 years.
David Shaw has won Pac 12 Coach of the Year 4 times, most recently 4 years ago - 7 years after Harbaugh left.
RE: An analysis of Shaw, Harbaugh, and the best fit for Stanford - slide - 11-02-2021
11-15 since 2019 in a weak Pac-12. $9M for 6th in the Pac-12 North is pricey.
RE: An analysis of Shaw, Harbaugh, and the best fit for Stanford - Austroturf - 11-02-2021
(11-02-2021, 12:57 PM)murky Wrote: The Pac12 has been around for 11 years.
David Shaw has won Pac 12 Coach of the Year 4 times, most recently 4 years ago - 7 years after Harbaugh left.
I don't think anyone is questioning Shaw's objective accomplishments during his 11 years in charge. The list is long. But 2021 reality is way off from even that last COTY award season in 2017, when Stanford won the north after a mid-season quarterback switch (Chryst and Costello) and a Heismann-worthy season by Bryce Love. We ended up 9-5 on the year and ranked #20 (after a frustrating Alamo Bowl loss to TCU). We are nowhere near that level now, and that's the problem. What Shaw accomplished in the front-end of his career as head coach is brilliant. Does he have the brilliance to return us to those levels? Currently, I am not convinced.
RE: An analysis of Shaw, Harbaugh, and the best fit for Stanford - Phogge - 11-02-2021
Rodney would agree with Murky. What characterized Rodney however was that he called a bunch of T Domers haters. Lost all respect for him.
RE: An analysis of Shaw, Harbaugh, and the best fit for Stanford - Snorlax94 - 11-02-2021
(11-02-2021, 12:16 PM)winflop Wrote: So by your metrics Harbaugh has a B- average and Shaw has a B+.That's just laughable. Put down the weed.
Harbs might be B/B- (mainly because of his bad results against rivals OSU/MSU) but there's no way in hell Shaw is that good. If Shaw were anything better than a C there wouldn't be so much angst.
What is most important depends on your situation, not a coach's average grade. When Harbaugh was hired, Stanford was a mess. Facilities was an issue, culture was an issue, the admissions process was an issue. So, at that time, the absolute most important thing was to bring in a maniacal program builder, and Harbaugh is an A+ in that. Under those circumstances, with those needs, probably no one was a better hire than Harbaugh.
It is not about what your average grade is. It is about finding the right person at that time.
When Harbaugh left, what the program needed was continuity (to keep its players and to keep its recruiting going). It needed an exceptional student of the game, with someone with great ideas. A lot of the institutional issues had been addressed so getting a program driver wasn't as important at that moment. And after Harbaugh, they probably wanted someone who was a better fit with the university's vision, so Shaw was the perfect person for those needs.
The program has deteriorated in the last 3-6 years, and it feels like there isn't a strong enough champion for getting the team what it needs (getting the right people to keep players healthy and stronger, for one), for being a bit tougher in hiring and firing to get the right staff (to get a running game, to recruit and develop an actual defensive line), and for having the ideas to keep our opponents off balance (being an innovator). I was a bit shocked to see Shaw got 8.9 million in 2019 and I can't help thinking if more of the funds should be going to hiring the right assistants. Do we have such a weak running game because we spend too little on our offensive coordinator (who is a newby) and offensive line coach (where we lost the last one to the NFL)? Are the faraway games (like UCF, or playing Rice in Australia, or playing all Power 5 opponents) getting players less practice and more injured, all for revenues to pay one of the highest salaries for a head coach? If this is the case, I actually would blame Muir more for our current predicament.
Seeing the Nick Rolovich drama unfold, it's clear that getting someone who is consistent with Stanford's values is more important than ever. Harbaugh's maniacal style wears thin so I don't think he could motivate at Stanford like he used to, he already jumped ship once so he lacks credibility to recruit as well (except at Michigan, because it's his alma mater), and he is not an X's and O's guy so he's not gonna solve Stanford's inability to keep opponents off balance. Also, if he had such continuing great ideas to find perfect coaches and coordinators, you'd think he'd have done better at Michigan over all these years.
But just because Harbaugh isn't the guy to solve Stanford's problems in 2021, doesn't mean Shaw is necessarily the right guy for Stanford's needs in 2021-, either. When people say "they have no hope," that statement connects with me to the degree that I feel like Stanford has problems, and it doesn't feel like it's acknowledging those problems. If Shaw doesn't feel like there are any problems, how can he fix them? It is also possible that Shaw has been advocating like crazy internally but just won't air the dirty laundry to the press. But you'd think we would've heard something if that were the case.