[Leftcoast]

Please don't let this be the point where the Cardboard descends into the bi-polar mood swings so common elsewhere.

No, the coach who has taken us to three straight BCS bowls is not an idiot.  No, he did not have money on the other team and no, this wasn't the worst coaching job in football history.

In fact, we were in a position to score and win with 3 minutes left in a game where the opponent had outplayed us for the better part of three quarters.  What this game exposed was not an idiot coach (can't believe Shaw should need to be defended in a Cardinal forum ) but the same deficiencies we've had all season - No intermediate passing game, no dual threat TE, an inability to move the ball when the passing game is shut down.

Take a deep breath and enjoy your 11-3 team and NFL coveted coaching staff.

Get a grip guys!

[Leftcoast]

Please don't let this be the point where the Cardboard descends into the bi-polar mood swings so common elsewhere.

No, the coach who has taken us to three straight BCS bowls is not an idiot.  No, he did not have money on the other team and no, this wasn't the worst coaching job in football history.

In fact, we were in a position to score and win with 3 minutes left in a game where the opponent had outplayed us for the better part of three quarters.  What this game exposed was not an idiot coach (can't believe Shaw should need to be defended in a Cardinal forum ) but the same deficiencies we've had all season - No intermediate passing game, no dual threat TE, an inability to move the ball when the passing game is shut down.

Take a deep breath and enjoy your 11-3 team and NFL coveted coaching staff.

Get a grip guys!

[JeffInCorvallis]

I'd like to keep David Shaw, Derek Mason, and the rest of the staff, thanks very much.  Have you people forgotten already about the boneheads we had coaching before Harbaugh arrived?

[JeffInCorvallis]

I'd like to keep David Shaw, Derek Mason, and the rest of the staff, thanks very much.  Have you people forgotten already about the boneheads we had coaching before Harbaugh arrived?

[dnsuperstar]

Please don't let this be the point where the Cardboard descends into the bi-polar mood swings so common elsewhere.

No, the coach who has taken us to three straight BCS bowls is not an idiot.  No, he did not have money on the other team and no, this wasn't the worst coaching job in football history.

In fact, we were in a position to score and win with 3 minutes left in a game where the opponent had outplayed us for the better part of three quarters.  What this game exposed was not an idiot coach (can't believe Shaw should need to be defended in a Cardinal forum ) but the same deficiencies we've had all season - No intermediate passing game, no dual threat TE, an inability to move the ball when the passing game is shut down.

Take a deep breath and enjoy your 11-3 team and NFL coveted coaching staff.

Get a grip guys!

totally disagree. for the most part all coaches are idiots. think about it. youre a Stanford grad.. or a grad of any university. yet you cant out think some imbecile coach? that's laughable. theyre idiots for the most part. I played the game for 6 years. heres a little secret. its all about beating the guy in front of you. its that simple. yet all you hear about is some genius coach making the difference. what a joke. the only thing a coach can do is screw up a game. that's what shaw did it was beyond stupid I don't know really what to call it.

[dnsuperstar]

Please don't let this be the point where the Cardboard descends into the bi-polar mood swings so common elsewhere.

No, the coach who has taken us to three straight BCS bowls is not an idiot.  No, he did not have money on the other team and no, this wasn't the worst coaching job in football history.

In fact, we were in a position to score and win with 3 minutes left in a game where the opponent had outplayed us for the better part of three quarters.  What this game exposed was not an idiot coach (can't believe Shaw should need to be defended in a Cardinal forum ) but the same deficiencies we've had all season - No intermediate passing game, no dual threat TE, an inability to move the ball when the passing game is shut down.

Take a deep breath and enjoy your 11-3 team and NFL coveted coaching staff.

Get a grip guys!

totally disagree. for the most part all coaches are idiots. think about it. youre a Stanford grad.. or a grad of any university. yet you cant out think some imbecile coach? that's laughable. theyre idiots for the most part. I played the game for 6 years. heres a little secret. its all about beating the guy in front of you. its that simple. yet all you hear about is some genius coach making the difference. what a joke. the only thing a coach can do is screw up a game. that's what shaw did it was beyond stupid I don't know really what to call it.

[washingtonismoney]

Guys, don't feed the trolls.

[washingtonismoney]

Guys, don't feed the trolls.

[Mick]

i LIKE OUR COACHES A LOT. 

I want to keep them.  They do a great job.  Fantastic four year record.  They have a few talent holes.  But they finished ranked in the Top 10.  I'll take it, very, very happily.

Might be good for Coach Shaw, this loss, in the sense that losses like these -- were they to happen anywhere else -- would turn into a sxxtstorm for the coach.

[Mick]

i LIKE OUR COACHES A LOT. 

I want to keep them.  They do a great job.  Fantastic four year record.  They have a few talent holes.  But they finished ranked in the Top 10.  I'll take it, very, very happily.

Might be good for Coach Shaw, this loss, in the sense that losses like these -- were they to happen anywhere else -- would turn into a sxxtstorm for the coach.

[Nan3cy]

I'd like to keep David Shaw, Derek Mason, and the rest of the staff, thanks very much.  Have you people forgotten already about the boneheads we had coaching before Harbaugh arrived?

My thoughts exactly. I was going nuts at the running calls that clearly were not working. Reminded me of the definition of insanity. But we would not have been in the Rose Bowl without winning a bunch of games first. You want to call this the worst coaching job ever, go right ahead. But I've seen truly lousy coaching jobs -- between 2002 and 2006 -- and no coach who wins 11 games against the 4th toughest schedule in the FBS could possibly be in that category.

[Nan3cy]

I'd like to keep David Shaw, Derek Mason, and the rest of the staff, thanks very much.  Have you people forgotten already about the boneheads we had coaching before Harbaugh arrived?

My thoughts exactly. I was going nuts at the running calls that clearly were not working. Reminded me of the definition of insanity. But we would not have been in the Rose Bowl without winning a bunch of games first. You want to call this the worst coaching job ever, go right ahead. But I've seen truly lousy coaching jobs -- between 2002 and 2006 -- and no coach who wins 11 games against the 4th toughest schedule in the FBS could possibly be in that category.

[Hank 91]

The loss is frustrating enough, but listening to calls for the coaches' jobs is quite another. I had a small argument in the stands yesterday with a genius who kept screaming out "Shaw sucks!" I always do my best not to engage with strangers with whom I disagree, but after a while I couldn't take it. I reminded him that the team had been to FOUR CONSECUTIVE BCS BOWL GAMES. His response? "The first one was with Harbaugh." In his defense, he looked to be a student or a recent grad, so he probably doesn't understand what bad football looks like.

Personally, I don't think there's any such thing as a bad Rose Bowl.

[Hank 91]

The loss is frustrating enough, but listening to calls for the coaches' jobs is quite another. I had a small argument in the stands yesterday with a genius who kept screaming out "Shaw sucks!" I always do my best not to engage with strangers with whom I disagree, but after a while I couldn't take it. I reminded him that the team had been to FOUR CONSECUTIVE BCS BOWL GAMES. His response? "The first one was with Harbaugh." In his defense, he looked to be a student or a recent grad, so he probably doesn't understand what bad football looks like.

Personally, I don't think there's any such thing as a bad Rose Bowl.

[Farm93]

The loss is frustrating enough, but listening to calls for the coaches' jobs is quite another. I had a small argument in the stands yesterday with a genius who kept screaming out "Shaw sucks!" I always do my best not to engage with strangers with whom I disagree, but after a while I couldn't take it. I reminded him that the team had been to FOUR CONSECUTIVE BCS BOWL GAMES. His response? "The first one was with Harbaugh." In his defense, he looked to be a student or a recent grad, so he probably doesn't understand what bad football looks like.

Personally, I don't think there's any such thing as a bad Rose Bowl.

I noticed a few of these types as I left the stadium.  I had to keep reminding myself that a lot of our Rose Bowl attendees are not season ticket holders.  They don't follow college football closely, and expect near mythical play calling and coaching.  I took a deep breath and moved on.

Actual season ticket holders had witnessed games like that all year.  Should have beaten UW by more than 3 points, but....  Should have never let ASU back in the game, but....  Should have started more crisply against USC, but....

What I saw in the Rose Bowl was Stanford Football 2013.  They were Pac-12 Champs, but....

Players AND coaches on this staff are the best Stanford has had in a long, long time.  Most could get higher paying jobs, literally tomorrow, if they decide Stanford is not for them any more.

There is no way Stanford Football fans should at this point expect success like legacy powerhouse program fans seem to demand when they fire 9-4 type coaches.  Those that do not understand our fragile reality need to watch any game from the 2006 season, and then they would sing a different tune.

[Farm93]

The loss is frustrating enough, but listening to calls for the coaches' jobs is quite another. I had a small argument in the stands yesterday with a genius who kept screaming out "Shaw sucks!" I always do my best not to engage with strangers with whom I disagree, but after a while I couldn't take it. I reminded him that the team had been to FOUR CONSECUTIVE BCS BOWL GAMES. His response? "The first one was with Harbaugh." In his defense, he looked to be a student or a recent grad, so he probably doesn't understand what bad football looks like.

Personally, I don't think there's any such thing as a bad Rose Bowl.

I noticed a few of these types as I left the stadium.  I had to keep reminding myself that a lot of our Rose Bowl attendees are not season ticket holders.  They don't follow college football closely, and expect near mythical play calling and coaching.  I took a deep breath and moved on.

Actual season ticket holders had witnessed games like that all year.  Should have beaten UW by more than 3 points, but....  Should have never let ASU back in the game, but....  Should have started more crisply against USC, but....

What I saw in the Rose Bowl was Stanford Football 2013.  They were Pac-12 Champs, but....

Players AND coaches on this staff are the best Stanford has had in a long, long time.  Most could get higher paying jobs, literally tomorrow, if they decide Stanford is not for them any more.

There is no way Stanford Football fans should at this point expect success like legacy powerhouse program fans seem to demand when they fire 9-4 type coaches.  Those that do not understand our fragile reality need to watch any game from the 2006 season, and then they would sing a different tune.

[ChicagoCard]

Players AND coaches on this staff are the best Stanford has had in a long, long time.

Maybe ever. I got curious about the Pop Warner era and in a cursory way, one can compare the Pop Warner / Claude Thornhill teams to these of Harbaugh / Shaw. And this points to the handover from a very unusually successful head coach to another. The Thornhill years were at first strong but petered out, and this was rightly or wrongly attributed to Thornhill having inherited great players and to himself not actually having been a great coach. It was Warner's other assistant that he sent to Stanford ahead of himself, Andrew Kerr, who went on to some success elsewhere, before he had an opportunity to be considered as Warner's successor.

[ChicagoCard]

Players AND coaches on this staff are the best Stanford has had in a long, long time.

Maybe ever. I got curious about the Pop Warner era and in a cursory way, one can compare the Pop Warner / Claude Thornhill teams to these of Harbaugh / Shaw. And this points to the handover from a very unusually successful head coach to another. The Thornhill years were at first strong but petered out, and this was rightly or wrongly attributed to Thornhill having inherited great players and to himself not actually having been a great coach. It was Warner's other assistant that he sent to Stanford ahead of himself, Andrew Kerr, who went on to some success elsewhere, before he had an opportunity to be considered as Warner's successor.

[Redrum]

"When your team wins more than half of its games and you don't automatically wince every time the term "academic progress" comes up... then give us a call."

[Redrum]

"When your team wins more than half of its games and you don't automatically wince every time the term "academic progress" comes up... then give us a call."

[pincemob]

Good thread!  I don't mind Shaw's approach one bit.  I think the run-oriented play-calling is part of the team's identity and helps reinforce the rest of the values which make us a winning program.  If every time we fans felt like it was time to abandon the run, Shaw abandoned the run, we would lose more games.  It's why we beat Oregon and other teams lose 55-13.  It's part of why we hold 4th quarter leads, unlike how many teams from years past.  It helps us win more games than it loses.  Anyone who thinks you can scheme your way to win every game against teams with similar talent has not watched football for very long. 

[pincemob]

Good thread!  I don't mind Shaw's approach one bit.  I think the run-oriented play-calling is part of the team's identity and helps reinforce the rest of the values which make us a winning program.  If every time we fans felt like it was time to abandon the run, Shaw abandoned the run, we would lose more games.  It's why we beat Oregon and other teams lose 55-13.  It's part of why we hold 4th quarter leads, unlike how many teams from years past.  It helps us win more games than it loses.  Anyone who thinks you can scheme your way to win every game against teams with similar talent has not watched football for very long. 

[Redrum]

Running/Power football identity IS our identity because it worked.  Our running game worked against Oregon because it could do what we couldn't vs. MSU.  The two games aren't that comparable. If your "strength"  is not working for any particular game,  it behooves the coaching staff to have alternatives.  That is where the critique of our game performance is based.  Not much in-game adaptability.

[I am willing to listen to football experts make the argument that, in essence,  it is simplistic and unreasonable to expect a team to change its scheme and plays like flipping a switch.  Maybe nothing could be done in the game timeframe.  Maybe]

As noted many places,  we saw some truth about Hogan and Shaw's faith in him as the game wore on.  That could explain why we kept doing what wasn't working very well.  Add to that the complete disappearance of the TE for intermediate passing game and the reluctance of the staff to challenge MSU by passing where they were willing to let us try (intermediate, center of the field)... and you wind up with a result like we saw.

[Redrum]

Running/Power football identity IS our identity because it worked.  Our running game worked against Oregon because it could do what we couldn't vs. MSU.  The two games aren't that comparable. If your "strength"  is not working for any particular game,  it behooves the coaching staff to have alternatives.  That is where the critique of our game performance is based.  Not much in-game adaptability.

[I am willing to listen to football experts make the argument that, in essence,  it is simplistic and unreasonable to expect a team to change its scheme and plays like flipping a switch.  Maybe nothing could be done in the game timeframe.  Maybe]

As noted many places,  we saw some truth about Hogan and Shaw's faith in him as the game wore on.  That could explain why we kept doing what wasn't working very well.  Add to that the complete disappearance of the TE for intermediate passing game and the reluctance of the staff to challenge MSU by passing where they were willing to let us try (intermediate, center of the field)... and you wind up with a result like we saw.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, look, we do have alternatives. Here's our offense:

Plan A: run power/inside zone between the tackles
Plan B: throw deep
Plan C: unconventional running game -- inverted veer; zone-read; jet sweep; end around, etc.
Plan D: whatever novelty we've come up with.

The question is whether we tried Plan "B" and "C" enough -- or whether it behooved us to figure out a Plan "E" (intermediate passing game.)* My belief is we could've done B or C more frequently, but it's not as if we're as one-dimensional as people would like to make it out to be. It's especially difficult to call for more Plan B as it is, by nature, a high-variance game.

The trouble with asking for more Plan E or more spread or whatever is that the coaches have developed a plan and counters to the plan based on power running. They've trained the players, and so on and so forth. It's genuinely hard to: a) possess the requisite expertise to know all the relevant counters to your alternative base play; b) impart that knowledge to your players. Changing your offense in that way is like turning a battleship; asking your coaches to figure out an intermediate game in game 14 is asking for the impossible. You are who you are at that point. Insert Rumsfeld cliche here (army you have, not the army you want or might have in the future...).

In a hypothetical universe it's possible we run a bit more zone-read, have it work for a while, and then discover we've got no counter once Narduzzi starts with the scrape exchange.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, look, we do have alternatives. Here's our offense:

Plan A: run power/inside zone between the tackles
Plan B: throw deep
Plan C: unconventional running game -- inverted veer; zone-read; jet sweep; end around, etc.
Plan D: whatever novelty we've come up with.

The question is whether we tried Plan "B" and "C" enough -- or whether it behooved us to figure out a Plan "E" (intermediate passing game.)* My belief is we could've done B or C more frequently, but it's not as if we're as one-dimensional as people would like to make it out to be. It's especially difficult to call for more Plan B as it is, by nature, a high-variance game.

The trouble with asking for more Plan E or more spread or whatever is that the coaches have developed a plan and counters to the plan based on power running. They've trained the players, and so on and so forth. It's genuinely hard to: a) possess the requisite expertise to know all the relevant counters to your alternative base play; b) impart that knowledge to your players. Changing your offense in that way is like turning a battleship; asking your coaches to figure out an intermediate game in game 14 is asking for the impossible. You are who you are at that point. Insert Rumsfeld cliche here (army you have, not the army you want or might have in the future...).

In a hypothetical universe it's possible we run a bit more zone-read, have it work for a while, and then discover we've got no counter once Narduzzi starts with the scrape exchange.

[yvonne]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9311.msg80403#msg80403 date=1388681987]
Players AND coaches on this staff are the best Stanford has had in a long, long time.

Maybe ever. I got curious about the Pop Warner era and in a cursory way, one can compare the Pop Warner / Claude Thornhill teams to these of Harbaugh / Shaw. And this points to the handover from a very unusually successful head coach to another. The Thornhill years were at first strong but petered out, and this was rightly or wrongly attributed to Thornhill having inherited great players and to himself not actually having been a great coach. It was Warner's other assistant that he sent to Stanford ahead of himself, Andrew Kerr, who went on to some success elsewhere, before he had an opportunity to be considered as Warner's successor.
[/quote]

Trust me, the world's greatest pessimist, the team will NOT win only two games next season.

[yvonne]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9311.msg80403#msg80403 date=1388681987]
Players AND coaches on this staff are the best Stanford has had in a long, long time.

Maybe ever. I got curious about the Pop Warner era and in a cursory way, one can compare the Pop Warner / Claude Thornhill teams to these of Harbaugh / Shaw. And this points to the handover from a very unusually successful head coach to another. The Thornhill years were at first strong but petered out, and this was rightly or wrongly attributed to Thornhill having inherited great players and to himself not actually having been a great coach. It was Warner's other assistant that he sent to Stanford ahead of himself, Andrew Kerr, who went on to some success elsewhere, before he had an opportunity to be considered as Warner's successor.
[/quote]

Trust me, the world's greatest pessimist, the team will NOT win only two games next season.

[Cardinal96]

To answer the OP, if a Cal fan ever gave me grief about the Rose Bowl loss, I would have a good laugh.  Their team this year is one of the all-time worst Pac 10/12 teams in my memory.

[Cardinal96]

To answer the OP, if a Cal fan ever gave me grief about the Rose Bowl loss, I would have a good laugh.  Their team this year is one of the all-time worst Pac 10/12 teams in my memory.

[jacketree]

2014 - 1959 = 55

2013 - 1938 = 75

[jacketree]

2014 - 1959 = 55

2013 - 1938 = 75

[StanFan88]

Take a deep breath and enjoy your 11-3 team and NFL coveted coaching staff.

I don't see anyone lining up to hire Bloomgren...and he is the problem.  He is responsible for the offensive gameplan and to a large extent the playcalling as well (although Shaw has the final word on the actual play being called).  I know this because I've asked Bloomgren in person.

And what I will say to any Kal troll is two things:
- Better to have loved & lost than never loved at all
- I've been a Stanford football fan for 30 years now, and I wasn't even born in 1959

Nuff said.

[StanFan88]

Take a deep breath and enjoy your 11-3 team and NFL coveted coaching staff.

I don't see anyone lining up to hire Bloomgren...and he is the problem.  He is responsible for the offensive gameplan and to a large extent the playcalling as well (although Shaw has the final word on the actual play being called).  I know this because I've asked Bloomgren in person.

And what I will say to any Kal troll is two things:
- Better to have loved & lost than never loved at all
- I've been a Stanford football fan for 30 years now, and I wasn't even born in 1959

Nuff said.

[82 Card]

Realistically, this is what having team that reaches for the top looks like. There are going to be days when the team runs into another equally motivated and capable team and things don't work out. If the team had not been so successful, it would have been beating up on Texas or some other such team and we would be raising a glass to the great bowl victory. I think it's better to reach for the top and stumble occasionally.

I was almost 2 when C.al last lost a Rose Bowl. With all the pain they are fealing, I doubt that any C.al alumni will be getting in our face about losing the Rose Bowl, at least not in person. Most of the old blues are pretty civilized. Not sure about the younger set.

[82 Card]

Realistically, this is what having team that reaches for the top looks like. There are going to be days when the team runs into another equally motivated and capable team and things don't work out. If the team had not been so successful, it would have been beating up on Texas or some other such team and we would be raising a glass to the great bowl victory. I think it's better to reach for the top and stumble occasionally.

I was almost 2 when C.al last lost a Rose Bowl. With all the pain they are fealing, I doubt that any C.al alumni will be getting in our face about losing the Rose Bowl, at least not in person. Most of the old blues are pretty civilized. Not sure about the younger set.

[yvonne]

You guys fortunately missed it. This thread was started by a kal fan posing as a Stanford fan upset about "the worst coaching job in the history of football." He had a few other savory posts and rapidly earned himself the magic 50 down votes.

[yvonne]

You guys fortunately missed it. This thread was started by a kal fan posing as a Stanford fan upset about "the worst coaching job in the history of football." He had a few other savory posts and rapidly earned himself the magic 50 down votes.

[82 Card]

You guys fortunately missed it. This thread was started by a kal fan posing as a Stanford fan upset about "the worst coaching job in the history of football." He had a few other savory posts and rapidly earned himself the magic 50 down votes.

That doesn't surprise me. I think I had the privilege of giving the troll their first down vote. Although I didn't know they were associated with kal, it was clear they weren't associated with Stanford even remotely. I wonder if this person was a younger sibling of a kal student who got a hold of their computer. I have a hard time believing there are many people who are smart enough to get into kal and dumb enough to believe the drivel this troll wrote, even when hung over.  I doubt even this twit would have the nerve to pull that garbage if they weren't hiding behind their keyboard.

[82 Card]

You guys fortunately missed it. This thread was started by a kal fan posing as a Stanford fan upset about "the worst coaching job in the history of football." He had a few other savory posts and rapidly earned himself the magic 50 down votes.

That doesn't surprise me. I think I had the privilege of giving the troll their first down vote. Although I didn't know they were associated with kal, it was clear they weren't associated with Stanford even remotely. I wonder if this person was a younger sibling of a kal student who got a hold of their computer. I have a hard time believing there are many people who are smart enough to get into kal and dumb enough to believe the drivel this troll wrote, even when hung over.  I doubt even this twit would have the nerve to pull that garbage if they weren't hiding behind their keyboard.