[CornFed]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12951.msg131352#msg131352 date=1443414150]
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.
[/quote]

TPOTC, I agree with your high regard for the transformational impact of Jim Harbaugh.  I think most people here do.  But it does not have to be either/or.  I think the intensity of your enthusiasm for Harbaugh places blinders on you about Shaw.

It is similar to how 49er fans idolized Joe Montana and ultimately lamented his departure.  Many of them could not become Steve Young fans because, somewhere deep inside, I think they felt it would dilute their love of Joe Cool.  Young's normal miscues then became fodder for many to deride him as not as talented as Montana.  I felt bad for those people, because they missed the incredible gifts that Steve Young provided for the fans.  9er fans had perhaps the most remarkable consecutive QB's ever in the history of the NFL (although I'm confident that BC or WIM will correct me)

Shaw is the right coach for Stanford football.  He has confused me and frustrated me at times, but I love his demeanor, his character, his values and I hope he breaks Paterno's record for longevity (even if there is another coach other than Paterno with greater longevity somewhere in the annals of NAIA-football history  ;D).

[CornFed]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12951.msg131352#msg131352 date=1443414150]
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.
[/quote]

TPOTC, I agree with your high regard for the transformational impact of Jim Harbaugh.  I think most people here do.  But it does not have to be either/or.  I think the intensity of your enthusiasm for Harbaugh places blinders on you about Shaw.

It is similar to how 49er fans idolized Joe Montana and ultimately lamented his departure.  Many of them could not become Steve Young fans because, somewhere deep inside, I think they felt it would dilute their love of Joe Cool.  Young's normal miscues then became fodder for many to deride him as not as talented as Montana.  I felt bad for those people, because they missed the incredible gifts that Steve Young provided for the fans.  9er fans had perhaps the most remarkable consecutive QB's ever in the history of the NFL (although I'm confident that BC or WIM will correct me)

Shaw is the right coach for Stanford football.  He has confused me and frustrated me at times, but I love his demeanor, his character, his values and I hope he breaks Paterno's record for longevity (even if there is another coach other than Paterno with greater longevity somewhere in the annals of NAIA-football history  ;D).

[yvonne]

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?

That's not the issue at all. Shaw isn't tasked with building a program from scratch. His job is to sustain and build success of the existing program.

The same question could be asked about the Oregon program. Could Chip Kelly have succeeded without the foundation Mike Belotti built? We don't know, but that wasn't his job. His job was to use the reputation Belotti built, along with the facilities available through Phil Knight to sustain and improve on that success. Most programs with sustained success have that continued success because they've built an infrastructure of donors, facilities, reputation, recruiting, and even a certain ethos. Coaches in programs with sustained success aren't expected to build the program from the ground up.

[yvonne]

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?

That's not the issue at all. Shaw isn't tasked with building a program from scratch. His job is to sustain and build success of the existing program.

The same question could be asked about the Oregon program. Could Chip Kelly have succeeded without the foundation Mike Belotti built? We don't know, but that wasn't his job. His job was to use the reputation Belotti built, along with the facilities available through Phil Knight to sustain and improve on that success. Most programs with sustained success have that continued success because they've built an infrastructure of donors, facilities, reputation, recruiting, and even a certain ethos. Coaches in programs with sustained success aren't expected to build the program from the ground up.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

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

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...

He has to show that 8-5 and Fight Hunger bowls are not considered the new norm, but disappointments.  That is for me personally.  I have conversed with many other Stanford fans who would be positively elated if 8-win seasons were the norm, because they remember a time when a .500 season was considered a lofty goal.  And that is absolutely fine.  Those who feel that way are certainly not incorrect.  However, what we have seen since 2010 is that national prominence in football is absolutely achievable and sustainable at Stanford.  And that, to me, should be the goal -- 10+ wins, consistently.  Now that it has become cool for young kids to be stellar football players and scholars, I don't think that's an impossible goal.

TPOTC, I agree with your high regard for the transformational impact of Jim Harbaugh.  I think most people here do.  But it does not have to be either/or.  I think the intensity of your enthusiasm for Harbaugh places blinders on you about Shaw.

It is similar to how 49er fans idolized Joe Montana and ultimately lamented his departure.  Many of them could not become Steve Young fans because, somewhere deep inside, I think they felt it would dilute their love of Joe Cool.  Young's normal miscues then became fodder for many to deride him as not as talented as Montana.  I felt bad for those people, because they missed the incredible gifts that Steve Young provided for the fans.  9er fans had perhaps the most remarkable consecutive QB's ever in the history of the NFL (although I'm confident that BC or WIM will correct me)

Shaw is the right coach for Stanford football.  He has confused me and frustrated me at times, but I love his demeanor, his character, his values and I hope he breaks Paterno's record for longevity (even if there is another coach other than Paterno with greater longevity somewhere in the annals of NAIA-football history  ;D).

I'm actually not as passionate about Harbaugh as I seem.  I tend to perch myself atop a soap box when I feel my point is not being clearly conveyed, is all.  As a 49er fan I have my own issues with certain aspects of Harbaugh's coaching and certainly don't think him infallible.

Having said that, I like Shaw a lot.  I don't disagree with your last point about him being the right fit for the program.  My only question, as (hopefully) elucidated above, is whether he can maintain the kind of on-field success he achieved when he first took over.  That is what I want out of him.  Others may not care as much, as Shaw has many remarkable qualities that transcend football that make him a fantastic ambassador for the university.

[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12951.msg131359#msg131359 date=1443416900]
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?

That's not the issue at all. Shaw isn't tasked with building a program from scratch. His job is to sustain and build success of the existing program.

The same question could be asked about the Oregon program. Could Chip Kelly have succeeded without the foundation Mike Belotti built? We don't know, but that wasn't his job. His job was to use the reputation Belotti built, along with the facilities available through Phil Knight to sustain and improve on that success. Most programs with sustained success have that continued success because they've built an infrastructure of donors, facilities, reputation, recruiting, and even a certain ethos. Coaches in programs with sustained success aren't expected to build the program from the ground up.
[/quote]

That's absolutely a fair point.  And as I've hopefully made clear by now, I'm just waiting to see if Shaw can maintain that same success.  The very fact I question it seems to rub some here the wrong way, and I'm not quite sure why.  Actually, "question" is a strong word, as it implies doubt.  I don't doubt that he can do it, I simply don't know.  And that's the entirety of my point.

The reason I bring up Shaw succeeding Harris is because I've seen some people here -- I'm sure I've seen you do it, but if I'm wrong then I do apologize -- say things like "Well Shaw won a Rose Bowl and Harbaugh didn't."  That's correct, but very much an oversimplification of the situation.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

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

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...

He has to show that 8-5 and Fight Hunger bowls are not considered the new norm, but disappointments.  That is for me personally.  I have conversed with many other Stanford fans who would be positively elated if 8-win seasons were the norm, because they remember a time when a .500 season was considered a lofty goal.  And that is absolutely fine.  Those who feel that way are certainly not incorrect.  However, what we have seen since 2010 is that national prominence in football is absolutely achievable and sustainable at Stanford.  And that, to me, should be the goal -- 10+ wins, consistently.  Now that it has become cool for young kids to be stellar football players and scholars, I don't think that's an impossible goal.

TPOTC, I agree with your high regard for the transformational impact of Jim Harbaugh.  I think most people here do.  But it does not have to be either/or.  I think the intensity of your enthusiasm for Harbaugh places blinders on you about Shaw.

It is similar to how 49er fans idolized Joe Montana and ultimately lamented his departure.  Many of them could not become Steve Young fans because, somewhere deep inside, I think they felt it would dilute their love of Joe Cool.  Young's normal miscues then became fodder for many to deride him as not as talented as Montana.  I felt bad for those people, because they missed the incredible gifts that Steve Young provided for the fans.  9er fans had perhaps the most remarkable consecutive QB's ever in the history of the NFL (although I'm confident that BC or WIM will correct me)

Shaw is the right coach for Stanford football.  He has confused me and frustrated me at times, but I love his demeanor, his character, his values and I hope he breaks Paterno's record for longevity (even if there is another coach other than Paterno with greater longevity somewhere in the annals of NAIA-football history  ;D).

I'm actually not as passionate about Harbaugh as I seem.  I tend to perch myself atop a soap box when I feel my point is not being clearly conveyed, is all.  As a 49er fan I have my own issues with certain aspects of Harbaugh's coaching and certainly don't think him infallible.

Having said that, I like Shaw a lot.  I don't disagree with your last point about him being the right fit for the program.  My only question, as (hopefully) elucidated above, is whether he can maintain the kind of on-field success he achieved when he first took over.  That is what I want out of him.  Others may not care as much, as Shaw has many remarkable qualities that transcend football that make him a fantastic ambassador for the university.

[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12951.msg131359#msg131359 date=1443416900]
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?

That's not the issue at all. Shaw isn't tasked with building a program from scratch. His job is to sustain and build success of the existing program.

The same question could be asked about the Oregon program. Could Chip Kelly have succeeded without the foundation Mike Belotti built? We don't know, but that wasn't his job. His job was to use the reputation Belotti built, along with the facilities available through Phil Knight to sustain and improve on that success. Most programs with sustained success have that continued success because they've built an infrastructure of donors, facilities, reputation, recruiting, and even a certain ethos. Coaches in programs with sustained success aren't expected to build the program from the ground up.
[/quote]

That's absolutely a fair point.  And as I've hopefully made clear by now, I'm just waiting to see if Shaw can maintain that same success.  The very fact I question it seems to rub some here the wrong way, and I'm not quite sure why.  Actually, "question" is a strong word, as it implies doubt.  I don't doubt that he can do it, I simply don't know.  And that's the entirety of my point.

The reason I bring up Shaw succeeding Harris is because I've seen some people here -- I'm sure I've seen you do it, but if I'm wrong then I do apologize -- say things like "Well Shaw won a Rose Bowl and Harbaugh didn't."  That's correct, but very much an oversimplification of the situation.

[JJJ]

I want Shaw to have as long a ride as Mark Marquess and Tara VanDerveer. And I hope he can do so, by evolving when necessary, sticking to his beliefs where it isn't, and having the wisdom to know the difference.

[JJJ]

I want Shaw to have as long a ride as Mark Marquess and Tara VanDerveer. And I hope he can do so, by evolving when necessary, sticking to his beliefs where it isn't, and having the wisdom to know the difference.

[FarmDad.01]

@Passion: You're doing a lot of moonwalking, as they say in politics. Er, what if Shaw had inherited Wlat's roster? Going forward, can Shaw maintain the heritage of Harbaugh (who in his first three seasons on the Farm went 17-20)?

Tell me -- a simple yes or no -- was Stanford alum Carly Fiorina a success at HP?

[FarmDad.01]

@Passion: You're doing a lot of moonwalking, as they say in politics. Er, what if Shaw had inherited Wlat's roster? Going forward, can Shaw maintain the heritage of Harbaugh (who in his first three seasons on the Farm went 17-20)?

Tell me -- a simple yes or no -- was Stanford alum Carly Fiorina a success at HP?

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

@Passion: You're doing a lot of moonwalking, as they say in politics. Er, what if Shaw had inherited Wlat's roster? Going forward, can Shaw maintain the heritage of Harbaugh (who in his first three seasons on the Farm went 17-20)?

Tell me -- a simple yes or no -- was Stanford alum Carly Fiorina a success at HP?

I'm not quite sure what she has to do with David Shaw, but I can't answer your question.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

@Passion: You're doing a lot of moonwalking, as they say in politics. Er, what if Shaw had inherited Wlat's roster? Going forward, can Shaw maintain the heritage of Harbaugh (who in his first three seasons on the Farm went 17-20)?

Tell me -- a simple yes or no -- was Stanford alum Carly Fiorina a success at HP?

I'm not quite sure what she has to do with David Shaw, but I can't answer your question.

[Mick]

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.

+1.  He's a great coach.

[Mick]

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.

+1.  He's a great coach.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12951.msg131352#msg131352 date=1443414150]
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.
[/quote]

You might as well ask what would Vince Lombardi would have done.  Harbaugh was not an option for us; he left.  Harbaugh resuscitated the program from the depths of Buddy/Walt, but the deal was we knew he was going to leave after a few years.  If that wasn't clear when we hired him, it should have been clear when he almost left to coach Kansas.  So, Harbaugh was absolutely the wrong coach to sustain excellence, because he had no interest in sustaining the Stanford program.  I greatly admire Harbaugh for what he did, and am eternally thankful; this shouldn't be looked at as a dig.  There are few coaches who could have done what he did (and looks like he is doing, yet again, at Michigan).  But, unless he has found his happy place in Ann Arbor, he has demonstrated himself as an outstanding coach at turning programs around, but hasn't demonstrated one way or another any skill at sustaining them.

I don't know that Shaw would have been able to do what Harbaugh did in turning around a 1-11 program. But he is absolutely the right person for the current job.  And I would hapily "endure" 8-5 seasons to keep him.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12951.msg131352#msg131352 date=1443414150]
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.
[/quote]

You might as well ask what would Vince Lombardi would have done.  Harbaugh was not an option for us; he left.  Harbaugh resuscitated the program from the depths of Buddy/Walt, but the deal was we knew he was going to leave after a few years.  If that wasn't clear when we hired him, it should have been clear when he almost left to coach Kansas.  So, Harbaugh was absolutely the wrong coach to sustain excellence, because he had no interest in sustaining the Stanford program.  I greatly admire Harbaugh for what he did, and am eternally thankful; this shouldn't be looked at as a dig.  There are few coaches who could have done what he did (and looks like he is doing, yet again, at Michigan).  But, unless he has found his happy place in Ann Arbor, he has demonstrated himself as an outstanding coach at turning programs around, but hasn't demonstrated one way or another any skill at sustaining them.

I don't know that Shaw would have been able to do what Harbaugh did in turning around a 1-11 program. But he is absolutely the right person for the current job.  And I would hapily "endure" 8-5 seasons to keep him.

BC

[Hulk01]

I'm sorry, but the shots at Shaw have gone beyond tedious to me.

[Hulk01]

I'm sorry, but the shots at Shaw have gone beyond tedious to me.

[stupac2]

I'm sorry, but the shots at Shaw have gone beyond tedious to me.

Seriously. I get that he's not perfect, but no coach is, and take a look at the programs who gamble trying to find the perfect coach. How's that going down in LA?

[stupac2]

I'm sorry, but the shots at Shaw have gone beyond tedious to me.

Seriously. I get that he's not perfect, but no coach is, and take a look at the programs who gamble trying to find the perfect coach. How's that going down in LA?

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12951.msg131358#msg131358 date=1443416581]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12951.msg131352#msg131352 date=1443414150]
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.
[/quote]

TPOTC, I agree with your high regard for the transformational impact of Jim Harbaugh.  I think most people here do.  But it does not have to be either/or.  I think the intensity of your enthusiasm for Harbaugh places blinders on you about Shaw.

It is similar to how 49er fans idolized Joe Montana and ultimately lamented his departure.  Many of them could not become Steve Young fans because, somewhere deep inside, I think they felt it would dilute their love of Joe Cool.  Young's normal miscues then became fodder for many to deride him as not as talented as Montana.  I felt bad for those people, because they missed the incredible gifts that Steve Young provided for the fans.  9er fans had perhaps the most remarkable consecutive QB's ever in the history of the NFL (although I'm confident that BC or WIM will correct me)

Shaw is the right coach for Stanford football.  He has confused me and frustrated me at times, but I love his demeanor, his character, his values and I hope he breaks Paterno's record for longevity (even if there is another coach other than Paterno with greater longevity somewhere in the annals of NAIA-football history  ;D).
[/quote]

CornFed, is that a thinly veiled shot at the great John Gagliardi, owner of 489--489!--career college coaching wins?  The man who started his college coaching career at the age of 22 and continued it until he was 85, winning all the while?  The genius whose "no"-based coaching philosophy (no tackling drills, no calisthenics, no sprints, no playbooks--just running plays over and over again, at full speed, for the entire practice) was mocked until it led to four national titles (the first in 1963 and the last in 2003)?  The guy who, as a high school junior whose football season was threatened with cancellation because his coach had been called into WWII, went to the priests in charge of his parochial school and saved the program by saying some of the players were considering transferring to the public school?  The namesake for the Gagliardi Trophy, awarded annually to the best player in Division III? 

BECAUSE IF IT IS, then you and I are going to have problems. 

(I may or may not be a bit too invested in the success of St. John's football, given that my dad was a professor there, I grew up a stone's throw from campus, and went to most of those games on crisp fall Saturday afternoons.)

In all seriousness, given all of this fuss over what makes a good major college football coach, here is a link to an article written many moons ago in Sports Illustrated about Gagliardi and the St. John's program: http://www.si.com/vault/1992/08/31/12705...ty-happy.  At a minimum, it'll put a smile on your face. 

And if you're looking for more detail--as I'm certain you are by this point--SI's Austin Murphy wrote the book on St. John's football.  No, a real book, called "The Sweet Season." 

Go Johnnies, forever and ever. Amen. 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=ThePassionOfTheChryst link=topic=12951.msg131358#msg131358 date=1443416581]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12951.msg131352#msg131352 date=1443414150]
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.
[/quote]

TPOTC, I agree with your high regard for the transformational impact of Jim Harbaugh.  I think most people here do.  But it does not have to be either/or.  I think the intensity of your enthusiasm for Harbaugh places blinders on you about Shaw.

It is similar to how 49er fans idolized Joe Montana and ultimately lamented his departure.  Many of them could not become Steve Young fans because, somewhere deep inside, I think they felt it would dilute their love of Joe Cool.  Young's normal miscues then became fodder for many to deride him as not as talented as Montana.  I felt bad for those people, because they missed the incredible gifts that Steve Young provided for the fans.  9er fans had perhaps the most remarkable consecutive QB's ever in the history of the NFL (although I'm confident that BC or WIM will correct me)

Shaw is the right coach for Stanford football.  He has confused me and frustrated me at times, but I love his demeanor, his character, his values and I hope he breaks Paterno's record for longevity (even if there is another coach other than Paterno with greater longevity somewhere in the annals of NAIA-football history  ;D).
[/quote]

CornFed, is that a thinly veiled shot at the great John Gagliardi, owner of 489--489!--career college coaching wins?  The man who started his college coaching career at the age of 22 and continued it until he was 85, winning all the while?  The genius whose "no"-based coaching philosophy (no tackling drills, no calisthenics, no sprints, no playbooks--just running plays over and over again, at full speed, for the entire practice) was mocked until it led to four national titles (the first in 1963 and the last in 2003)?  The guy who, as a high school junior whose football season was threatened with cancellation because his coach had been called into WWII, went to the priests in charge of his parochial school and saved the program by saying some of the players were considering transferring to the public school?  The namesake for the Gagliardi Trophy, awarded annually to the best player in Division III? 

BECAUSE IF IT IS, then you and I are going to have problems. 

(I may or may not be a bit too invested in the success of St. John's football, given that my dad was a professor there, I grew up a stone's throw from campus, and went to most of those games on crisp fall Saturday afternoons.)

In all seriousness, given all of this fuss over what makes a good major college football coach, here is a link to an article written many moons ago in Sports Illustrated about Gagliardi and the St. John's program: http://www.si.com/vault/1992/08/31/12705...ty-happy.  At a minimum, it'll put a smile on your face. 

And if you're looking for more detail--as I'm certain you are by this point--SI's Austin Murphy wrote the book on St. John's football.  No, a real book, called "The Sweet Season." 

Go Johnnies, forever and ever. Amen. 

[teejers1]

Hell, for the moment I'm just thrilled Stanford's O has been very, very good the last 2.5 games!  Perhaps this is a function of the realization that the D this year is not what we've seen the past 3 years . . . but whatever the cause, I hope it continues.  It has been fun watching the Cardinal go on offense.

But this talk of Rose Bowl is pretty silly.  Arizona, even while getting blasted on the scoreboard against UCLA, managed to rush for 350+ yards.  That is an astounding figure, and normally reflects game dominance.  I'm worried Arizona will grind out 300+ yards on the ground against a severely undermanned Stanford Front 7 - only without repeatedly shooting itself in the foot - and the college football pundits will be wondering how in the world a 17.5 point favorite lost . . . at home!  Danger, Will Robinson!  Danger!

And ND and UCLA, right now, look like superior teams to Stanford.  Doesn't mean the Cardinal can't win, but those two, in particular, look tough.  And then there is UCB. 

But forget all that, the Arizona game cannot be taken lightly by team/staff (fans will do what fans will do). 

[teejers1]

Hell, for the moment I'm just thrilled Stanford's O has been very, very good the last 2.5 games!  Perhaps this is a function of the realization that the D this year is not what we've seen the past 3 years . . . but whatever the cause, I hope it continues.  It has been fun watching the Cardinal go on offense.

But this talk of Rose Bowl is pretty silly.  Arizona, even while getting blasted on the scoreboard against UCLA, managed to rush for 350+ yards.  That is an astounding figure, and normally reflects game dominance.  I'm worried Arizona will grind out 300+ yards on the ground against a severely undermanned Stanford Front 7 - only without repeatedly shooting itself in the foot - and the college football pundits will be wondering how in the world a 17.5 point favorite lost . . . at home!  Danger, Will Robinson!  Danger!

And ND and UCLA, right now, look like superior teams to Stanford.  Doesn't mean the Cardinal can't win, but those two, in particular, look tough.  And then there is UCB. 

But forget all that, the Arizona game cannot be taken lightly by team/staff (fans will do what fans will do). 

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Hell, for the moment I'm just thrilled Stanford's O has been very, very good the last 2.5 games!  Perhaps this is a function of the realization that the D this year is not what we've seen the past 3 years . . . but whatever the cause, I hope it continues.  It has been fun watching the Cardinal go on offense.

But this talk of Rose Bowl is pretty silly.  Arizona, even while getting blasted on the scoreboard against UCLA, managed to rush for 350+ yards.  That is an astounding figure, and normally reflects game dominance.  I'm worried Arizona will grind out 300+ yards on the ground against a severely undermanned Stanford Front 7 - only without repeatedly shooting itself in the foot - and the college football pundits will be wondering how in the world a 17.5 point favorite lost . . . at home!  Danger, Will Robinson!  Danger!

And ND and UCLA, right now, look like superior teams to Stanford.  Doesn't mean the Cardinal can't win, but those two, in particular, look tough.  And then there is UCB. 

But forget all that, the Arizona game cannot be taken lightly by team/staff (fans will do what fans will do).

It should be noted that ND can screw up any playoff hopes, but they can't derail a Rose Bowl run.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Hell, for the moment I'm just thrilled Stanford's O has been very, very good the last 2.5 games!  Perhaps this is a function of the realization that the D this year is not what we've seen the past 3 years . . . but whatever the cause, I hope it continues.  It has been fun watching the Cardinal go on offense.

But this talk of Rose Bowl is pretty silly.  Arizona, even while getting blasted on the scoreboard against UCLA, managed to rush for 350+ yards.  That is an astounding figure, and normally reflects game dominance.  I'm worried Arizona will grind out 300+ yards on the ground against a severely undermanned Stanford Front 7 - only without repeatedly shooting itself in the foot - and the college football pundits will be wondering how in the world a 17.5 point favorite lost . . . at home!  Danger, Will Robinson!  Danger!

And ND and UCLA, right now, look like superior teams to Stanford.  Doesn't mean the Cardinal can't win, but those two, in particular, look tough.  And then there is UCB. 

But forget all that, the Arizona game cannot be taken lightly by team/staff (fans will do what fans will do).

It should be noted that ND can screw up any playoff hopes, but they can't derail a Rose Bowl run.

[CowboyIndian]

 
I'm worried....

I've distilled your past and future posts for you.

[CowboyIndian]

 
I'm worried....

I've distilled your past and future posts for you.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12951.msg131491#msg131491 date=1443480829] 
I'm worried....

I've distilled your past and future posts for you.
[/quote]

LOL CI.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12951.msg131491#msg131491 date=1443480829] 
I'm worried....

I've distilled your past and future posts for you.
[/quote]

LOL CI.

BC

[martyup]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12951.msg131491#msg131491 date=1443480829] 
I'm worried....

I've distilled your past and future posts for you.
[/quote]

Golly CI, you are pretty GD observant and very succinct in your posts.  Bravo my man.

[martyup]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12951.msg131491#msg131491 date=1443480829] 
I'm worried....

I've distilled your past and future posts for you.
[/quote]

Golly CI, you are pretty GD observant and very succinct in your posts.  Bravo my man.

[BostonCard]

To be fair to Teejers, I think there is good reason to add some caution to our optimism.  Our offense has had a good run of 2 1/2 games, but you'd like to know that it won't have another Northwestern-like meltdown.  Our defense has had good second halves against USC and OSU, but I'd like to see it shut down an opponent for the whole game.  Our defensive line is running out of bodies.  You think somewhere down the line we will lose a game we should win.

UCLA is looking more daunting.  Notre Dame as well.  Even Cal is looking better than expected.  On the other hand, we do have only two road games left, and they are against the two weakest opponents on our schedule.  And Oregon is looking a lot less scary than before (ditto Arizona).

I think what is most scary to me is looking at the schedule and knowing we have a good chance to beat every remaining opponent, but knowing that running the table is very unlikely.  And that means that at least one, if not more, disappointments are likely.

BC

[BostonCard]

To be fair to Teejers, I think there is good reason to add some caution to our optimism.  Our offense has had a good run of 2 1/2 games, but you'd like to know that it won't have another Northwestern-like meltdown.  Our defense has had good second halves against USC and OSU, but I'd like to see it shut down an opponent for the whole game.  Our defensive line is running out of bodies.  You think somewhere down the line we will lose a game we should win.

UCLA is looking more daunting.  Notre Dame as well.  Even Cal is looking better than expected.  On the other hand, we do have only two road games left, and they are against the two weakest opponents on our schedule.  And Oregon is looking a lot less scary than before (ditto Arizona).

I think what is most scary to me is looking at the schedule and knowing we have a good chance to beat every remaining opponent, but knowing that running the table is very unlikely.  And that means that at least one, if not more, disappointments are likely.

BC

[CTcard]

There are few coaches who could have done what he did (and looks like he is doing, yet again, at Michigan). 

Michigan is one of the teams that have impressed me this season versus what I expected - mostly because they seem to actually play defense. But, they had a lot more talent kicking around than Stanford had in 2007, and Harbaugh had an easier route to a good first year there than he had at Stanford.

Michigan had a good defense last year - #7 yds/game, #14 yds/play, #18 S&P+. Their offense was screwed up, but seemed to have several capable individuals. They had a lot of returning starters - 8 on defense, 10 on offense (but no QB). Harbaugh may not coach the defense much, but he knows how to leverage a good one.

Our defense has had good second halves against U$¢ and OSU,

Yeah, relatively.
$C's second half drives went: TD - Punt - FG - Downs (that would have been a FG had $C chosen). Mostly we shut them down by not giving them the ball.
That's actually pretty good because I think $C's offense is very good, but it's not quite like last year.

The second half vs OSU was good - 5 punts, a fumble, end of half (on a fourth and 18), and a long TD drive. The only caveat there is that OSU has been a pretty bad offense. It will be interesting to see if Collins can actually pass going forward or if that was just us.

The defense was also good vs Northwestern (mostly) and UCF - but those are not good offenses.

[CTcard]

There are few coaches who could have done what he did (and looks like he is doing, yet again, at Michigan). 

Michigan is one of the teams that have impressed me this season versus what I expected - mostly because they seem to actually play defense. But, they had a lot more talent kicking around than Stanford had in 2007, and Harbaugh had an easier route to a good first year there than he had at Stanford.

Michigan had a good defense last year - #7 yds/game, #14 yds/play, #18 S&P+. Their offense was screwed up, but seemed to have several capable individuals. They had a lot of returning starters - 8 on defense, 10 on offense (but no QB). Harbaugh may not coach the defense much, but he knows how to leverage a good one.

Our defense has had good second halves against U$¢ and OSU,

Yeah, relatively.
$C's second half drives went: TD - Punt - FG - Downs (that would have been a FG had $C chosen). Mostly we shut them down by not giving them the ball.
That's actually pretty good because I think $C's offense is very good, but it's not quite like last year.

The second half vs OSU was good - 5 punts, a fumble, end of half (on a fourth and 18), and a long TD drive. The only caveat there is that OSU has been a pretty bad offense. It will be interesting to see if Collins can actually pass going forward or if that was just us.

The defense was also good vs Northwestern (mostly) and UCF - but those are not good offenses.

[teejers1]

No need to "be fair" to me or any of my posts, and no worries about CI's pithy little rejoinders. 

Figure my commentary here gives him a reason to post - I mean, the use of spell/grammar checks around here is on the rise!

[teejers1]

No need to "be fair" to me or any of my posts, and no worries about CI's pithy little rejoinders. 

Figure my commentary here gives him a reason to post - I mean, the use of spell/grammar checks around here is on the rise!

[BostonCard]

I like to be fair to most people.  I think I actually wrote in a post, "To be fair yo Vlad [the Impaler]"

BC

[BostonCard]

I like to be fair to most people.  I think I actually wrote in a post, "To be fair yo Vlad [the Impaler]"

BC