[Phogge]

John, how about “Shaw has taken over a Ferrari and turned it into an Offenhauser.”

[Phogge]

John, how about “Shaw has taken over a Ferrari and turned it into an Offenhauser.”

[JohnR34231]

John, how about “Shaw has taken over a Ferrari and turned it into an Offenhauser.”

How about---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc6FmZCT0Zc

[JohnR34231]

John, how about “Shaw has taken over a Ferrari and turned it into an Offenhauser.”

How about---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc6FmZCT0Zc

[Phogge]

Yes! We actually had a ‘65 Mustang GT (a year and a half before the Shelby) but my father sold it in ‘68 as I was preparing to go into the Navy. Big mistake. Incredible 0-60 time. Chick magnet but I was chick-naive.

[Phogge]

Yes! We actually had a ‘65 Mustang GT (a year and a half before the Shelby) but my father sold it in ‘68 as I was preparing to go into the Navy. Big mistake. Incredible 0-60 time. Chick magnet but I was chick-naive.

[BostonCard]

I mean, I'm hopeful for Haase as well, but until he develops the team into a consistent winner, I would take Shaw's results (warts and all) all day every day before I take Haase's. I mean, Haase has had four seasons at Stanford and the furthest he's ever gotten was the second round of the NIT (he got cheated out of a return by coronavirus).  The guy has exactly one winning Pac-12 season, which is exactly how many losing seasons Shaw has.

Maybe in three or four years, after Haase has made it deep into the NCAA tourney a couple times and Shaw has gone bowl-less several times, it would be time to re-assess, but for goodness sakes, let's actually see proof that Haase can lead the program to the tourney before we anoint him as the more likely to be successful coach.

BC

Of course, Haase has a lot to prove. But, remember, Shaw inherited a program that was ranked 4th in the nation after its bowl game. Haase inherited a program that was irrelevant. Or, for those car fans out there, Shaw inherited a Ferrari and appears to be morphing it into a Pinto.

Haase is in his fourth year in the program.  He was able to turn over the entire roster this last year, and while it was a pleasantly surprising year, he still didn't have a winning conference record (in a pretty bad conference) and probably was not headed to the tournament.

In Shaw's fifth year, we went to the Rose Bowl and beat Iowa.  Even if you want to say that Shaw inherited some key redshirt freshmen that Harbaugh recruited, remember that two years later, he won the Pac-12 North.  Willingham's Rose Bowl aside, I wonder how many football coaches since my birth would have even made it to the Pac-12 conference tournament (had there been divisions).

You guys forget that even this last year, as horrible as it was, was what we saw almost every year between 2001 and 2008.  Even "successful" coaches like Willingham (3 losing seasons in 7) and Walsh (2 losing seasons in 5) didn't drive Ferraris.

Out of the last 10 coaches in Stanford's history, five (Harris, Teevens, Green, Elway, and Wiggin) had losing records for their Stanford career.  Shaw had a losing record for one year, out of nine!

BC

[BostonCard]

I mean, I'm hopeful for Haase as well, but until he develops the team into a consistent winner, I would take Shaw's results (warts and all) all day every day before I take Haase's. I mean, Haase has had four seasons at Stanford and the furthest he's ever gotten was the second round of the NIT (he got cheated out of a return by coronavirus).  The guy has exactly one winning Pac-12 season, which is exactly how many losing seasons Shaw has.

Maybe in three or four years, after Haase has made it deep into the NCAA tourney a couple times and Shaw has gone bowl-less several times, it would be time to re-assess, but for goodness sakes, let's actually see proof that Haase can lead the program to the tourney before we anoint him as the more likely to be successful coach.

BC

Of course, Haase has a lot to prove. But, remember, Shaw inherited a program that was ranked 4th in the nation after its bowl game. Haase inherited a program that was irrelevant. Or, for those car fans out there, Shaw inherited a Ferrari and appears to be morphing it into a Pinto.

Haase is in his fourth year in the program.  He was able to turn over the entire roster this last year, and while it was a pleasantly surprising year, he still didn't have a winning conference record (in a pretty bad conference) and probably was not headed to the tournament.

In Shaw's fifth year, we went to the Rose Bowl and beat Iowa.  Even if you want to say that Shaw inherited some key redshirt freshmen that Harbaugh recruited, remember that two years later, he won the Pac-12 North.  Willingham's Rose Bowl aside, I wonder how many football coaches since my birth would have even made it to the Pac-12 conference tournament (had there been divisions).

You guys forget that even this last year, as horrible as it was, was what we saw almost every year between 2001 and 2008.  Even "successful" coaches like Willingham (3 losing seasons in 7) and Walsh (2 losing seasons in 5) didn't drive Ferraris.

Out of the last 10 coaches in Stanford's history, five (Harris, Teevens, Green, Elway, and Wiggin) had losing records for their Stanford career.  Shaw had a losing record for one year, out of nine!

BC

[Papa John]

This discussion re: David Shaw reminds me of...Terry Donahue. Donahue was an assistant under Dick Vermeil, who had a wildly successful two-year stint at UCLA in the mid-1970s and promptly left for the NFL. Donahue, a former UCLA player, was promoted to head coach in 1976 and led the Bruins while I was a Stanford student in the early- to mid-1980s. All he did was take UCLA to the Rose Bowl and win it 3 times in 4 years from 1982-1985 (technically 1983-1986 since the Rose Bowl is played on Jan. 1 or 2). After I graduated in 1985, I moved to LA for work and lived in Westwood, so I started hanging out with the Bruin crowd and went to a number of UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl. Once I started grad school at UCLA several years later, I bought student season tickets. 

1988 was Troy Aikman's last year at UCLA and, in addition to Aikman, that team was loaded. They lost a come-from-ahead heartbreaker to WSU and the measles game to Rodney Peete's USC team, and ended up in the Cotton Bowl, which they won. UCLA  finished the season 10-2 and ranked #6 and many Bruin fans to whom I spoke were highly dissatisfied. The next year, without Aikman and a few other key players, UCLA went 3-7-1 and folks were calling for Donahue to be fired--the most common complaints were that Donahue couldn't recruit (i.e. Aikman fell into his lap thanks to Barry Switzer at Oklahoma), he was too conservative, the game had passed him by. I thought Bruins fans were nuts. More likely, it was a classic example of being spoiled by success.

UCLA, in spite of complaints by the boosters, retained Donahue and he eventually returned the Bruins to the Rose Bowl in the 1993 season. After mediocre seasons the next two years, he retired after 20 years as head coach with the most wins at UCLA. Bruin fans rejoiced. Things looked OK for the next few years--the team was in the running for the first BCS championship game but suffered a come-from-ahead loss to Miami and played in the Rose Bowl after the 1998 season, which they lost to Wisconsin. They haven't returned to the Rose Bowl since, and the five coaches since Donahue--Bob Toledo, Karl Dorrell, Rick Neuheisel, Jim Mora, and Chip Kelly--haven't come close to matching Donahue's resume. In the fact, the last three coaches in that list all had/have losing records at UCLA.

So yeah, David Shaw isn't perfect--my biggest concern has been and will continue to be recruiting although I am also sympathetic to the conversations re: starting QBs--but there's no way I'm jumping off his bandwagon. I hope he coaches at Stanford for the next 10 years.

[Papa John]

This discussion re: David Shaw reminds me of...Terry Donahue. Donahue was an assistant under Dick Vermeil, who had a wildly successful two-year stint at UCLA in the mid-1970s and promptly left for the NFL. Donahue, a former UCLA player, was promoted to head coach in 1976 and led the Bruins while I was a Stanford student in the early- to mid-1980s. All he did was take UCLA to the Rose Bowl and win it 3 times in 4 years from 1982-1985 (technically 1983-1986 since the Rose Bowl is played on Jan. 1 or 2). After I graduated in 1985, I moved to LA for work and lived in Westwood, so I started hanging out with the Bruin crowd and went to a number of UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl. Once I started grad school at UCLA several years later, I bought student season tickets. 

1988 was Troy Aikman's last year at UCLA and, in addition to Aikman, that team was loaded. They lost a come-from-ahead heartbreaker to WSU and the measles game to Rodney Peete's USC team, and ended up in the Cotton Bowl, which they won. UCLA  finished the season 10-2 and ranked #6 and many Bruin fans to whom I spoke were highly dissatisfied. The next year, without Aikman and a few other key players, UCLA went 3-7-1 and folks were calling for Donahue to be fired--the most common complaints were that Donahue couldn't recruit (i.e. Aikman fell into his lap thanks to Barry Switzer at Oklahoma), he was too conservative, the game had passed him by. I thought Bruins fans were nuts. More likely, it was a classic example of being spoiled by success.

UCLA, in spite of complaints by the boosters, retained Donahue and he eventually returned the Bruins to the Rose Bowl in the 1993 season. After mediocre seasons the next two years, he retired after 20 years as head coach with the most wins at UCLA. Bruin fans rejoiced. Things looked OK for the next few years--the team was in the running for the first BCS championship game but suffered a come-from-ahead loss to Miami and played in the Rose Bowl after the 1998 season, which they lost to Wisconsin. They haven't returned to the Rose Bowl since, and the five coaches since Donahue--Bob Toledo, Karl Dorrell, Rick Neuheisel, Jim Mora, and Chip Kelly--haven't come close to matching Donahue's resume. In the fact, the last three coaches in that list all had/have losing records at UCLA.

So yeah, David Shaw isn't perfect--my biggest concern has been and will continue to be recruiting although I am also sympathetic to the conversations re: starting QBs--but there's no way I'm jumping off his bandwagon. I hope he coaches at Stanford for the next 10 years.

[JohnR34231]

This discussion re: David Shaw reminds me of...Terry Donahue. Donahue was an assistant under Dick Vermeil, who had a wildly successful two-year stint at UCLA in the mid-1970s and promptly left for the NFL. Donahue, a former UCLA player, was promoted to head coach in 1976 and led the Bruins while I was a Stanford student in the early- to mid-1980s. All he did was take UCLA to the Rose Bowl and win it 3 times in 4 years from 1982-1985 (technically 1983-1986 since the Rose Bowl is played on Jan. 1 or 2). After I graduated in 1985, I moved to LA for work and lived in Westwood, so I started hanging out with the Bruin crowd and went to a number of UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl. Once I started grad school at UCLA several years later, I bought student season tickets. 

1988 was Troy Aikman's last year at UCLA and, in addition to Aikman, that team was loaded. They lost a come-from-ahead heartbreaker to WSU and the measles game to Rodney Peete's USC team, and ended up in the Cotton Bowl, which they won. UCLA  finished the season 10-2 and ranked #6 and many Bruin fans to whom I spoke were highly dissatisfied. The next year, without Aikman and a few other key players, UCLA went 3-7-1 and folks were calling for Donahue to be fired--the most common complaints were that Donahue couldn't recruit (i.e. Aikman fell into his lap thanks to Barry Switzer at Oklahoma), he was too conservative, the game had passed him by. I thought Bruins fans were nuts. More likely, it was a classic example of being spoiled by success.

UCLA, in spite of complaints by the boosters, retained Donahue and he eventually returned the Bruins to the Rose Bowl in the 1993 season. After mediocre seasons the next two years, he retired after 20 years as head coach with the most wins at UCLA. Bruin fans rejoiced. Things looked OK for the next few years--the team was in the running for the first BCS championship game but suffered a come-from-ahead loss to Miami and played in the Rose Bowl after the 1998 season, which they lost to Wisconsin. They haven't returned to the Rose Bowl since, and the five coaches since Donahue--Bob Toledo, Karl Dorrell, Rick Neuheisel, Jim Mora, and Chip Kelly--haven't come close to matching Donahue's resume. In the fact, the last three coaches in that list all had/have losing records at UCLA.

So yeah, David Shaw isn't perfect--my biggest concern has been and will continue to be recruiting although I am also sympathetic to the conversations re: starting QBs--but there's no way I'm jumping off his bandwagon. I hope he coaches at Stanford for the next 10 years.

Once you have hit the pinnacle you are expected to keep doing it. If you don't you're a bum or at least a has been. Once of the things that led to Chris Petersen's stepping down at Washington.

[JohnR34231]

This discussion re: David Shaw reminds me of...Terry Donahue. Donahue was an assistant under Dick Vermeil, who had a wildly successful two-year stint at UCLA in the mid-1970s and promptly left for the NFL. Donahue, a former UCLA player, was promoted to head coach in 1976 and led the Bruins while I was a Stanford student in the early- to mid-1980s. All he did was take UCLA to the Rose Bowl and win it 3 times in 4 years from 1982-1985 (technically 1983-1986 since the Rose Bowl is played on Jan. 1 or 2). After I graduated in 1985, I moved to LA for work and lived in Westwood, so I started hanging out with the Bruin crowd and went to a number of UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl. Once I started grad school at UCLA several years later, I bought student season tickets. 

1988 was Troy Aikman's last year at UCLA and, in addition to Aikman, that team was loaded. They lost a come-from-ahead heartbreaker to WSU and the measles game to Rodney Peete's USC team, and ended up in the Cotton Bowl, which they won. UCLA  finished the season 10-2 and ranked #6 and many Bruin fans to whom I spoke were highly dissatisfied. The next year, without Aikman and a few other key players, UCLA went 3-7-1 and folks were calling for Donahue to be fired--the most common complaints were that Donahue couldn't recruit (i.e. Aikman fell into his lap thanks to Barry Switzer at Oklahoma), he was too conservative, the game had passed him by. I thought Bruins fans were nuts. More likely, it was a classic example of being spoiled by success.

UCLA, in spite of complaints by the boosters, retained Donahue and he eventually returned the Bruins to the Rose Bowl in the 1993 season. After mediocre seasons the next two years, he retired after 20 years as head coach with the most wins at UCLA. Bruin fans rejoiced. Things looked OK for the next few years--the team was in the running for the first BCS championship game but suffered a come-from-ahead loss to Miami and played in the Rose Bowl after the 1998 season, which they lost to Wisconsin. They haven't returned to the Rose Bowl since, and the five coaches since Donahue--Bob Toledo, Karl Dorrell, Rick Neuheisel, Jim Mora, and Chip Kelly--haven't come close to matching Donahue's resume. In the fact, the last three coaches in that list all had/have losing records at UCLA.

So yeah, David Shaw isn't perfect--my biggest concern has been and will continue to be recruiting although I am also sympathetic to the conversations re: starting QBs--but there's no way I'm jumping off his bandwagon. I hope he coaches at Stanford for the next 10 years.

Once you have hit the pinnacle you are expected to keep doing it. If you don't you're a bum or at least a has been. Once of the things that led to Chris Petersen's stepping down at Washington.

[SamuelMcF]

Once you have hit the pinnacle you are expected to keep doing it. If you don't you're a bum or at least a has been. Once of the things that led to Chris Petersen's stepping down at Washington.

Mike McCarthy with the Packers is a fantastic example here. 

- 2010 SB champs
- 2011-16 went to the playoffs but never made it to the SB again
- 2017 7-9
- 2018 4-7-1 and fired

The last few years of his tenure were riddled with outrage over conservative playcalling, including a real doozy: the 2015 NFC championship game, featuring not one but TWO FGs from the 1 yard line, and calling 3 run plays while down 12 points in the 4th quarter.

Sounds eerily familiar to me.

[SamuelMcF]

Once you have hit the pinnacle you are expected to keep doing it. If you don't you're a bum or at least a has been. Once of the things that led to Chris Petersen's stepping down at Washington.

Mike McCarthy with the Packers is a fantastic example here. 

- 2010 SB champs
- 2011-16 went to the playoffs but never made it to the SB again
- 2017 7-9
- 2018 4-7-1 and fired

The last few years of his tenure were riddled with outrage over conservative playcalling, including a real doozy: the 2015 NFC championship game, featuring not one but TWO FGs from the 1 yard line, and calling 3 run plays while down 12 points in the 4th quarter.

Sounds eerily familiar to me.

[Mick]

This discussion re: David Shaw reminds me of...Terry Donahue. Donahue was an assistant under Dick Vermeil, who had a wildly successful two-year stint at UCLA in the mid-1970s and promptly left for the NFL. Donahue, a former UCLA player, was promoted to head coach in 1976 and led the Bruins while I was a Stanford student in the early- to mid-1980s. All he did was take UCLA to the Rose Bowl and win it 3 times in 4 years from 1982-1985 (technically 1983-1986 since the Rose Bowl is played on Jan. 1 or 2).

1988 was Troy Aikman's last year at UCLA and, in addition to Aikman, that team was loaded. They lost a come-from-ahead heartbreaker to WSU and the measles game to Rodney Peete's USC team, and ended up in the Cotton Bowl, which they won. UCLA  finished the season 10-2 and ranked #6 and many Bruin fans to whom I spoke were highly dissatisfied. The next year, without Aikman and a few other key players, UCLA went 3-7-1 and folks were calling for Donahue to be fired--the most common complaints were that Donahue couldn't recruit (i.e. Aikman fell into his lap thanks to Barry Switzer at Oklahoma), he was too conservative, the game had passed him by. I thought Bruins fans were nuts. More likely, it was a classic example of being spoiled by success.

UCLA, in spite of complaints by the boosters, retained Donahue and he eventually returned the Bruins to the Rose Bowl in the 1993 season. After mediocre seasons the next two years, he retired after 20 years as head coach with the most wins at UCLA. Bruin fans rejoiced. Things looked OK for the next few years--the team was in the running for the first BCS championship game but suffered a come-from-ahead loss to Miami and played in the Rose Bowl after the 1998 season, which they lost to Wisconsin. They haven't returned to the Rose Bowl since, and the five coaches since Donahue--Bob Toledo, Karl Dorrell, Rick Neuheisel, Jim Mora, and Chip Kelly--haven't come close to matching Donahue's resume. In the fact, the last three coaches in that list all had/have losing records at UCLA.

Five of the six coaches immediately preceding Donahue were superb (of LaBrucherie, Sanders, Barnes, Prothro, Rodgers, Vermeil; only Barnes had a mediocre record, 32-36-3).  Donahue had 15 winning seasons in 20, including a 7-4 season in which all wins were vacated due to an ineligible player his second year.  13 bowls in 20 seasons, including four Rose Bowls.  He should be damn near canonized down there.

Toledo did pretty good, Dorrell did five mediocre bowls in five years, Neuheisel was not good, Mora had four mostly good years and two bad years and Chip, well, is Chip.

[Mick]

This discussion re: David Shaw reminds me of...Terry Donahue. Donahue was an assistant under Dick Vermeil, who had a wildly successful two-year stint at UCLA in the mid-1970s and promptly left for the NFL. Donahue, a former UCLA player, was promoted to head coach in 1976 and led the Bruins while I was a Stanford student in the early- to mid-1980s. All he did was take UCLA to the Rose Bowl and win it 3 times in 4 years from 1982-1985 (technically 1983-1986 since the Rose Bowl is played on Jan. 1 or 2).

1988 was Troy Aikman's last year at UCLA and, in addition to Aikman, that team was loaded. They lost a come-from-ahead heartbreaker to WSU and the measles game to Rodney Peete's USC team, and ended up in the Cotton Bowl, which they won. UCLA  finished the season 10-2 and ranked #6 and many Bruin fans to whom I spoke were highly dissatisfied. The next year, without Aikman and a few other key players, UCLA went 3-7-1 and folks were calling for Donahue to be fired--the most common complaints were that Donahue couldn't recruit (i.e. Aikman fell into his lap thanks to Barry Switzer at Oklahoma), he was too conservative, the game had passed him by. I thought Bruins fans were nuts. More likely, it was a classic example of being spoiled by success.

UCLA, in spite of complaints by the boosters, retained Donahue and he eventually returned the Bruins to the Rose Bowl in the 1993 season. After mediocre seasons the next two years, he retired after 20 years as head coach with the most wins at UCLA. Bruin fans rejoiced. Things looked OK for the next few years--the team was in the running for the first BCS championship game but suffered a come-from-ahead loss to Miami and played in the Rose Bowl after the 1998 season, which they lost to Wisconsin. They haven't returned to the Rose Bowl since, and the five coaches since Donahue--Bob Toledo, Karl Dorrell, Rick Neuheisel, Jim Mora, and Chip Kelly--haven't come close to matching Donahue's resume. In the fact, the last three coaches in that list all had/have losing records at UCLA.

Five of the six coaches immediately preceding Donahue were superb (of LaBrucherie, Sanders, Barnes, Prothro, Rodgers, Vermeil; only Barnes had a mediocre record, 32-36-3).  Donahue had 15 winning seasons in 20, including a 7-4 season in which all wins were vacated due to an ineligible player his second year.  13 bowls in 20 seasons, including four Rose Bowls.  He should be damn near canonized down there.

Toledo did pretty good, Dorrell did five mediocre bowls in five years, Neuheisel was not good, Mora had four mostly good years and two bad years and Chip, well, is Chip.

[fullmetal]

I want to keep David Shaw, but I wonder if a more competitive coach wouldn't be taking multiple delay of game penalties to the point where it's a known habit.  

Also, can we hire a QB coach to actually develop a QB?  Hogan had his throwing motion changed after one offseason by NFL coaching, but Stanford's staff seemed to do nothing with it for several years.

[fullmetal]

I want to keep David Shaw, but I wonder if a more competitive coach wouldn't be taking multiple delay of game penalties to the point where it's a known habit.  

Also, can we hire a QB coach to actually develop a QB?  Hogan had his throwing motion changed after one offseason by NFL coaching, but Stanford's staff seemed to do nothing with it for several years.