[OutsiderFan]

These are some shockingly disparate stats for Stanford's Offense and Defense:


                          Offense    Defense
Rushing              92nd          3rd
Pass Efficiency      103rd        18th
3rd downs            111th        4th
Total Yards            105th        24th
Scoring                73rd          21st

For David Shaw to say the idea of changing QBs is asinine suggests any asininity going on is his own, because the QB is most responsible for the atrocious stats under the Offense column.  Ruling out any option available to improve the Offense (including changing QBs) when you have such a great Defense, that is what is truly asinine.

[OutsiderFan]

These are some shockingly disparate stats for Stanford's Offense and Defense:


                          Offense    Defense
Rushing              92nd          3rd
Pass Efficiency      103rd        18th
3rd downs            111th        4th
Total Yards            105th        24th
Scoring                73rd          21st

For David Shaw to say the idea of changing QBs is asinine suggests any asininity going on is his own, because the QB is most responsible for the atrocious stats under the Offense column.  Ruling out any option available to improve the Offense (including changing QBs) when you have such a great Defense, that is what is truly asinine.

[jayasena]

I don't know that we should get so hung up on Shaw's public comments on this. It's not uncommon at all for coaches to insist "no change" right up until they make the change. I'm certainly not saying Shaw will make a QB switch anytime soon, just that public denials from coaches often  mean very little.

[jayasena]

I don't know that we should get so hung up on Shaw's public comments on this. It's not uncommon at all for coaches to insist "no change" right up until they make the change. I'm certainly not saying Shaw will make a QB switch anytime soon, just that public denials from coaches often  mean very little.

[needle]

It's scary that points performance has way outperformed what you'd expect from yardage gained.

In other words, Stanford has been "lucky" (in reality, it has to do with defense and special teams) to score as many points as this team has.

[needle]

It's scary that points performance has way outperformed what you'd expect from yardage gained.

In other words, Stanford has been "lucky" (in reality, it has to do with defense and special teams) to score as many points as this team has.

[OutsiderFan]

It's scary that points performance has way outperformed what you'd expect from yardage gained.

In other words, Stanford has been "lucky" (in reality, it has to do with defense and special teams) to score as many points as this team has.

Well, if you take away 21 points as a result of ST and Defensive scores, Stanford is 107th in points scored.  That should make it more symmetrical.  ;)

[OutsiderFan]

It's scary that points performance has way outperformed what you'd expect from yardage gained.

In other words, Stanford has been "lucky" (in reality, it has to do with defense and special teams) to score as many points as this team has.

Well, if you take away 21 points as a result of ST and Defensive scores, Stanford is 107th in points scored.  That should make it more symmetrical.  ;)

[Farm93]

I don't know that we should get so hung up on Shaw's public comments on this. It's not uncommon at all for coaches to insist "no change" right up until they make the change. I'm certainly not saying Shaw will make a QB switch anytime soon, just that public denials from coaches often  mean very little.

Yep!  Just like the owners that assure the media with head coach endorsements.  We all know those endorsements are often follow up with firings a few weeks later.  The reality is the truth does not actually need to be disclosed to the media during press conferences.

I am sure Shaw is very concerned about Nunes and the offense, but it does absolutely no good to talk about that in front of the local media.  I would expect Shaw to say things are OK and will get better even if the team was 0-4.  It is part of the media dance that coaches must complete.  It is also a dance that does not really help improve the on field performance.  So just say all the nice things and get out of the room.

[Farm93]

I don't know that we should get so hung up on Shaw's public comments on this. It's not uncommon at all for coaches to insist "no change" right up until they make the change. I'm certainly not saying Shaw will make a QB switch anytime soon, just that public denials from coaches often  mean very little.

Yep!  Just like the owners that assure the media with head coach endorsements.  We all know those endorsements are often follow up with firings a few weeks later.  The reality is the truth does not actually need to be disclosed to the media during press conferences.

I am sure Shaw is very concerned about Nunes and the offense, but it does absolutely no good to talk about that in front of the local media.  I would expect Shaw to say things are OK and will get better even if the team was 0-4.  It is part of the media dance that coaches must complete.  It is also a dance that does not really help improve the on field performance.  So just say all the nice things and get out of the room.

[yvonne]

I don't know. Calling the fan base asinine sounds like he's pretty resolute. Let's just hope for the best one way or the other.

[yvonne]

I don't know. Calling the fan base asinine sounds like he's pretty resolute. Let's just hope for the best one way or the other.

[StannyBoy]

I agree you don't pull a Kiffin and bash your starting QB after a bad game, but Shaw seems to be very stubborn so it worries me he's going to ride Nunes for awhile even if he stays at the same performance level. But Nunes has looked terrible as in not a starting PAC 12 QB. That worries me. No other QB in the PAC 12 is even close to has bad as Nunes. I will be shocked if he turns things around.

[StannyBoy]

I agree you don't pull a Kiffin and bash your starting QB after a bad game, but Shaw seems to be very stubborn so it worries me he's going to ride Nunes for awhile even if he stays at the same performance level. But Nunes has looked terrible as in not a starting PAC 12 QB. That worries me. No other QB in the PAC 12 is even close to has bad as Nunes. I will be shocked if he turns things around.

[fullmetal]

Nunes has had at least a couple of bad games.  But if he stops grounding the ball two yards from his fullback against Arizona (and if Stanford beats Arizona), I'd be willing to sit on this really uncomfortable fence some more.

[fullmetal]

Nunes has had at least a couple of bad games.  But if he stops grounding the ball two yards from his fullback against Arizona (and if Stanford beats Arizona), I'd be willing to sit on this really uncomfortable fence some more.

[OutsiderFan]

While I agree it is true that what a coach says in a press conference is not necessarily indicative of what decisions he will make, this Shaw case is a little different, IMO.

It's one thing to say you won't field questions on a certain topic and quite another to go out of your way to suggest if anyone thinks the topic is important they are asinine.  That's pretty strong language from a leadership position.  What does Shaw have to gain by making such a strident remark?  It seems to me all he does is position himself to look foolish in the event Nunes continues playing poorly. 

Why not leave it at "I'm not going to entertain any questions about the starting quarterback changing.  If it happens I will let you know.  Until then, there will be no change."

At least that way you don't come off as defensive and dismissive.  That's not a good trait to display, especially when what is being seemingly dismissed is something so visibly awful to everyone paying attention, and for whom the press conference exists to engage.  If you care so little about how things are perceived, why even bother having a press conference?

[OutsiderFan]

While I agree it is true that what a coach says in a press conference is not necessarily indicative of what decisions he will make, this Shaw case is a little different, IMO.

It's one thing to say you won't field questions on a certain topic and quite another to go out of your way to suggest if anyone thinks the topic is important they are asinine.  That's pretty strong language from a leadership position.  What does Shaw have to gain by making such a strident remark?  It seems to me all he does is position himself to look foolish in the event Nunes continues playing poorly. 

Why not leave it at "I'm not going to entertain any questions about the starting quarterback changing.  If it happens I will let you know.  Until then, there will be no change."

At least that way you don't come off as defensive and dismissive.  That's not a good trait to display, especially when what is being seemingly dismissed is something so visibly awful to everyone paying attention, and for whom the press conference exists to engage.  If you care so little about how things are perceived, why even bother having a press conference?

[FarmBoy]

What's really interesting, is how the team has essentially become a mirror image of itself over the course of 4 years.

As a point of comparison, here's Stanford Ranks in 2009

                          Offense      Defense
Scoring              11              69
Rushing              11              55
Pass Effic            30              98
3rd down effic    23              96

The only difference is that our current offense is far worse than our 2009 defense was, while our current defense is ranked similar to our 2009 offense. On the whole, you'd have to say that's a net loss for the team. But the question is, which combination is more likely to lead to more wins? As a fan, I'll generally take a great offense with a crappy defense over the crappy offense with a great defense. Losing games 17-13 are, generally speaking, more depressing than losing games 42-38.

[FarmBoy]

What's really interesting, is how the team has essentially become a mirror image of itself over the course of 4 years.

As a point of comparison, here's Stanford Ranks in 2009

                          Offense      Defense
Scoring              11              69
Rushing              11              55
Pass Effic            30              98
3rd down effic    23              96

The only difference is that our current offense is far worse than our 2009 defense was, while our current defense is ranked similar to our 2009 offense. On the whole, you'd have to say that's a net loss for the team. But the question is, which combination is more likely to lead to more wins? As a fan, I'll generally take a great offense with a crappy defense over the crappy offense with a great defense. Losing games 17-13 are, generally speaking, more depressing than losing games 42-38.

[Farm93]

While I agree it is true that what a coach says in a press conference is not necessarily indicative of what decisions he will make, this Shaw case is a little different, IMO.

It's one thing to say you won't field questions on a certain topic and quite another to go out of your way to suggest if anyone thinks the topic is important they are asinine.  That's pretty strong language from a leadership position.  What does Shaw have to gain by making such a strident remark?  It seems to me all he does is position himself to look foolish in the event Nunes continues playing poorly. 

Why not leave it at "I'm not going to entertain any questions about the starting quarterback changing.  If it happens I will let you know.  Until then, there will be no change."

At least that way you don't come off as defensive and dismissive.  That's not a good trait to display, especially when what is being seemingly dismissed is something so visibly awful to everyone paying attention, and for whom the press conference exists to engage.  If you care so little about how things are perceived, why even bother having a press conference?

That's like saying, "No Comment".  In today's blog and twitter worlds people eat that up.  No, if you really want to not talk about it you need to say that any questions on that subject are outrageous. 

[Farm93]

While I agree it is true that what a coach says in a press conference is not necessarily indicative of what decisions he will make, this Shaw case is a little different, IMO.

It's one thing to say you won't field questions on a certain topic and quite another to go out of your way to suggest if anyone thinks the topic is important they are asinine.  That's pretty strong language from a leadership position.  What does Shaw have to gain by making such a strident remark?  It seems to me all he does is position himself to look foolish in the event Nunes continues playing poorly. 

Why not leave it at "I'm not going to entertain any questions about the starting quarterback changing.  If it happens I will let you know.  Until then, there will be no change."

At least that way you don't come off as defensive and dismissive.  That's not a good trait to display, especially when what is being seemingly dismissed is something so visibly awful to everyone paying attention, and for whom the press conference exists to engage.  If you care so little about how things are perceived, why even bother having a press conference?

That's like saying, "No Comment".  In today's blog and twitter worlds people eat that up.  No, if you really want to not talk about it you need to say that any questions on that subject are outrageous. 

[Farm93]

Oh, BTW
Why have a press conference?
Because they are required by their conference and/or the school to hold them to promote the school and team.  I can assure you that almost every coach in the country would prefer to not have a press conference if that was an option.

Also do you really believe the coaches want to chat with the sideline reporter at halftime?  That's another contractual obligation filled with partial truths at best.  My favorites are the conversations between the sideline reporter and the coaches of teams down by 3 or 4 TDs at half.  Those are classics because you know the coach's words to the team were a little different.

[Farm93]

Oh, BTW
Why have a press conference?
Because they are required by their conference and/or the school to hold them to promote the school and team.  I can assure you that almost every coach in the country would prefer to not have a press conference if that was an option.

Also do you really believe the coaches want to chat with the sideline reporter at halftime?  That's another contractual obligation filled with partial truths at best.  My favorites are the conversations between the sideline reporter and the coaches of teams down by 3 or 4 TDs at half.  Those are classics because you know the coach's words to the team were a little different.

[Hank 91]

This is an actual question, not a rhetorical one. Do we think Shaw was calling the fan base asinine? My feeling was this was directed at the media, since I doubt he's lurking around the CardBoard. I think he was probably tired of answering questions about it. Like most head coaches, I don't think he likes being asked about decisions he's made.

[Hank 91]

This is an actual question, not a rhetorical one. Do we think Shaw was calling the fan base asinine? My feeling was this was directed at the media, since I doubt he's lurking around the CardBoard. I think he was probably tired of answering questions about it. Like most head coaches, I don't think he likes being asked about decisions he's made.

[washingtonismoney]

He was calling the questions rather than the questioners asinine.

[washingtonismoney]

He was calling the questions rather than the questioners asinine.

[OutsiderFan]

All I can say is this weekend showed why College Football is so compelling, and why more than four teams are needed in a playoff...

I don't know if I've ever seen a team reverse its fortunes in terms of unit performance from week-to-week as Stanford's Offense and Defense from last week to this week.  Nobody would have believed the script.  This is why truth is often called stranger than fiction.

Stanford, California, UCLA, Arizona, Ohio State, Florida State, Georgia, Northwestern, all put out baffling performances in terms of what was expected from them based on what they had demonstrated year to date. 

Nunes and Maynard put up stats that make it look like they don't even belong on scholarship in one week, to lighting it up the next.  Georgia is hammered 35-7 by South Carolina.  Florida State blows a 16-0 halftime lead.  Ohio State puts up 60+ points.  Unbeaten Northwestern falls at Penn State. 

Arizona was shutout at Oregon this year.  That doesn't make any sense at all, considering a WSU team that put up 26 on the Ducks scored 6 at Oregon State. 

[OutsiderFan]

All I can say is this weekend showed why College Football is so compelling, and why more than four teams are needed in a playoff...

I don't know if I've ever seen a team reverse its fortunes in terms of unit performance from week-to-week as Stanford's Offense and Defense from last week to this week.  Nobody would have believed the script.  This is why truth is often called stranger than fiction.

Stanford, California, UCLA, Arizona, Ohio State, Florida State, Georgia, Northwestern, all put out baffling performances in terms of what was expected from them based on what they had demonstrated year to date. 

Nunes and Maynard put up stats that make it look like they don't even belong on scholarship in one week, to lighting it up the next.  Georgia is hammered 35-7 by South Carolina.  Florida State blows a 16-0 halftime lead.  Ohio State puts up 60+ points.  Unbeaten Northwestern falls at Penn State. 

Arizona was shutout at Oregon this year.  That doesn't make any sense at all, considering a WSU team that put up 26 on the Ducks scored 6 at Oregon State.