09-10-2014, 12:08 PM
The big problem with assessing coaching on a game-by-game basis is ignoring that the vast majority of what a coach does is in-between games. Deflating Shaw's overall coaching accomplishments by saying he has superior personnel ignores the fact that he plays the principal role in acquiring and developing that personnel in the first place.*
Mike Riley is a good in-game coach but hasn't won as much as Shaw. Some of the reasons for that are outside his control, but the fact remains that Shaw's a better coach than Riley.
* (Like, let's take SC, and let's say you believe Stanford had superior talent and therefore ought to have won. Well, then: Montgomery, low-four-star; Cajuste, three-star; Rector, low-ranked three star; Hooper, borderline four-star/three-star but rated as a DE...and so on. Making it seem like the talent is equivalent or superior to SC's is acknowledging that some unseen talent either systematically acquired underrated talent, or developed it better, or some combination of both. Perhaps we might call that talent a "coach.")
Mike Riley is a good in-game coach but hasn't won as much as Shaw. Some of the reasons for that are outside his control, but the fact remains that Shaw's a better coach than Riley.
* (Like, let's take SC, and let's say you believe Stanford had superior talent and therefore ought to have won. Well, then: Montgomery, low-four-star; Cajuste, three-star; Rector, low-ranked three star; Hooper, borderline four-star/three-star but rated as a DE...and so on. Making it seem like the talent is equivalent or superior to SC's is acknowledging that some unseen talent either systematically acquired underrated talent, or developed it better, or some combination of both. Perhaps we might call that talent a "coach.")