[BostonCard]

A simple question: why does anyone who suggests that Shaw could be better, get crucified on this board?

Because most of the time the suggestions are:

1) Wrong.
2) Incomplete.
3) Uncharitable.
4) Wildly out of sync with reasonable expectations.

There's plenty of carping about our recruiting strategy lately with virtually no pushback because it's actually a problem. But people saying that we're on a clearly downward trajectory when we're one of the 10 winningest programs during Shaw's tenure? It's like, what the hell do you want?

That's what really bothers me, personally.  When the complaints are framed as "Shaw could improve on his clock management by x, y, z" or "Shaw should expand our recruiting pool so that we don't wind up with unused scholarships" or even "I wish Shaw would use the passing offense more than running" those are positions where one can agree or disagree with, but at least they are framed in a way that makes it possible to further discussion.  But when the complaints are "Why is Shaw so [stubborn, stupid, lazy, or fill in the pejorative characterization]" or when Shaw isn't given credit for the things he has done well "It was all because of Harbaugh or because he had McCaffrey (paraphrased from this very thread)" I feel like that doesn't further discussion, doesn't respect a coach who I feel has at least earned a modicum of deference from the fans, and presumes to know a lot more about the subject at hand than what the writer does know.

BC

[BostonCard]

A simple question: why does anyone who suggests that Shaw could be better, get crucified on this board?

Because most of the time the suggestions are:

1) Wrong.
2) Incomplete.
3) Uncharitable.
4) Wildly out of sync with reasonable expectations.

There's plenty of carping about our recruiting strategy lately with virtually no pushback because it's actually a problem. But people saying that we're on a clearly downward trajectory when we're one of the 10 winningest programs during Shaw's tenure? It's like, what the hell do you want?

That's what really bothers me, personally.  When the complaints are framed as "Shaw could improve on his clock management by x, y, z" or "Shaw should expand our recruiting pool so that we don't wind up with unused scholarships" or even "I wish Shaw would use the passing offense more than running" those are positions where one can agree or disagree with, but at least they are framed in a way that makes it possible to further discussion.  But when the complaints are "Why is Shaw so [stubborn, stupid, lazy, or fill in the pejorative characterization]" or when Shaw isn't given credit for the things he has done well "It was all because of Harbaugh or because he had McCaffrey (paraphrased from this very thread)" I feel like that doesn't further discussion, doesn't respect a coach who I feel has at least earned a modicum of deference from the fans, and presumes to know a lot more about the subject at hand than what the writer does know.

BC