[Snorlax94]

Last night was my first attendance of the season ticket member kickoff bbq, and after an assortment of questions I’d heard before (recent rule changes like kickoffs and red shirts, etc) during the q&a with Coach Shaw, the final question asker opened with how she has been a season ticket holder since the 60s, and how she appreciated the recent and unprecedented run of success by the Stanford football program, how it has been a special time, and said thank you to Coach Shaw and the program. And the audience heartily applauded her comment.

I don’t know if someone says this every year, but I was really glad she said it and I felt she was speaking for many, many other fans.

Sometimes I feel the tenor of the bulletin boards is oddly negative, particularly toward the staff. I particularly dislike the “Shavigren” type nicknames, because it is de-humanizing, and also because name-calling in general strikes me as immature. Now I know part of it is that people are very passionate on the boards, and also there is an established pattern that people feel it’s ok to behave on boards in ways they wouldn’t in real life.

But I was very heartened by the woman’s statement and to see the audience’s response.  I feel Stanford is incredibly fortunate to have Coach Shaw and that this has been a special time for Stanford football, and he and the program have my thanks and I appreciate what we’ve had, and I feel now even more that many people share this sentiment.

And of course I hope there will be many more years of continued success and improvement and that the best is yet to come.

[Snorlax94]

Last night was my first attendance of the season ticket member kickoff bbq, and after an assortment of questions I’d heard before (recent rule changes like kickoffs and red shirts, etc) during the q&a with Coach Shaw, the final question asker opened with how she has been a season ticket holder since the 60s, and how she appreciated the recent and unprecedented run of success by the Stanford football program, how it has been a special time, and said thank you to Coach Shaw and the program. And the audience heartily applauded her comment.

I don’t know if someone says this every year, but I was really glad she said it and I felt she was speaking for many, many other fans.

Sometimes I feel the tenor of the bulletin boards is oddly negative, particularly toward the staff. I particularly dislike the “Shavigren” type nicknames, because it is de-humanizing, and also because name-calling in general strikes me as immature. Now I know part of it is that people are very passionate on the boards, and also there is an established pattern that people feel it’s ok to behave on boards in ways they wouldn’t in real life.

But I was very heartened by the woman’s statement and to see the audience’s response.  I feel Stanford is incredibly fortunate to have Coach Shaw and that this has been a special time for Stanford football, and he and the program have my thanks and I appreciate what we’ve had, and I feel now even more that many people share this sentiment.

And of course I hope there will be many more years of continued success and improvement and that the best is yet to come.

[BobK]

Great post. Hated I had to miss.

[BobK]

Great post. Hated I had to miss.

[CardinalSagehen]

I couldn't agree more.  I haven't noticed the name-calling as much lately, which seemed to peak after the Northwestern game in 2015 and again during and after our disappointing 10-win season in 2016 (irony intended).  

But I continue to hear, as you probably do, the common back-handed compliment of Shaw as a master "program guy" (recruiting and player development) who ostensibly sucks at play-calling and in-game tactics.  

On one hand, hey, we're all fans and we're entitled to our opinions.  There are MANY times when I question certain calls, such as punting on 4th-and-short in the opponent's territory.  Without questioning, there would be much less to read and discuss here! 

On the other hand, Stanford is a wildly positive outlier in all of CFB, and to me that means that Shaw must be performing well in every phase of the coaching game.  We have top-5/10 multi-year win totals with top-20/25 talent.  Player development alone does not explain that kind of over-performance.  We start freaking out when we go 8-5 with a win in the Chicken Bowl, but just think about the 3 and 4-win years that blue-blood teams like ND, MSU and Auburn have experienced during our run!  

If Shaw were an NFL QB, he'd have won more games with less talent around him than anyone, yet some would be labeling him a "game manager".  But I'm with Snorlax - extremely thankful and a very devoted Shaw fan.  I may occasionally question certain decisions, recognizing my limitations as a fan rather than a career-long football coach.  But I wouldn't criticize any phase of Shaw's game, including play-calling, while the overall long-term results have been so improbably fantastic.

[CardinalSagehen]

I couldn't agree more.  I haven't noticed the name-calling as much lately, which seemed to peak after the Northwestern game in 2015 and again during and after our disappointing 10-win season in 2016 (irony intended).  

But I continue to hear, as you probably do, the common back-handed compliment of Shaw as a master "program guy" (recruiting and player development) who ostensibly sucks at play-calling and in-game tactics.  

On one hand, hey, we're all fans and we're entitled to our opinions.  There are MANY times when I question certain calls, such as punting on 4th-and-short in the opponent's territory.  Without questioning, there would be much less to read and discuss here! 

On the other hand, Stanford is a wildly positive outlier in all of CFB, and to me that means that Shaw must be performing well in every phase of the coaching game.  We have top-5/10 multi-year win totals with top-20/25 talent.  Player development alone does not explain that kind of over-performance.  We start freaking out when we go 8-5 with a win in the Chicken Bowl, but just think about the 3 and 4-win years that blue-blood teams like ND, MSU and Auburn have experienced during our run!  

If Shaw were an NFL QB, he'd have won more games with less talent around him than anyone, yet some would be labeling him a "game manager".  But I'm with Snorlax - extremely thankful and a very devoted Shaw fan.  I may occasionally question certain decisions, recognizing my limitations as a fan rather than a career-long football coach.  But I wouldn't criticize any phase of Shaw's game, including play-calling, while the overall long-term results have been so improbably fantastic.

[81alum]

I couldn't agree more.  I haven't noticed the name-calling as much lately, which seemed to peak after the Northwestern game in 2015 and again during and after our disappointing 10-win season in 2016 (irony intended).  

But I continue to hear, as you probably do, the common back-handed compliment of Shaw as a master "program guy" (recruiting and player development) who ostensibly sucks at play-calling and in-game tactics.  

On one hand, hey, we're all fans and we're entitled to our opinions.  There are MANY times when I question certain calls, such as punting on 4th-and-short in the opponent's territory.  Without questioning, there would be much less to read and discuss here! 

On the other hand, Stanford is a wildly positive outlier in all of CFB, and to me that means that Shaw must be performing well in every phase of the coaching game.  We have top-5/10 multi-year win totals with top-20/25 talent.  Player development alone does not explain that kind of over-performance.  We start freaking out when we go 8-5 with a win in the Chicken Bowl, but just think about the 3 and 4-win years that blue-blood teams like ND, MSU and Auburn have experienced during our run!  

If Shaw were an NFL QB, he'd have won more games with less talent around him than anyone, yet some would be labeling him a "game manager".  But I'm with Snorlax - extremely thankful and a very devoted Shaw fan.  I may occasionally question certain decisions, recognizing my limitations as a fan rather than a career-long football coach.  But I wouldn't criticize any phase of Shaw's game, including play-calling, while the overall long-term results have been so improbably fantastic.

I agree with all the sentiments.  I am grateful--even ecstatic--that with David Shaw we got exactly the right kind of long-term coach we needed to sustain and build this program.  All human beings have weaknesses, and Shaw has his, and I do think it has to do with some play calling.  But he appears to be an absolute master of recruiting and mentoring the kinds of students who can get into and flourish at Stanford in a way that no other coach has been able to sustain.  I'll continue to gripe about those things that I feel like griping about--but there is no denying his overall success relative to history, and I will continue to praise the man both for his character and for the incredible job he has done to entertain the fans and mentor the young men in his care.

[81alum]

I couldn't agree more.  I haven't noticed the name-calling as much lately, which seemed to peak after the Northwestern game in 2015 and again during and after our disappointing 10-win season in 2016 (irony intended).  

But I continue to hear, as you probably do, the common back-handed compliment of Shaw as a master "program guy" (recruiting and player development) who ostensibly sucks at play-calling and in-game tactics.  

On one hand, hey, we're all fans and we're entitled to our opinions.  There are MANY times when I question certain calls, such as punting on 4th-and-short in the opponent's territory.  Without questioning, there would be much less to read and discuss here! 

On the other hand, Stanford is a wildly positive outlier in all of CFB, and to me that means that Shaw must be performing well in every phase of the coaching game.  We have top-5/10 multi-year win totals with top-20/25 talent.  Player development alone does not explain that kind of over-performance.  We start freaking out when we go 8-5 with a win in the Chicken Bowl, but just think about the 3 and 4-win years that blue-blood teams like ND, MSU and Auburn have experienced during our run!  

If Shaw were an NFL QB, he'd have won more games with less talent around him than anyone, yet some would be labeling him a "game manager".  But I'm with Snorlax - extremely thankful and a very devoted Shaw fan.  I may occasionally question certain decisions, recognizing my limitations as a fan rather than a career-long football coach.  But I wouldn't criticize any phase of Shaw's game, including play-calling, while the overall long-term results have been so improbably fantastic.

I agree with all the sentiments.  I am grateful--even ecstatic--that with David Shaw we got exactly the right kind of long-term coach we needed to sustain and build this program.  All human beings have weaknesses, and Shaw has his, and I do think it has to do with some play calling.  But he appears to be an absolute master of recruiting and mentoring the kinds of students who can get into and flourish at Stanford in a way that no other coach has been able to sustain.  I'll continue to gripe about those things that I feel like griping about--but there is no denying his overall success relative to history, and I will continue to praise the man both for his character and for the incredible job he has done to entertain the fans and mentor the young men in his care.

[BostonCard]

I agree with the questioner, and I think a silent majority of Stanford fans is delighted to have Shaw as a coach, could not be happier with the program's position over the last decade and think the haters are full of it.  Of course, being able to take potshots from the peanut gallery is fun for some people, and seems to be par for the course for any group of fans.  Contentedness is just something that doesn't translate well to message boards.

[BostonCard]

I agree with the questioner, and I think a silent majority of Stanford fans is delighted to have Shaw as a coach, could not be happier with the program's position over the last decade and think the haters are full of it.  Of course, being able to take potshots from the peanut gallery is fun for some people, and seems to be par for the course for any group of fans.  Contentedness is just something that doesn't translate well to message boards.

[martyup]

Contentedness is just something that doesn't translate well to message boards.

Let me try . . .

[martyup]

Contentedness is just something that doesn't translate well to message boards.

Let me try . . .