[ColoradoTree]

Petersen is certainly a good coach; I think that's undeniable. Yet I've always been surprised that people are so quick to elevate Petersen over Shaw, for two reasons. As we know, having a great QB can hide a lot of issues (or make you look magnificent when in reality you're just pretty good). Petersen has had two top-flight QBs, Moore and Browning. His teams lost five games over four years when starting Moore, though part of that is Boise's resource advantages over its opponents.  Browning has ten losses over three years. So he's very impressive with a great QB.

On the other hand, Petersen is 13-0, 8-4, and 8-6 without Moore or Browning. Even this, I'd argue, is less impressive than it superficially appears due to (again) Boise State's quality advantages over its opposition.

Meanwhile, say what you will about Shaw, but he's been able to win -- against good scheduled, mind -- without great QBs. Stanford went 6-2 with Nunes, and then 16-5 with Burns/Chryst. While winning percentages (.758 for Shaw and .743 for Petersen) are pretty similar when they don't have top-flight QBs, I give the edge to Shaw due to tougher opposition in the Pac-12.

Finally, it's not as if Petersen has an impeccable record at elevating talent. In his first year, he went 8-6 despite boasting a team with 3 first rounders and 1 second rounder in the next NFL draft.

Of course, both Petersen and Shaw are really good coaches -- arguing about them is a classic narcissism of small differences. I just tend to think Shaw's achievements are underrated, or grudgingly conceded.

Bit of a chicken and egg problem with the QBs, no?  Is he good because top-flight QBs come to his program, or do QBs become top-flight because he makes them good (or, alternatively, do they merely look good because it's a more dynamic, pass-happy offense that plays to the QB's strengths and isn't overly complicated)?  Kellen Moore was a 3-star and Browning was a 4-star. 

When your head coach is offensive-minded like both Shaw and Peterson are, then quarterback recruitment and development is certainly a big piece of the puzzle in how we assess their performance.  While Shaw seems to have recruited better at the position, at least in terms of the average star rating of the incoming recruits, we've obviously spent some time on this board complaining about how those highly-touted recruits have developed, aside from Luck and Hogan. 

In other words, if the argument is "look how well Shaw has done without great QBs," then, well, shouldn't he be getting better QBs?  And wasn't the thought when Nunes/Nottingham/Burns/Chryst all committed that they could be great?  4-star guys, the lot of them. 

(Disclaimer: I adore David Shaw and want him to be Coach for Life. That said, sometimes I wish he'd do things a bit differently.)

[ColoradoTree]

Petersen is certainly a good coach; I think that's undeniable. Yet I've always been surprised that people are so quick to elevate Petersen over Shaw, for two reasons. As we know, having a great QB can hide a lot of issues (or make you look magnificent when in reality you're just pretty good). Petersen has had two top-flight QBs, Moore and Browning. His teams lost five games over four years when starting Moore, though part of that is Boise's resource advantages over its opponents.  Browning has ten losses over three years. So he's very impressive with a great QB.

On the other hand, Petersen is 13-0, 8-4, and 8-6 without Moore or Browning. Even this, I'd argue, is less impressive than it superficially appears due to (again) Boise State's quality advantages over its opposition.

Meanwhile, say what you will about Shaw, but he's been able to win -- against good scheduled, mind -- without great QBs. Stanford went 6-2 with Nunes, and then 16-5 with Burns/Chryst. While winning percentages (.758 for Shaw and .743 for Petersen) are pretty similar when they don't have top-flight QBs, I give the edge to Shaw due to tougher opposition in the Pac-12.

Finally, it's not as if Petersen has an impeccable record at elevating talent. In his first year, he went 8-6 despite boasting a team with 3 first rounders and 1 second rounder in the next NFL draft.

Of course, both Petersen and Shaw are really good coaches -- arguing about them is a classic narcissism of small differences. I just tend to think Shaw's achievements are underrated, or grudgingly conceded.

Bit of a chicken and egg problem with the QBs, no?  Is he good because top-flight QBs come to his program, or do QBs become top-flight because he makes them good (or, alternatively, do they merely look good because it's a more dynamic, pass-happy offense that plays to the QB's strengths and isn't overly complicated)?  Kellen Moore was a 3-star and Browning was a 4-star. 

When your head coach is offensive-minded like both Shaw and Peterson are, then quarterback recruitment and development is certainly a big piece of the puzzle in how we assess their performance.  While Shaw seems to have recruited better at the position, at least in terms of the average star rating of the incoming recruits, we've obviously spent some time on this board complaining about how those highly-touted recruits have developed, aside from Luck and Hogan. 

In other words, if the argument is "look how well Shaw has done without great QBs," then, well, shouldn't he be getting better QBs?  And wasn't the thought when Nunes/Nottingham/Burns/Chryst all committed that they could be great?  4-star guys, the lot of them. 

(Disclaimer: I adore David Shaw and want him to be Coach for Life. That said, sometimes I wish he'd do things a bit differently.)