[Row80Critic]

Please tell me he doesn't blame it on "execution" again.  You always hear about coaching staffs "coaching-up" their players.  Stanford seems to be coaching them down.  The best players stay only 3 seasons these days, yet Stanford has a playbook that takes 2 years to master.  That's just dumb and squanders talent.  Tua won the national championship as a true freshman.  Stanford would have had him in the library all year studying the playbook, with one or two 'package' plays they'd let him run every other game.  Tavita is a great guy, but obviously not ready to be OC at this level.  Defense isn't looking much better.  At least Jet got his leg back, but play calling forced him out there too much.  And those announcers today -- jeez almighty -- sorry Rod, but it was like listening to a Thanksgiving Day parade or national dog show or something.  At one point in the first half they were going on and on with their history lessons and not even paying attention to the game -- they didn't notice CO's first long TD until the guy was nearly in the endzone.    AAAHHHHhhhhhhrrrrgggg....  Now get off my lawn you kids, I've got some serious ranting to do....

[Row80Critic]

Please tell me he doesn't blame it on "execution" again.  You always hear about coaching staffs "coaching-up" their players.  Stanford seems to be coaching them down.  The best players stay only 3 seasons these days, yet Stanford has a playbook that takes 2 years to master.  That's just dumb and squanders talent.  Tua won the national championship as a true freshman.  Stanford would have had him in the library all year studying the playbook, with one or two 'package' plays they'd let him run every other game.  Tavita is a great guy, but obviously not ready to be OC at this level.  Defense isn't looking much better.  At least Jet got his leg back, but play calling forced him out there too much.  And those announcers today -- jeez almighty -- sorry Rod, but it was like listening to a Thanksgiving Day parade or national dog show or something.  At one point in the first half they were going on and on with their history lessons and not even paying attention to the game -- they didn't notice CO's first long TD until the guy was nearly in the endzone.    AAAHHHHhhhhhhrrrrgggg....  Now get off my lawn you kids, I've got some serious ranting to do....

[Phogge]

After the Antoine interception Gilmore said that Stanford had its first turnover of the year. I guess Damuni's fumble recovery and INT in Eugene don't count.

Gilmore went on TOS a few years ago and called out, in his words, "Haters." He made a racial thing out of a thread criticizing Shaw's play calling. I lost respect for him at that point. Once you get past Herbie and Fowler at ESPN you get minor leaguers.

[Phogge]

After the Antoine interception Gilmore said that Stanford had its first turnover of the year. I guess Damuni's fumble recovery and INT in Eugene don't count.

Gilmore went on TOS a few years ago and called out, in his words, "Haters." He made a racial thing out of a thread criticizing Shaw's play calling. I lost respect for him at that point. Once you get past Herbie and Fowler at ESPN you get minor leaguers.

[teejers1]

Please tell me he doesn't blame it on "execution" again.  You always hear about coaching staffs "coaching-up" their players.  Stanford seems to be coaching them down.  The best players stay only 3 seasons these days, yet Stanford has a playbook that takes 2 years to master.  That's just dumb and squanders talent.  Tua won the national championship as a true freshman.  Stanford would have had him in the library all year studying the playbook, with one or two 'package' plays they'd let him run every other game.  Tavita is a great guy, but obviously not ready to be OC at this level.  Defense isn't looking much better.  At least Jet got his leg back, but play calling forced him out there too much.  And those announcers today -- jeez almighty -- sorry Rod, but it was like listening to a Thanksgiving Day parade or national dog show or something.  At one point in the first half they were going on and on with their history lessons and not even paying attention to the game -- they didn't notice CO's first long TD until the guy was nearly in the endzone.    AAAHHHHhhhhhhrrrrgggg....  Now get off my lawn you kids, I've got some serious ranting to do....

1.  Buddy Teevens thought his offense was great, too, and that it was only an "execution" problem.  Delusional.  Shaw is right there with him now.

2.  If anyone, at any time, thought the knock on Shaw was racially based, then they're idiots (and I don't care where they went to school and/or if they played at Stanford).  This isn't a deep south fan base circa 1970.  Please.  In truth, the better question for those defending Shaw as an offensive play caller (let alone calling him a "great" coach) is this:  is it racial?

[teejers1]

Please tell me he doesn't blame it on "execution" again.  You always hear about coaching staffs "coaching-up" their players.  Stanford seems to be coaching them down.  The best players stay only 3 seasons these days, yet Stanford has a playbook that takes 2 years to master.  That's just dumb and squanders talent.  Tua won the national championship as a true freshman.  Stanford would have had him in the library all year studying the playbook, with one or two 'package' plays they'd let him run every other game.  Tavita is a great guy, but obviously not ready to be OC at this level.  Defense isn't looking much better.  At least Jet got his leg back, but play calling forced him out there too much.  And those announcers today -- jeez almighty -- sorry Rod, but it was like listening to a Thanksgiving Day parade or national dog show or something.  At one point in the first half they were going on and on with their history lessons and not even paying attention to the game -- they didn't notice CO's first long TD until the guy was nearly in the endzone.    AAAHHHHhhhhhhrrrrgggg....  Now get off my lawn you kids, I've got some serious ranting to do....

1.  Buddy Teevens thought his offense was great, too, and that it was only an "execution" problem.  Delusional.  Shaw is right there with him now.

2.  If anyone, at any time, thought the knock on Shaw was racially based, then they're idiots (and I don't care where they went to school and/or if they played at Stanford).  This isn't a deep south fan base circa 1970.  Please.  In truth, the better question for those defending Shaw as an offensive play caller (let alone calling him a "great" coach) is this:  is it racial?

[Maple Leaf]

Thank you to the individual who invented the mute button on the tv remote .

[Maple Leaf]

Thank you to the individual who invented the mute button on the tv remote .

[OutsiderFan]

 the better question for those defending Shaw as an offensive play caller (let alone calling him a "great" coach) is this:  is it racial?

It's just embarrassing to ask a question like this on the Cardboard.

[OutsiderFan]

 the better question for those defending Shaw as an offensive play caller (let alone calling him a "great" coach) is this:  is it racial?

It's just embarrassing to ask a question like this on the Cardboard.

[ADPinWDC]

How 'bout go get another OC and DC.  Fresh blood.   DO SOMETHING.  
BYU OC -- Jeff Grimes -- has them in the Top Ten Offensive stats (OK, versus BYU's schedule), at 45 points a game. 
Grimes was also on the Offensive coaching staff of the Auburn NatChamp team with Cam Newton, 2011.  
His offense uses the same kind of talent as we do; similar schemes.  Balanced Pass / Run; tilts to Pass.  
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7mQrULA2GY

---

How 'bout go get another OC and DC.  Fresh blood.   DO SOMETHING.  
BYU OC -- Jeff Grimes -- has them in the Top Ten Offensive stats (OK, versus BYU's schedule), at 45 points a game. 
Grimes was also on the Offensive coaching staff of the Auburn NatChamp team with Cam Newton, 2011.  
His offense uses the same kind of talent as we do; similar schemes.  Balanced Pass / Run; tilts to Pass.  BYU is 8-0.  
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7mQrULA2GY

[ADPinWDC]

How 'bout go get another OC and DC.  Fresh blood.   DO SOMETHING.  
BYU OC -- Jeff Grimes -- has them in the Top Ten Offensive stats (OK, versus BYU's schedule), at 45 points a game. 
Grimes was also on the Offensive coaching staff of the Auburn NatChamp team with Cam Newton, 2011.  
His offense uses the same kind of talent as we do; similar schemes.  Balanced Pass / Run; tilts to Pass.  
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7mQrULA2GY

---

How 'bout go get another OC and DC.  Fresh blood.   DO SOMETHING.  
BYU OC -- Jeff Grimes -- has them in the Top Ten Offensive stats (OK, versus BYU's schedule), at 45 points a game. 
Grimes was also on the Offensive coaching staff of the Auburn NatChamp team with Cam Newton, 2011.  
His offense uses the same kind of talent as we do; similar schemes.  Balanced Pass / Run; tilts to Pass.  BYU is 8-0.  
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7mQrULA2GY

[teejers1]

 the better question for those defending Shaw as an offensive play caller (let alone calling him a "great" coach) is this:  is it racial?

It's just embarrassing to ask a question like this on the Cardboard.

You being the arbiter of embarrassing commentary is rich.

But aside from that, if you're paying attention, the comment was in response to Gilmore supposedly saying that the Shaw detractors are "haters" who are racially motivated.  But I guess it is okay for Gilmore to so opine/speculate - and about you, I might add, given your commentary - but it's somehow verboten for me to turn that around on The Defenders?  Okay . . . fine, if that's your position. I disagree and believe my question is at least as valid as Gillmore's speculation.

[teejers1]

 the better question for those defending Shaw as an offensive play caller (let alone calling him a "great" coach) is this:  is it racial?

It's just embarrassing to ask a question like this on the Cardboard.

You being the arbiter of embarrassing commentary is rich.

But aside from that, if you're paying attention, the comment was in response to Gilmore supposedly saying that the Shaw detractors are "haters" who are racially motivated.  But I guess it is okay for Gilmore to so opine/speculate - and about you, I might add, given your commentary - but it's somehow verboten for me to turn that around on The Defenders?  Okay . . . fine, if that's your position. I disagree and believe my question is at least as valid as Gillmore's speculation.

[Madera86]

It's just embarrassing to ask a question like this on the Cardboard.
[/quote]

Aren't you the guy who was telling people that they would not be welcome if they didn't support taking a knee during the national anthem?

[Madera86]

It's just embarrassing to ask a question like this on the Cardboard.
[/quote]

Aren't you the guy who was telling people that they would not be welcome if they didn't support taking a knee during the national anthem?

[81alum]

I don't like the direction this thread is going.  It is one thing to say a game was poorly coached, and it is another to start attacking fellow Cardboard posters.    I prefer a community where the invective is directed at poor play or poor coaching and not at each other.  

For all the criticism of the offense, we did wind up scoring 32 points with a quarterback who had barely practiced.  Not a good enough effort when taken in context but it was not the most serious problem the team faces.  We gave up 35 points for the second week in a row.  We gave up 8/14 third down conversions after giving up 9/11 the previous week.  We had blown coverages galore.  That is a simply a recipe for a lot of losses.  If you don't count COVID testing, our most serious problems appear to be defensive. 

Now why our defense is so poor this year is a good question.  Is it recruiting, coaching, effort, scheme, execution, all of the above?

[81alum]

I don't like the direction this thread is going.  It is one thing to say a game was poorly coached, and it is another to start attacking fellow Cardboard posters.    I prefer a community where the invective is directed at poor play or poor coaching and not at each other.  

For all the criticism of the offense, we did wind up scoring 32 points with a quarterback who had barely practiced.  Not a good enough effort when taken in context but it was not the most serious problem the team faces.  We gave up 35 points for the second week in a row.  We gave up 8/14 third down conversions after giving up 9/11 the previous week.  We had blown coverages galore.  That is a simply a recipe for a lot of losses.  If you don't count COVID testing, our most serious problems appear to be defensive. 

Now why our defense is so poor this year is a good question.  Is it recruiting, coaching, effort, scheme, execution, all of the above?

[OutsiderFan]

First of all, I don't use the term "race" because it is a construct of white supremacists and broadcasts ignorance. There is ZERO difference between humans in terms of genome. There are obviously differences when it comes to genes in each individual human's genome, but that's it. Any attempt to separate people as one type or another is dangerous and has no place in an educated and civil society. This outdated and vile "race" construct facilitates what we call racism. The reality is people look how they look and are a product of their environments. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I call it white supremacy because this is what it is. So yes, asking if Stanford's football coach is fit based on his "race" is an offensive and disgusting thing to say. As for Rod Gilmore, he is just as wrong to be using David Shaw's appearance as some kind of a crutch to shield him from well deserved criticism as a head football coach. By asking the question, Gilmore's position is tacitly validated, as is the concept of race.

Not once have I seen or heard any Stanford fan criticize a coach because of what he or she looked like. So you asking the "race" question, teejers1 is the first example I have seen of anyone even bringing it up, which means you are validating the question.  Yes, disgusting.

[OutsiderFan]

First of all, I don't use the term "race" because it is a construct of white supremacists and broadcasts ignorance. There is ZERO difference between humans in terms of genome. There are obviously differences when it comes to genes in each individual human's genome, but that's it. Any attempt to separate people as one type or another is dangerous and has no place in an educated and civil society. This outdated and vile "race" construct facilitates what we call racism. The reality is people look how they look and are a product of their environments. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I call it white supremacy because this is what it is. So yes, asking if Stanford's football coach is fit based on his "race" is an offensive and disgusting thing to say. As for Rod Gilmore, he is just as wrong to be using David Shaw's appearance as some kind of a crutch to shield him from well deserved criticism as a head football coach. By asking the question, Gilmore's position is tacitly validated, as is the concept of race.

Not once have I seen or heard any Stanford fan criticize a coach because of what he or she looked like. So you asking the "race" question, teejers1 is the first example I have seen of anyone even bringing it up, which means you are validating the question.  Yes, disgusting.

[Phogge]

It’s lack of speed and the anointing of two ILB’s who cannot stay on the field. It’s arm tackling and not one player with a push who can pressure the QB. It may be scheme but in the end it’s probably too many players who can’t handle D1 football and that is on recruiting, admissions, coaching and a never will change policy of forbidding early admits, JC transfers and rescinding scholies to kids who will never contribute.

Kids play tempo for the most part in HS these days. Shaw’s playbook can’t really handle tempo and the OLB’s can’t handle the zone read. His reliance on tall receivers in the red zone telegraphs plays. You don’t have to hire Troy Taylor but there is no doubt that Stanford needs some outside juice on its staff. And how can anyone call Akina a great coach when Williamson loses his edge on coverage that turns a 12 yard gain into a 55 yard TD?

[Phogge]

It’s lack of speed and the anointing of two ILB’s who cannot stay on the field. It’s arm tackling and not one player with a push who can pressure the QB. It may be scheme but in the end it’s probably too many players who can’t handle D1 football and that is on recruiting, admissions, coaching and a never will change policy of forbidding early admits, JC transfers and rescinding scholies to kids who will never contribute.

Kids play tempo for the most part in HS these days. Shaw’s playbook can’t really handle tempo and the OLB’s can’t handle the zone read. His reliance on tall receivers in the red zone telegraphs plays. You don’t have to hire Troy Taylor but there is no doubt that Stanford needs some outside juice on its staff. And how can anyone call Akina a great coach when Williamson loses his edge on coverage that turns a 12 yard gain into a 55 yard TD?

[Austroturf]

It’s lack of speed and the anointing of two ILB’s who cannot stay on the field. It’s arm tackling and not one player with a push who can pressure the QB. It may be scheme but in the end it’s probably too many players who can’t handle D1 football and that is on recruiting, admissions, coaching and a never will change policy of forbidding early admits, JC transfers and rescinding scholies to kids who will never contribute.

Kids play tempo for the most part in HS these days. Shaw’s playbook can’t really handle tempo and the OLB’s can’t handle the zone read. His reliance on tall receivers in the red zone telegraphs plays. You don’t have to hire Troy Taylor but there is no doubt that Stanford needs some outside juice on its staff. And how can anyone call Akina a great coach when Williamson loses his edge on coverage that turns a 12 yard gain into a 55 yard TD?

Couldn't agree more.  The longer Shaw works with this "family-grown", less than star-studded staff, the further the team will sink into mediocrity and sub-mediocrity.  It was asked on another thread whether Shaw has the fire in his belly to engineer a turnaround.  Most decidedly not.  Shaw is a consensus man, striving for harmony within the team and on his staff, hoping to make everybody in the program and the university feel good.  That was all fine when he had the players and the coaches to win multiple trips to the Rose Bowl during the 2011-2015 years.  Not so anymore.  He is temperamentally NOT a turnaround, revolutionary type of individual, which is what the program needs right now.  That said, we could still have some great years under Shaw if had the guts to go out and hire some top coordinators to be the fire in the program that he lacks.  An individual with Shaw's character CAN be successful if he surrounds himself with the kind of staff that compensates for his liabilities.  So far, Shaw has been unwilling to take that step.  His stubbornness is legendary; and it is on full display in his choice of coordinators and assistant coaches.  Until there's a shift in this behavior, we will not see improvement.

[Austroturf]

It’s lack of speed and the anointing of two ILB’s who cannot stay on the field. It’s arm tackling and not one player with a push who can pressure the QB. It may be scheme but in the end it’s probably too many players who can’t handle D1 football and that is on recruiting, admissions, coaching and a never will change policy of forbidding early admits, JC transfers and rescinding scholies to kids who will never contribute.

Kids play tempo for the most part in HS these days. Shaw’s playbook can’t really handle tempo and the OLB’s can’t handle the zone read. His reliance on tall receivers in the red zone telegraphs plays. You don’t have to hire Troy Taylor but there is no doubt that Stanford needs some outside juice on its staff. And how can anyone call Akina a great coach when Williamson loses his edge on coverage that turns a 12 yard gain into a 55 yard TD?

Couldn't agree more.  The longer Shaw works with this "family-grown", less than star-studded staff, the further the team will sink into mediocrity and sub-mediocrity.  It was asked on another thread whether Shaw has the fire in his belly to engineer a turnaround.  Most decidedly not.  Shaw is a consensus man, striving for harmony within the team and on his staff, hoping to make everybody in the program and the university feel good.  That was all fine when he had the players and the coaches to win multiple trips to the Rose Bowl during the 2011-2015 years.  Not so anymore.  He is temperamentally NOT a turnaround, revolutionary type of individual, which is what the program needs right now.  That said, we could still have some great years under Shaw if had the guts to go out and hire some top coordinators to be the fire in the program that he lacks.  An individual with Shaw's character CAN be successful if he surrounds himself with the kind of staff that compensates for his liabilities.  So far, Shaw has been unwilling to take that step.  His stubbornness is legendary; and it is on full display in his choice of coordinators and assistant coaches.  Until there's a shift in this behavior, we will not see improvement.

[gailtate]

It’s lack of speed and the anointing of two ILB’s who cannot stay on the field. It’s arm tackling and not one player with a push who can pressure the QB. It may be scheme but in the end it’s probably too many players who can’t handle D1 football and that is on recruiting, admissions, coaching and a never will change policy of forbidding early admits, JC transfers and rescinding scholies to kids who will never contribute.

Kids play tempo for the most part in HS these days. Shaw’s playbook can’t really handle tempo and the OLB’s can’t handle the zone read. His reliance on tall receivers in the red zone telegraphs plays. You don’t have to hire Troy Taylor but there is no doubt that Stanford needs some outside juice on its staff. And how can anyone call Akina a great coach when Williamson loses his edge on coverage that turns a 12 yard gain into a 55 yard TD?

Couldn't agree more.  The longer Shaw works with this "family-grown", less than star-studded staff, the further the team will sink into mediocrity and sub-mediocrity.  It was asked on another thread whether Shaw has the fire in his belly to engineer a turnaround.  Most decidedly not.  Shaw is a consensus man, striving for harmony within the team and on his staff, hoping to make everybody in the program and the university feel good.  That was all fine when he had the players and the coaches to win multiple trips to the Rose Bowl during the 2011-2015 years.  Not so anymore.  He is temperamentally NOT a turnaround, revolutionary type of individual, which is what the program needs right now.  That said, we could still have some great years under Shaw if had the guts to go out and hire some top coordinators to be the fire in the program that he lacks.  An individual with Shaw's character CAN be successful if he surrounds himself with the kind of staff that compensates for his liabilities.  So far, Shaw has been unwilling to take that step.  His stubbornness is legendary; and it is on full display in his choice of coordinators and assistant coaches.  Until there's a shift in this behavior, we will not see improvement.

No evidence whatsoever--NONE--in any "shift in behavior". I repeat what I posted elsewhere: We ain't hit bottom yet. Truly depressing. To loosely paraphrase one of my least favorite U.S. Senators last year: Shaw persists.

[gailtate]

It’s lack of speed and the anointing of two ILB’s who cannot stay on the field. It’s arm tackling and not one player with a push who can pressure the QB. It may be scheme but in the end it’s probably too many players who can’t handle D1 football and that is on recruiting, admissions, coaching and a never will change policy of forbidding early admits, JC transfers and rescinding scholies to kids who will never contribute.

Kids play tempo for the most part in HS these days. Shaw’s playbook can’t really handle tempo and the OLB’s can’t handle the zone read. His reliance on tall receivers in the red zone telegraphs plays. You don’t have to hire Troy Taylor but there is no doubt that Stanford needs some outside juice on its staff. And how can anyone call Akina a great coach when Williamson loses his edge on coverage that turns a 12 yard gain into a 55 yard TD?

Couldn't agree more.  The longer Shaw works with this "family-grown", less than star-studded staff, the further the team will sink into mediocrity and sub-mediocrity.  It was asked on another thread whether Shaw has the fire in his belly to engineer a turnaround.  Most decidedly not.  Shaw is a consensus man, striving for harmony within the team and on his staff, hoping to make everybody in the program and the university feel good.  That was all fine when he had the players and the coaches to win multiple trips to the Rose Bowl during the 2011-2015 years.  Not so anymore.  He is temperamentally NOT a turnaround, revolutionary type of individual, which is what the program needs right now.  That said, we could still have some great years under Shaw if had the guts to go out and hire some top coordinators to be the fire in the program that he lacks.  An individual with Shaw's character CAN be successful if he surrounds himself with the kind of staff that compensates for his liabilities.  So far, Shaw has been unwilling to take that step.  His stubbornness is legendary; and it is on full display in his choice of coordinators and assistant coaches.  Until there's a shift in this behavior, we will not see improvement.

No evidence whatsoever--NONE--in any "shift in behavior". I repeat what I posted elsewhere: We ain't hit bottom yet. Truly depressing. To loosely paraphrase one of my least favorite U.S. Senators last year: Shaw persists.

[pcgoode]

Looking at the schedule and considering how we played in the first two games, I don’t think it is out of the question that Stanford goes winless this year. If that comes to pass, combined with such a poor season last year, it’s hard for me to see how the program can continue with the strategy and coaching personnel that have gotten us to this point. I know I won’t continue buying seasons tickets or even spending time watching the team anymore if this continues. It is sad to see the downward drift of the team from what was not too long ago a dominant program.

[pcgoode]

Looking at the schedule and considering how we played in the first two games, I don’t think it is out of the question that Stanford goes winless this year. If that comes to pass, combined with such a poor season last year, it’s hard for me to see how the program can continue with the strategy and coaching personnel that have gotten us to this point. I know I won’t continue buying seasons tickets or even spending time watching the team anymore if this continues. It is sad to see the downward drift of the team from what was not too long ago a dominant program.

[winflop]

Looking at the schedule and considering how we played in the first two games, I don’t think it is out of the question that Stanford goes winless this year. If that comes to pass, combined with such a poor season last year, it’s hard for me to see how the program can continue with the strategy and coaching personnel that have gotten us to this point. I know I won’t continue buying seasons tickets or even spending time watching the team anymore if this continues. It is sad to see the downward drift of the team from what was not too long ago a dominant program.

I kept my season tickets through the years of IdiotFace and HeWhoMustNotBeNamed, which were far far worse than this. 2-4 is probably the best this team will do and that should be enough to make the case for significant coaching changes. Shaw's not going to be fired, but if he isn't willing to make big changes in his staff then his job should be on the line next year.

I'm sure Muir and Shaw are going to offer a slew of COVID-related excuses, but Stanford's challenges were not substantially different from any other Pac-12 program. Some programs, like Colorado, had greater challenges and are performing better.

[winflop]

Looking at the schedule and considering how we played in the first two games, I don’t think it is out of the question that Stanford goes winless this year. If that comes to pass, combined with such a poor season last year, it’s hard for me to see how the program can continue with the strategy and coaching personnel that have gotten us to this point. I know I won’t continue buying seasons tickets or even spending time watching the team anymore if this continues. It is sad to see the downward drift of the team from what was not too long ago a dominant program.

I kept my season tickets through the years of IdiotFace and HeWhoMustNotBeNamed, which were far far worse than this. 2-4 is probably the best this team will do and that should be enough to make the case for significant coaching changes. Shaw's not going to be fired, but if he isn't willing to make big changes in his staff then his job should be on the line next year.

I'm sure Muir and Shaw are going to offer a slew of COVID-related excuses, but Stanford's challenges were not substantially different from any other Pac-12 program. Some programs, like Colorado, had greater challenges and are performing better.

[cardcrimson]

If. . . .

Was in the car listening to the game when I screamed at the radio. My 14 year old chastised me, that I get more upset at Stanford football than I do at any of her games. I replied, "that's because you guys don't do idiotic things like decide to go for it on fourth and one from the five, then end up taking a delay of game penalty because you couldn't run a play on time".

Wonder if those four points could have made a difference. . . .

[cardcrimson]

If. . . .

Was in the car listening to the game when I screamed at the radio. My 14 year old chastised me, that I get more upset at Stanford football than I do at any of her games. I replied, "that's because you guys don't do idiotic things like decide to go for it on fourth and one from the five, then end up taking a delay of game penalty because you couldn't run a play on time".

Wonder if those four points could have made a difference. . . .

[lex24]

If. . . .

Was in the car listening to the game when I screamed at the radio. My 14 year old chastised me, that I get more upset at Stanford football than I do at any of her games. I replied, "that's because you guys don't do idiotic things like decide to go for it on fourth and one from the five, then end up taking a delay of game penalty because you couldn't run a play on time".

Wonder if those four points could have made a difference. . . .

Yep.  Inexcusable.  Not just four points.  They should have had 20 at the half.  Just awful first half offensively.  Mills rust hurt.  Bad play calls, clock management hurt more.  Plus what happened to o-line?

---

Looking at the schedule and considering how we played in the first two games, I don’t think it is out of the question that Stanford goes winless this year. If that comes to pass, combined with such a poor season last year, it’s hard for me to see how the program can continue with the strategy and coaching personnel that have gotten us to this point. I know I won’t continue buying seasons tickets or even spending time watching the team anymore if this continues. It is sad to see the downward drift of the team from what was not too long ago a dominant program.

I kept my season tickets through the years of IdiotFace and HeWhoMustNotBeNamed, which were far far worse than this. 2-4 is probably the best this team will do and that should be enough to make the case for significant coaching changes. Shaw's not going to be fired, but if he isn't willing to make big changes in his staff then his job should be on the line next year.

I'm sure Muir and Shaw are going to offer a slew of COVID-related excuses, but Stanford's challenges were not substantially different from any other Pac-12 program. Some programs, like Colorado, had greater challenges and are performing better.

The Mills thing DID make a big difference.  And it shouldn’t have happened.  It hurt Stanford early.  He was rusty.  Still. This is a game they should win.  And but for the first half kludterf—s they would have. Two on the offensive side were inexcusable - putting a QB in for his first play on 3d and 1.  He had plenty of time to get snap off.  But he never should have been out there.  Second, of course is the 4th and 1 DOG.  Lots of other problems.  But those two stood out to me. M

[lex24]

If. . . .

Was in the car listening to the game when I screamed at the radio. My 14 year old chastised me, that I get more upset at Stanford football than I do at any of her games. I replied, "that's because you guys don't do idiotic things like decide to go for it on fourth and one from the five, then end up taking a delay of game penalty because you couldn't run a play on time".

Wonder if those four points could have made a difference. . . .

Yep.  Inexcusable.  Not just four points.  They should have had 20 at the half.  Just awful first half offensively.  Mills rust hurt.  Bad play calls, clock management hurt more.  Plus what happened to o-line?

---

Looking at the schedule and considering how we played in the first two games, I don’t think it is out of the question that Stanford goes winless this year. If that comes to pass, combined with such a poor season last year, it’s hard for me to see how the program can continue with the strategy and coaching personnel that have gotten us to this point. I know I won’t continue buying seasons tickets or even spending time watching the team anymore if this continues. It is sad to see the downward drift of the team from what was not too long ago a dominant program.

I kept my season tickets through the years of IdiotFace and HeWhoMustNotBeNamed, which were far far worse than this. 2-4 is probably the best this team will do and that should be enough to make the case for significant coaching changes. Shaw's not going to be fired, but if he isn't willing to make big changes in his staff then his job should be on the line next year.

I'm sure Muir and Shaw are going to offer a slew of COVID-related excuses, but Stanford's challenges were not substantially different from any other Pac-12 program. Some programs, like Colorado, had greater challenges and are performing better.

The Mills thing DID make a big difference.  And it shouldn’t have happened.  It hurt Stanford early.  He was rusty.  Still. This is a game they should win.  And but for the first half kludterf—s they would have. Two on the offensive side were inexcusable - putting a QB in for his first play on 3d and 1.  He had plenty of time to get snap off.  But he never should have been out there.  Second, of course is the 4th and 1 DOG.  Lots of other problems.  But those two stood out to me. M

[Mick]

First of all, I don't use the term "race" because it is a construct of white supremacists and broadcasts ignorance. There is ZERO difference between humans in terms of genome. There are obviously differences when it comes to genes in each individual human's genome, but that's it. Any attempt to separate people as one type or another is dangerous and has no place in an educated and civil society. This outdated and vile "race" construct facilitates what we call racism. The reality is people look how they look and are a product of their environments. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Yup, completely agree.  I read this article a few years ago in National Geographic.  I thought it was an excellent summary of humanity's origins in Africa, the subsequent diaspora and the fact that the greatest disparity in human genes exists in Africa between various Africans (and not between Africans and non-Africans), simply because humans have been in Africa considerably longer than any other place.  To quote the article, "There's more diversity in Africa than in all other continents combined."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magaz...ce-africa/

[Mick]

First of all, I don't use the term "race" because it is a construct of white supremacists and broadcasts ignorance. There is ZERO difference between humans in terms of genome. There are obviously differences when it comes to genes in each individual human's genome, but that's it. Any attempt to separate people as one type or another is dangerous and has no place in an educated and civil society. This outdated and vile "race" construct facilitates what we call racism. The reality is people look how they look and are a product of their environments. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Yup, completely agree.  I read this article a few years ago in National Geographic.  I thought it was an excellent summary of humanity's origins in Africa, the subsequent diaspora and the fact that the greatest disparity in human genes exists in Africa between various Africans (and not between Africans and non-Africans), simply because humans have been in Africa considerably longer than any other place.  To quote the article, "There's more diversity in Africa than in all other continents combined."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magaz...ce-africa/

[lex24]

Please tell me he doesn't blame it on "execution" again.  You always hear about coaching staffs "coaching-up" their players.  Stanford seems to be coaching them down.  The best players stay only 3 seasons these days, yet Stanford has a playbook that takes 2 years to master.  That's just dumb and squanders talent.  Tua won the national championship as a true freshman.  Stanford would have had him in the library all year studying the playbook, with one or two 'package' plays they'd let him run every other game.  Tavita is a great guy, but obviously not ready to be OC at this level.  Defense isn't looking much better.  At least Jet got his leg back, but play calling forced him out there too much.  And those announcers today -- jeez almighty -- sorry Rod, but it was like listening to a Thanksgiving Day parade or national dog show or something.  At one point in the first half they were going on and on with their history lessons and not even paying attention to the game -- they didn't notice CO's first long TD until the guy was nearly in the endzone.    AAAHHHHhhhhhhrrrrgggg....  Now get off my lawn you kids, I've got some serious ranting to do....

Not arguing with you except - of course some of it IS execution.  But when a team consistently fails to execute - that’s on the coaching staff.  In fact to me, that’s a bigger indicator of coaching shortcomings than what was called on 3d and 2.  So I’ve never understood why blaming things on poor execution is giving the staff (any staff) a break. Particularly when it’s a recurring problem.

[lex24]

Please tell me he doesn't blame it on "execution" again.  You always hear about coaching staffs "coaching-up" their players.  Stanford seems to be coaching them down.  The best players stay only 3 seasons these days, yet Stanford has a playbook that takes 2 years to master.  That's just dumb and squanders talent.  Tua won the national championship as a true freshman.  Stanford would have had him in the library all year studying the playbook, with one or two 'package' plays they'd let him run every other game.  Tavita is a great guy, but obviously not ready to be OC at this level.  Defense isn't looking much better.  At least Jet got his leg back, but play calling forced him out there too much.  And those announcers today -- jeez almighty -- sorry Rod, but it was like listening to a Thanksgiving Day parade or national dog show or something.  At one point in the first half they were going on and on with their history lessons and not even paying attention to the game -- they didn't notice CO's first long TD until the guy was nearly in the endzone.    AAAHHHHhhhhhhrrrrgggg....  Now get off my lawn you kids, I've got some serious ranting to do....

Not arguing with you except - of course some of it IS execution.  But when a team consistently fails to execute - that’s on the coaching staff.  In fact to me, that’s a bigger indicator of coaching shortcomings than what was called on 3d and 2.  So I’ve never understood why blaming things on poor execution is giving the staff (any staff) a break. Particularly when it’s a recurring problem.

[Row80Critic]

Please tell me he doesn't blame it on "execution" again.  You always hear about coaching staffs "coaching-up" their players.  Stanford seems to be coaching them down.  The best players stay only 3 seasons these days, yet Stanford has a playbook that takes 2 years to master.  That's just dumb and squanders talent.  Tua won the national championship as a true freshman.  Stanford would have had him in the library all year studying the playbook, with one or two 'package' plays they'd let him run every other game.  Tavita is a great guy, but obviously not ready to be OC at this level.  Defense isn't looking much better.  At least Jet got his leg back, but play calling forced him out there too much.  And those announcers today -- jeez almighty -- sorry Rod, but it was like listening to a Thanksgiving Day parade or national dog show or something.  At one point in the first half they were going on and on with their history lessons and not even paying attention to the game -- they didn't notice CO's first long TD until the guy was nearly in the endzone.    AAAHHHHhhhhhhrrrrgggg....  Now get off my lawn you kids, I've got some serious ranting to do....

Not arguing with you except - of course some of it IS execution.  But when a team consistently fails to execute - that’s on the coaching staff.  In fact to me, that’s a bigger indicator of coaching shortcomings than what was called on 3d and 2.  So I’ve never understood why blaming things on poor execution is giving the staff (any staff) a break. Particularly when it’s a recurring problem.

Totally agree with that.  But I don't get the sense Stanford's coaching staff is thinking that way when they say it.  It always comes across to me as finger-pointing and blaming the students.  "I know what I'm doing. I've coached in the NFL.  We just need to execute better."  Hard to me to hear that any other way.  Shaw may well be exactly the right "representative" for Stanford and its football program, and that's fine, but he needs to pull a Brian Kelly and get some top-notch coaching help, or even Shaw will finally wear out his welcome.  In fact, you wonder how long he'll even want to do this if things keep going in the same direction.

[Row80Critic]

Please tell me he doesn't blame it on "execution" again.  You always hear about coaching staffs "coaching-up" their players.  Stanford seems to be coaching them down.  The best players stay only 3 seasons these days, yet Stanford has a playbook that takes 2 years to master.  That's just dumb and squanders talent.  Tua won the national championship as a true freshman.  Stanford would have had him in the library all year studying the playbook, with one or two 'package' plays they'd let him run every other game.  Tavita is a great guy, but obviously not ready to be OC at this level.  Defense isn't looking much better.  At least Jet got his leg back, but play calling forced him out there too much.  And those announcers today -- jeez almighty -- sorry Rod, but it was like listening to a Thanksgiving Day parade or national dog show or something.  At one point in the first half they were going on and on with their history lessons and not even paying attention to the game -- they didn't notice CO's first long TD until the guy was nearly in the endzone.    AAAHHHHhhhhhhrrrrgggg....  Now get off my lawn you kids, I've got some serious ranting to do....

Not arguing with you except - of course some of it IS execution.  But when a team consistently fails to execute - that’s on the coaching staff.  In fact to me, that’s a bigger indicator of coaching shortcomings than what was called on 3d and 2.  So I’ve never understood why blaming things on poor execution is giving the staff (any staff) a break. Particularly when it’s a recurring problem.

Totally agree with that.  But I don't get the sense Stanford's coaching staff is thinking that way when they say it.  It always comes across to me as finger-pointing and blaming the students.  "I know what I'm doing. I've coached in the NFL.  We just need to execute better."  Hard to me to hear that any other way.  Shaw may well be exactly the right "representative" for Stanford and its football program, and that's fine, but he needs to pull a Brian Kelly and get some top-notch coaching help, or even Shaw will finally wear out his welcome.  In fact, you wonder how long he'll even want to do this if things keep going in the same direction.