11-13-2017, 02:17 PM
Question for the group... do people still feel that Petersen has already surpassed Shaw in the Pac-12 pecking order of coaches?
BC
BC
Shaw vs. Petersen
Question for the group... do people still feel that Petersen has already surpassed Shaw in the Pac-12 pecking order of coaches?
BC
BC
11-13-2017, 02:20 PM
I would say so. Not that I would trade Shaw. I don't think either coach would be as successful if they switched places. But I would project that UW will have a better record and better chance at getting into the CFP under Peterson than Stanford under Shaw. The fact that he turned that program around so quickly is remarkable. And he's got a long track record of sustained success.
I would say so. Not that I would trade Shaw. I don't think either coach would be as successful if they switched places. But I would project that UW will have a better record and better chance at getting into the CFP under Peterson than Stanford under Shaw. The fact that he turned that program around so quickly is remarkable. And he's got a long track record of sustained success.
11-13-2017, 02:21 PM
I'd think he'd have to beat Shaw more than once for that to be a consideration.
I'd think he'd have to beat Shaw more than once for that to be a consideration.
11-13-2017, 02:25 PM
Well, this Sporting News list from August had Peterson one higher. Obviously, this and any list will change after the season. Peterson's ranking takes his Boise State history into account.
Well, this Sporting News list from August had Peterson one higher. Obviously, this and any list will change after the season. Peterson's ranking takes his Boise State history into account.
11-13-2017, 02:34 PM
(11-13-2017, 02:20 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I would say so. Not that I would trade Shaw. I don't think either coach would be as successful if they switched places. But I would project that UW will have a better record and better chance at getting into the CFP under Peterson than Stanford under Shaw. The fact that he turned that program around so quickly is remarkable. And he's got a long track record of sustained success.
I don't know that I'd agree. I think if Peterson had to coach at Stanford with Stanford's recruiting restrictions, I think he would find it very difficult and would achieve less than Shaw has.Â
I don't think people understand how hard it is to recruit top level football players to Stanford. it is ridiculously difficult.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(11-13-2017, 02:20 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I would say so. Not that I would trade Shaw. I don't think either coach would be as successful if they switched places. But I would project that UW will have a better record and better chance at getting into the CFP under Peterson than Stanford under Shaw. The fact that he turned that program around so quickly is remarkable. And he's got a long track record of sustained success.
I don't know that I'd agree. I think if Peterson had to coach at Stanford with Stanford's recruiting restrictions, I think he would find it very difficult and would achieve less than Shaw has.Â
I don't think people understand how hard it is to recruit top level football players to Stanford. it is ridiculously difficult.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
11-13-2017, 02:41 PM
(11-13-2017, 02:34 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=18014.msg212583#msg212583 date=1510608052]
I would say so. Not that I would trade Shaw. I don't think either coach would be as successful if they switched places. But I would project that UW will have a better record and better chance at getting into the CFP under Peterson than Stanford under Shaw. The fact that he turned that program around so quickly is remarkable. And he's got a long track record of sustained success.
I don't know that I'd agree. I think if Peterson had to coach at Stanford with Stanford's recruiting restrictions, I think he would find it very difficult and would achieve less than Shaw has.Â
I don't think people understand how hard it is to recruit top level football players to Stanford. it is ridiculously difficult.
[/quote]
I dunno, he managed okay at Boise. That's not the same kind of restriction, but it might be a worse one (depending on if the person in question can manage to turn Stanford's admission into a selling point as Shaw has).
(11-13-2017, 02:34 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=18014.msg212583#msg212583 date=1510608052]
I would say so. Not that I would trade Shaw. I don't think either coach would be as successful if they switched places. But I would project that UW will have a better record and better chance at getting into the CFP under Peterson than Stanford under Shaw. The fact that he turned that program around so quickly is remarkable. And he's got a long track record of sustained success.
I don't know that I'd agree. I think if Peterson had to coach at Stanford with Stanford's recruiting restrictions, I think he would find it very difficult and would achieve less than Shaw has.Â
I don't think people understand how hard it is to recruit top level football players to Stanford. it is ridiculously difficult.
[/quote]
I dunno, he managed okay at Boise. That's not the same kind of restriction, but it might be a worse one (depending on if the person in question can manage to turn Stanford's admission into a selling point as Shaw has).
11-13-2017, 02:45 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
11-13-2017, 02:49 PM
(11-13-2017, 02:20 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I would say so. Not that I would trade Shaw. I don't think either coach would be as successful if they switched places. But I would project that UW will have a better record and better chance at getting into the CFP under Peterson than Stanford under Shaw. The fact that he turned that program around so quickly is remarkable. And he's got a long track record of sustained success.
I don't know how much of a "turnaround" Petersen really accomplished. In Steve Sarkisian's last year, the Huskies went 9-4 (8-4 under Sark before he took the USC job). Petersen definitely built upon what his predecessor had accomplished, and nobody will talk about the Sarkisian/Petersen dynasty, but let's not confuse Petersen with Harbaugh. Because it's not like Petersen became coach in 2009 after TW led UW to an 0-12 season the year before. Petersen took over that 9-4 team and proceeded to go 8-6 in 2014, 7-6 in 2015 before finally breaking through and going 12-2 last year, and 8-2 this season (with 3 likely left to play). He's won one Pac-12 championship in 3 years (likely to be 1 in 4), versus Shaw who has won 3 in 6 and has a better chance to go 4 in 7 than Petersen has to go 2 in 4 (ironically, it would be a Petersen win that would enable this). Obviously getting to the playoffs is a big accomplishment for Petersen that Shaw has not yet accomplished, but Shaw does have the highest final ranking (#3 in 2015 versus Petersen, who was #4 in 2016).
I don't want to denigrate what Petersen has accomplished; he has definitely taken UW to the next level of success, and if you throw in his stint at Boise State, Petersen is an elite coach. But I think it was a bit premature to say that he has overtaken Shaw, and I think that assertion was buttressed by a) recency bias and b) a projection that this UW team was going to be as good or better than last year's, which hasn't borne out.
For the moment, Shaw is 3-1 against Petersen.
BC
(11-13-2017, 02:20 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I would say so. Not that I would trade Shaw. I don't think either coach would be as successful if they switched places. But I would project that UW will have a better record and better chance at getting into the CFP under Peterson than Stanford under Shaw. The fact that he turned that program around so quickly is remarkable. And he's got a long track record of sustained success.
I don't know how much of a "turnaround" Petersen really accomplished. In Steve Sarkisian's last year, the Huskies went 9-4 (8-4 under Sark before he took the USC job). Petersen definitely built upon what his predecessor had accomplished, and nobody will talk about the Sarkisian/Petersen dynasty, but let's not confuse Petersen with Harbaugh. Because it's not like Petersen became coach in 2009 after TW led UW to an 0-12 season the year before. Petersen took over that 9-4 team and proceeded to go 8-6 in 2014, 7-6 in 2015 before finally breaking through and going 12-2 last year, and 8-2 this season (with 3 likely left to play). He's won one Pac-12 championship in 3 years (likely to be 1 in 4), versus Shaw who has won 3 in 6 and has a better chance to go 4 in 7 than Petersen has to go 2 in 4 (ironically, it would be a Petersen win that would enable this). Obviously getting to the playoffs is a big accomplishment for Petersen that Shaw has not yet accomplished, but Shaw does have the highest final ranking (#3 in 2015 versus Petersen, who was #4 in 2016).
I don't want to denigrate what Petersen has accomplished; he has definitely taken UW to the next level of success, and if you throw in his stint at Boise State, Petersen is an elite coach. But I think it was a bit premature to say that he has overtaken Shaw, and I think that assertion was buttressed by a) recency bias and b) a projection that this UW team was going to be as good or better than last year's, which hasn't borne out.
For the moment, Shaw is 3-1 against Petersen.
BC
11-13-2017, 02:57 PM
Holy-moly, I'm just losing track of time. I'd forgotten Peterson has been at UW that long. It seems like only yesterday he took over! I was misremembering that last year was his second year. So I take back some of what I said.
Still, Peterson's track record at Boise is hard to ignore: 7 consecutive seasons of 10+ wins. To take that program to such a high level is remarkable. I know people like to discount Boise St (they had better resources than their peers, they only had to prepare for 2-3 games a year and the rest are cupcakes, etc), but if it were that easy, I'm sure others would have achieved it.
I guess I'd call it splitting hairs at this point.
Still, Peterson's track record at Boise is hard to ignore: 7 consecutive seasons of 10+ wins. To take that program to such a high level is remarkable. I know people like to discount Boise St (they had better resources than their peers, they only had to prepare for 2-3 games a year and the rest are cupcakes, etc), but if it were that easy, I'm sure others would have achieved it.
I guess I'd call it splitting hairs at this point.
Holy-moly, I'm just losing track of time. I'd forgotten Peterson has been at UW that long. It seems like only yesterday he took over! I was misremembering that last year was his second year. So I take back some of what I said.
Still, Peterson's track record at Boise is hard to ignore: 7 consecutive seasons of 10+ wins. To take that program to such a high level is remarkable. I know people like to discount Boise St (they had better resources than their peers, they only had to prepare for 2-3 games a year and the rest are cupcakes, etc), but if it were that easy, I'm sure others would have achieved it.
I guess I'd call it splitting hairs at this point.
Still, Peterson's track record at Boise is hard to ignore: 7 consecutive seasons of 10+ wins. To take that program to such a high level is remarkable. I know people like to discount Boise St (they had better resources than their peers, they only had to prepare for 2-3 games a year and the rest are cupcakes, etc), but if it were that easy, I'm sure others would have achieved it.
I guess I'd call it splitting hairs at this point.
Petersen at Washington:
      W/L Conf. Rank   Bowl
2014Â Â Â 8-6Â Â 4-5Â Â Â --Â Â Â Â L Cactus
2015Â Â Â 7-6Â Â 4-5Â Â Â --Â Â Â Â W Heart of Dallas
2016Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â Â 4Â Â Â Â L Peach (Playoff)
2017Â Â Â 8-2Â Â 5-2Â Â Â
Total 35-16 21-13
Pct.   .686  .618
* Pac-12 Champion
Shaw at Stanford:
      W/L Conf. Rank   Bowl
2011Â Â 11-2Â Â 8-1Â Â Â 7Â Â Â Â L Fiesta
2012Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â 7Â Â Â Â W Rose
2013Â Â 11-3Â Â 7-2*Â Â 11Â Â Â L Rose
2014Â Â Â 8-5Â Â 5-4Â Â Â --Â Â Â W Foster Farms
2015Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â 3Â Â Â Â W Rose
2016Â Â 10-3Â Â 6-3Â Â Â 12Â Â Â W Sun
2017Â Â Â 7-3Â Â 6-2
Total  71-20 48-14
Pct.   .780 .774
* Pac-12 Champion
      W/L Conf. Rank   Bowl
2014Â Â Â 8-6Â Â 4-5Â Â Â --Â Â Â Â L Cactus
2015Â Â Â 7-6Â Â 4-5Â Â Â --Â Â Â Â W Heart of Dallas
2016Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â Â 4Â Â Â Â L Peach (Playoff)
2017Â Â Â 8-2Â Â 5-2Â Â Â
Total 35-16 21-13
Pct.   .686  .618
* Pac-12 Champion
Shaw at Stanford:
      W/L Conf. Rank   Bowl
2011Â Â 11-2Â Â 8-1Â Â Â 7Â Â Â Â L Fiesta
2012Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â 7Â Â Â Â W Rose
2013Â Â 11-3Â Â 7-2*Â Â 11Â Â Â L Rose
2014Â Â Â 8-5Â Â 5-4Â Â Â --Â Â Â W Foster Farms
2015Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â 3Â Â Â Â W Rose
2016Â Â 10-3Â Â 6-3Â Â Â 12Â Â Â W Sun
2017Â Â Â 7-3Â Â 6-2
Total  71-20 48-14
Pct.   .780 .774
* Pac-12 Champion
Petersen at Washington:
      W/L Conf. Rank   Bowl
2014Â Â Â 8-6Â Â 4-5Â Â Â --Â Â Â Â L Cactus
2015Â Â Â 7-6Â Â 4-5Â Â Â --Â Â Â Â W Heart of Dallas
2016Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â Â 4Â Â Â Â L Peach (Playoff)
2017Â Â Â 8-2Â Â 5-2Â Â Â
Total 35-16 21-13
Pct.   .686  .618
* Pac-12 Champion
Shaw at Stanford:
      W/L Conf. Rank   Bowl
2011Â Â 11-2Â Â 8-1Â Â Â 7Â Â Â Â L Fiesta
2012Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â 7Â Â Â Â W Rose
2013Â Â 11-3Â Â 7-2*Â Â 11Â Â Â L Rose
2014Â Â Â 8-5Â Â 5-4Â Â Â --Â Â Â W Foster Farms
2015Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â 3Â Â Â Â W Rose
2016Â Â 10-3Â Â 6-3Â Â Â 12Â Â Â W Sun
2017Â Â Â 7-3Â Â 6-2
Total  71-20 48-14
Pct.   .780 .774
* Pac-12 Champion
      W/L Conf. Rank   Bowl
2014Â Â Â 8-6Â Â 4-5Â Â Â --Â Â Â Â L Cactus
2015Â Â Â 7-6Â Â 4-5Â Â Â --Â Â Â Â W Heart of Dallas
2016Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â Â 4Â Â Â Â L Peach (Playoff)
2017Â Â Â 8-2Â Â 5-2Â Â Â
Total 35-16 21-13
Pct.   .686  .618
* Pac-12 Champion
Shaw at Stanford:
      W/L Conf. Rank   Bowl
2011Â Â 11-2Â Â 8-1Â Â Â 7Â Â Â Â L Fiesta
2012Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â 7Â Â Â Â W Rose
2013Â Â 11-3Â Â 7-2*Â Â 11Â Â Â L Rose
2014Â Â Â 8-5Â Â 5-4Â Â Â --Â Â Â W Foster Farms
2015Â Â 12-2Â Â 8-1*Â Â 3Â Â Â Â W Rose
2016Â Â 10-3Â Â 6-3Â Â Â 12Â Â Â W Sun
2017Â Â Â 7-3Â Â 6-2
Total  71-20 48-14
Pct.   .780 .774
* Pac-12 Champion
11-14-2017, 08:08 AM
(11-13-2017, 02:57 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I know people like to discount Boise St (they had better resources than their peers, they only had to prepare for 2-3 games a year and the rest are cupcakes, etc), but if it were that easy, I'm sure others would have achieved it.
Boise Coaches (in chronological order)
Dirk Koetter*Â 26-10 (0.722); 12-4Â (0.750)
Dan Hawkins 53-11 (0.828); 37-3 (0.925)
Chris Petersen 92-12 (0.885); 57-6 (0.905)
Bryan Harsin  39-11 (0.780); 24-6 (0.800)
*Koetter should be considered as setting up the current string of success at Boise. Boise moved up to 1-A two seasons before Koetter took over, going 2-10 and a 5-6. Koetter's first season was 6-5 then 10 win seasons after that.
(11-13-2017, 02:57 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I know people like to discount Boise St (they had better resources than their peers, they only had to prepare for 2-3 games a year and the rest are cupcakes, etc), but if it were that easy, I'm sure others would have achieved it.
Boise Coaches (in chronological order)
Dirk Koetter*Â 26-10 (0.722); 12-4Â (0.750)
Dan Hawkins 53-11 (0.828); 37-3 (0.925)
Chris Petersen 92-12 (0.885); 57-6 (0.905)
Bryan Harsin  39-11 (0.780); 24-6 (0.800)
*Koetter should be considered as setting up the current string of success at Boise. Boise moved up to 1-A two seasons before Koetter took over, going 2-10 and a 5-6. Koetter's first season was 6-5 then 10 win seasons after that.
11-14-2017, 08:44 AM
I'm guessing you're trying to say that others have done it. True, those are some nice records. But look at the total wins vs. total losses for all of those coaches. CP has just 1-2 more losses than each of the others (12 vs 10/11) and 92 total wins vs 26, 53, and 39. I think that is a substantial difference. And those 1-2 losses per year difference is what allowed CP's teams to go to major bowl games.
Additionally, Koetter and Hawkins failed at their attempt to transition to the next level in college football, while CP has continued success.
My intent was to say that other coaches at other schools could have achieved the Boise St model. I agree Koetter and Hawkins lay the groundwork, but CP took it to the next level. It doesn't seem that Harsin will be able to maintain it. His record seems skewed towards teh first season with the team he inherited from CP.
Additionally, Koetter and Hawkins failed at their attempt to transition to the next level in college football, while CP has continued success.
My intent was to say that other coaches at other schools could have achieved the Boise St model. I agree Koetter and Hawkins lay the groundwork, but CP took it to the next level. It doesn't seem that Harsin will be able to maintain it. His record seems skewed towards teh first season with the team he inherited from CP.
I'm guessing you're trying to say that others have done it. True, those are some nice records. But look at the total wins vs. total losses for all of those coaches. CP has just 1-2 more losses than each of the others (12 vs 10/11) and 92 total wins vs 26, 53, and 39. I think that is a substantial difference. And those 1-2 losses per year difference is what allowed CP's teams to go to major bowl games.
Additionally, Koetter and Hawkins failed at their attempt to transition to the next level in college football, while CP has continued success.
My intent was to say that other coaches at other schools could have achieved the Boise St model. I agree Koetter and Hawkins lay the groundwork, but CP took it to the next level. It doesn't seem that Harsin will be able to maintain it. His record seems skewed towards teh first season with the team he inherited from CP.
Additionally, Koetter and Hawkins failed at their attempt to transition to the next level in college football, while CP has continued success.
My intent was to say that other coaches at other schools could have achieved the Boise St model. I agree Koetter and Hawkins lay the groundwork, but CP took it to the next level. It doesn't seem that Harsin will be able to maintain it. His record seems skewed towards teh first season with the team he inherited from CP.
11-14-2017, 08:58 AM
(11-14-2017, 08:44 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I'm guessing you're trying to say that others have done it.
Indeed, I was responding to your claim that seemed to be that if Boise had institutional advantages, then others would have won there as well. Mostly I was trying to lay out just exactly what others accomplished.
Others did win there.
Petersen did a little better.
Petersen is obviously a good coach.Â
Trying to choose between Petersen and other very good coaches (like Shaw) is a Rorschach test.
(11-14-2017, 08:44 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I'm guessing you're trying to say that others have done it.
Indeed, I was responding to your claim that seemed to be that if Boise had institutional advantages, then others would have won there as well. Mostly I was trying to lay out just exactly what others accomplished.
Others did win there.
Petersen did a little better.
Petersen is obviously a good coach.Â
Trying to choose between Petersen and other very good coaches (like Shaw) is a Rorschach test.
11-14-2017, 09:19 AM
Petersen inherited some terrific talent that blossomed last year, notably that elite defensive backfield. I'd like to see how he does with the talent he and his staff attract and develop.Â
11-14-2017, 09:49 AM
(11-13-2017, 02:45 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote: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.Â
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.Â
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.Â
(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.)
(11-13-2017, 02:45 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote: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.Â
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.Â
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.Â
(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.)
11-14-2017, 10:05 AM
(11-14-2017, 08:58 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=18014.msg212698#msg212698 date=1510674247]
I'm guessing you're trying to say that others have done it.
Indeed, I was responding to your claim that seemed to be that if Boise had institutional advantages, then others would have won there as well. Mostly I was trying to lay out just exactly what others accomplished.
Others did win there.
Petersen did a little better.
Petersen is obviously a good coach.Â
Trying to choose between Petersen and other very good coaches (like Shaw) is a Rorschach test.
[/quote]
And I'm pointing out "did a little better" isn't accurate. Those 1-2 extra wins per season is what separates a good coach from a great one.
I'll be interested to see if their current coach can maintain the program. I think that in the CFP world, they're going to find it harder and harder.
(11-14-2017, 08:58 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=18014.msg212698#msg212698 date=1510674247]
I'm guessing you're trying to say that others have done it.
Indeed, I was responding to your claim that seemed to be that if Boise had institutional advantages, then others would have won there as well. Mostly I was trying to lay out just exactly what others accomplished.
Others did win there.
Petersen did a little better.
Petersen is obviously a good coach.Â
Trying to choose between Petersen and other very good coaches (like Shaw) is a Rorschach test.
[/quote]
And I'm pointing out "did a little better" isn't accurate. Those 1-2 extra wins per season is what separates a good coach from a great one.
I'll be interested to see if their current coach can maintain the program. I think that in the CFP world, they're going to find it harder and harder.
11-14-2017, 10:34 AM
(11-14-2017, 09:49 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote: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.Â
I think it's correct that if Petersen had a sustainable advantage of recruiting and developing great QBs, that would make discussions of his record without them irrelevant. But it's not at all clear to me that's the case. Petersen's had three years without great QBs...and Shaw's had, what, two and a half or so? (Presuming that Costello is a long-term answer at the position, which may be hasty.)
To your other point, that Shaw's great recruiting at the QB position should produce great results, I think that's again a fair idea but I'd quibble whether it's actually fairly applied here. Recruiting more touted prospects is helpful in shifting your odds, but it's still a gamble. The most recent survey I've seen indicates 21% of four-star pro-style QBs are drafting, meaning it's "only" a coin flip to produce one pro QB from two highly touted recruits. Consequently, I'd be very troubled if 2018 features poor QB play. (Barring major injury or other weird exogenous factor.)
(11-14-2017, 09:49 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote: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.Â
I think it's correct that if Petersen had a sustainable advantage of recruiting and developing great QBs, that would make discussions of his record without them irrelevant. But it's not at all clear to me that's the case. Petersen's had three years without great QBs...and Shaw's had, what, two and a half or so? (Presuming that Costello is a long-term answer at the position, which may be hasty.)
To your other point, that Shaw's great recruiting at the QB position should produce great results, I think that's again a fair idea but I'd quibble whether it's actually fairly applied here. Recruiting more touted prospects is helpful in shifting your odds, but it's still a gamble. The most recent survey I've seen indicates 21% of four-star pro-style QBs are drafting, meaning it's "only" a coin flip to produce one pro QB from two highly touted recruits. Consequently, I'd be very troubled if 2018 features poor QB play. (Barring major injury or other weird exogenous factor.)
11-14-2017, 11:19 AM
Put them in an octagon to settle the pecking order. My money's on Shaw.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
Put them in an octagon to settle the pecking order. My money's on Shaw.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
11-14-2017, 11:23 AM
(11-14-2017, 09:49 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote: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)?
This is a great point. Kellen Moore was a short, 3-star quarterback from a tiny town in eastern Washington, and in he is currently on the Cowboys practice squad having played in three games over the course of his NFL career, which started in 2012 as a UFA. Yet at BSU he was a dynamic player and a H-trophy candidate. A lot of credit should go to Petersen for maximizing his talents and constructing an offensive system that played to his strengths.
In my West Coast Bias I consider Shaw and Petersen to both be among the top ten FBS head coaches; it's difficult to definitively argue the merits of one over the other. There is definitely no coach I would want for Stanford over David Shaw, but it's interesting that Petersen might be the only other top-ten coach who would be a good fit for the school.
(11-14-2017, 09:49 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote: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)?
This is a great point. Kellen Moore was a short, 3-star quarterback from a tiny town in eastern Washington, and in he is currently on the Cowboys practice squad having played in three games over the course of his NFL career, which started in 2012 as a UFA. Yet at BSU he was a dynamic player and a H-trophy candidate. A lot of credit should go to Petersen for maximizing his talents and constructing an offensive system that played to his strengths.
In my West Coast Bias I consider Shaw and Petersen to both be among the top ten FBS head coaches; it's difficult to definitively argue the merits of one over the other. There is definitely no coach I would want for Stanford over David Shaw, but it's interesting that Petersen might be the only other top-ten coach who would be a good fit for the school.
11-14-2017, 11:31 AM
(11-14-2017, 10:34 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=18014.msg212705#msg212705 date=1510678155].......
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.Â
To your other point, that Shaw's great recruiting at the QB position should produce great results, I think that's again a fair idea but I'd quibble whether it's actually fairly applied here. Recruiting more touted prospects is helpful in shifting your odds, but it's still a gamble. The most recent survey I've seen indicates 21% of four-star pro-style QBs are drafting, meaning it's "only" a coin flip to produce one pro QB from two highly touted recruits. Consequently, I'd be very troubled if 2018 features poor QB play. (Barring major injury or other weird exogenous factor.)
[/quote]
Perhaps the criteria should be player development, i.e., do players show significantly improved skill, maturity, and command of game-plan in their jr/sr season compared to their performance in true fr/redshirt fr season. I don't know what a good number would be for a successful coach, but a 75% success rate (i.e., 75% of the players meet or exceed expected development) would be very good in my book.
(11-14-2017, 10:34 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=ColoradoTree link=topic=18014.msg212705#msg212705 date=1510678155].......
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.Â
To your other point, that Shaw's great recruiting at the QB position should produce great results, I think that's again a fair idea but I'd quibble whether it's actually fairly applied here. Recruiting more touted prospects is helpful in shifting your odds, but it's still a gamble. The most recent survey I've seen indicates 21% of four-star pro-style QBs are drafting, meaning it's "only" a coin flip to produce one pro QB from two highly touted recruits. Consequently, I'd be very troubled if 2018 features poor QB play. (Barring major injury or other weird exogenous factor.)
[/quote]
Perhaps the criteria should be player development, i.e., do players show significantly improved skill, maturity, and command of game-plan in their jr/sr season compared to their performance in true fr/redshirt fr season. I don't know what a good number would be for a successful coach, but a 75% success rate (i.e., 75% of the players meet or exceed expected development) would be very good in my book.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »