[CornFed]

"Deflating Shaw's overall coaching accomplishments by saying he has superior personnel ignores the fact that he plays the principal role in acquiring and developing that personnel in the first place."

I do not think this is true.  I think that evaluating Shaw exclusively for his recruiting and athlete development prowess would overly narrow one's understanding of his capabilities as a coach.  I, for one, do not think that acknowledging how much our baseline quality of athletes has improved should deflate his overall accomplishments at all.  It also, OTOH, does not immunize him from scrutiny.

[CornFed]

"Deflating Shaw's overall coaching accomplishments by saying he has superior personnel ignores the fact that he plays the principal role in acquiring and developing that personnel in the first place."

I do not think this is true.  I think that evaluating Shaw exclusively for his recruiting and athlete development prowess would overly narrow one's understanding of his capabilities as a coach.  I, for one, do not think that acknowledging how much our baseline quality of athletes has improved should deflate his overall accomplishments at all.  It also, OTOH, does not immunize him from scrutiny.

[Leftcoast]

Great is the enemy of super fantastic. - Oman

I'd bet on Shaw growing into whatever this board's changing definition of "super fantastic" is today long before I'd roll the dice on some new coach measuring up to the high standard Shaw has CURRENTLY set, maintained and insists his players adhere to. 

Honestly, have we learned nothing from the last 30 years? 

/Stepford Lefty

[Leftcoast]

Great is the enemy of super fantastic. - Oman

I'd bet on Shaw growing into whatever this board's changing definition of "super fantastic" is today long before I'd roll the dice on some new coach measuring up to the high standard Shaw has CURRENTLY set, maintained and insists his players adhere to. 

Honestly, have we learned nothing from the last 30 years? 

/Stepford Lefty

[washingtonismoney]

I do not think this is true.  I think that evaluating Shaw exclusively for his recruiting and athlete development prowess would overly narrow one's understanding of his capabilities as a coach.  I, for one, do not think that acknowledging how much our baseline quality of athletes has improved should deflate his overall accomplishments at all.  It also, OTOH, does not immunize him from scrutiny.

Good straw man.

[washingtonismoney]

I do not think this is true.  I think that evaluating Shaw exclusively for his recruiting and athlete development prowess would overly narrow one's understanding of his capabilities as a coach.  I, for one, do not think that acknowledging how much our baseline quality of athletes has improved should deflate his overall accomplishments at all.  It also, OTOH, does not immunize him from scrutiny.

Good straw man.

[jayasena]

My frustration does not boil down to simply "conservative" play calling, as some have criticized Shaw for and to which he appears sensitive and defensive. I suppose I would phrase my frustration as stemming more from a negative approach -- "playing not to lose" or "don't take a chance you don't have to even if you might fool your opponent by taking a chance," which is how I would characterize the 4th down play call in the SC game. What I have gradually come to realize is that I don't enjoy watching Stanford now, at least as we play under Shaw. The losses (SC this year and last; Utah and MSU last year; UW and ND in 2012) were all excruciating to watch. [As a Class of '75, I have suffered through many losses -- I can handle Stanford losing; it is the approach and the reason for the losses that makes them so excruciating.]

I don't disagree that the losses have been painful. But, to me, the choice is a no-brainer. I would rather watch a great team and coaching staff who are capable of winning every game but lose a few close ones here and there because of <circle all your favorites: execution/play-calling/personnel/other> over a so-so team that loses convincingly.

[jayasena]

My frustration does not boil down to simply "conservative" play calling, as some have criticized Shaw for and to which he appears sensitive and defensive. I suppose I would phrase my frustration as stemming more from a negative approach -- "playing not to lose" or "don't take a chance you don't have to even if you might fool your opponent by taking a chance," which is how I would characterize the 4th down play call in the SC game. What I have gradually come to realize is that I don't enjoy watching Stanford now, at least as we play under Shaw. The losses (SC this year and last; Utah and MSU last year; UW and ND in 2012) were all excruciating to watch. [As a Class of '75, I have suffered through many losses -- I can handle Stanford losing; it is the approach and the reason for the losses that makes them so excruciating.]

I don't disagree that the losses have been painful. But, to me, the choice is a no-brainer. I would rather watch a great team and coaching staff who are capable of winning every game but lose a few close ones here and there because of <circle all your favorites: execution/play-calling/personnel/other> over a so-so team that loses convincingly.

[BostonCard]

You argue that Shaw was out-coached by Washington (as well as the other two games) because we couldn't solve Wilcox' defense and "we only won because of special teams".  Arguably, the exact same situation occurred this year against USC.  USC struggled mightily against our defense; a team that gained 701 total yards and 52 points in 105 plays against Fresno State, got less than 300 yards and only 13 points Saturday, and of course it gave up 413 yards against up.  Arguably, special teams (Heidari 2/2 on field goals, vs. Williamson 1/3 on field goals) was the difference.  So, if you are going to give last year's UW game to Sarkisian/Wilcox, then you kind of have to give this year's game to Shaw.

More importantly, the other problem with this game-by-game analysis is that it neglects the fact that there is going to be a lot of natural week-to-week variation in how a team performs.  Sometimes, everything clicks and we put up 42 and 38 points against a Pac-12 South leading ASU.  That's not because David Shaw is a genius that week, yet the subsequent games against Washington and Michigan States he reverted to being a mediocre game-calling coach.  It is a combination of match-up, luck, and just plain variation you  are going to see from week-to-week.  Good teams are good not because they always play their "A" game but because they are better enough than their opposition that they still have a chance to win when they bring their "C" game.  It's easy to ascribe these variations to "the play calling", but then how do you account for the games where everything clicks?

BC

[BostonCard]

You argue that Shaw was out-coached by Washington (as well as the other two games) because we couldn't solve Wilcox' defense and "we only won because of special teams".  Arguably, the exact same situation occurred this year against USC.  USC struggled mightily against our defense; a team that gained 701 total yards and 52 points in 105 plays against Fresno State, got less than 300 yards and only 13 points Saturday, and of course it gave up 413 yards against up.  Arguably, special teams (Heidari 2/2 on field goals, vs. Williamson 1/3 on field goals) was the difference.  So, if you are going to give last year's UW game to Sarkisian/Wilcox, then you kind of have to give this year's game to Shaw.

More importantly, the other problem with this game-by-game analysis is that it neglects the fact that there is going to be a lot of natural week-to-week variation in how a team performs.  Sometimes, everything clicks and we put up 42 and 38 points against a Pac-12 South leading ASU.  That's not because David Shaw is a genius that week, yet the subsequent games against Washington and Michigan States he reverted to being a mediocre game-calling coach.  It is a combination of match-up, luck, and just plain variation you  are going to see from week-to-week.  Good teams are good not because they always play their "A" game but because they are better enough than their opposition that they still have a chance to win when they bring their "C" game.  It's easy to ascribe these variations to "the play calling", but then how do you account for the games where everything clicks?

BC

[doug]

[quote author=doug link=topic=10600.msg97692#msg97692 date=1410305118]
My frustration does not boil down to simply "conservative" play calling, as some have criticized Shaw for and to which he appears sensitive and defensive. I suppose I would phrase my frustration as stemming more from a negative approach -- "playing not to lose" or "don't take a chance you don't have to even if you might fool your opponent by taking a chance," which is how I would characterize the 4th down play call in the SC game. What I have gradually come to realize is that I don't enjoy watching Stanford now, at least as we play under Shaw. The losses (SC this year and last; Utah and MSU last year; UW and ND in 2012) were all excruciating to watch. [As a Class of '75, I have suffered through many losses -- I can handle Stanford losing; it is the approach and the reason for the losses that makes them so excruciating.]

I don't disagree that the losses have been painful. But, to me, the choice is a no-brainer. I would rather watch a great team and coaching staff who are capable of winning every game but lose a few close ones here and there because of <circle all your favorites: execution/play-calling/personnel/other> over a so-so team that loses convincingly.
[/quote]

Fair enough. However, I tried to be clear in my post you quoted that I agree winning is more fun than losing. And don't get me wrong, I always have and always will root for Stanford. Nor am advocating for a new coach, though I very much hope Shaw will learn and grow and overcome his disinclination/aversion to taking reasonable and calculated risks that might actually fool the opponent. But my real point was that when the losses are excruciating and even many of the wins are agonizing to borderline excruciating when in my judgment they need not be, I don't find it fun anymore. I really don't enjoy the gut-wrenching feeling I have had too frequently in the last few years, most recently SC last weekend and the Rose Bowl against MSU. So my new plan is not to watch live (which was my habit in the bad old days). If I can record the game, I will and decide after I know the result whether to watch it. If I can't record it, I will just read about it. I am bone-weary of soul-crushing self-inflicted losses in which we seem not to be playing to win, but rather playing not to lose. I would much rather lose by going for it and trying to win but failing, as opposed to trying not to lose. 

[doug]

[quote author=doug link=topic=10600.msg97692#msg97692 date=1410305118]
My frustration does not boil down to simply "conservative" play calling, as some have criticized Shaw for and to which he appears sensitive and defensive. I suppose I would phrase my frustration as stemming more from a negative approach -- "playing not to lose" or "don't take a chance you don't have to even if you might fool your opponent by taking a chance," which is how I would characterize the 4th down play call in the SC game. What I have gradually come to realize is that I don't enjoy watching Stanford now, at least as we play under Shaw. The losses (SC this year and last; Utah and MSU last year; UW and ND in 2012) were all excruciating to watch. [As a Class of '75, I have suffered through many losses -- I can handle Stanford losing; it is the approach and the reason for the losses that makes them so excruciating.]

I don't disagree that the losses have been painful. But, to me, the choice is a no-brainer. I would rather watch a great team and coaching staff who are capable of winning every game but lose a few close ones here and there because of <circle all your favorites: execution/play-calling/personnel/other> over a so-so team that loses convincingly.
[/quote]

Fair enough. However, I tried to be clear in my post you quoted that I agree winning is more fun than losing. And don't get me wrong, I always have and always will root for Stanford. Nor am advocating for a new coach, though I very much hope Shaw will learn and grow and overcome his disinclination/aversion to taking reasonable and calculated risks that might actually fool the opponent. But my real point was that when the losses are excruciating and even many of the wins are agonizing to borderline excruciating when in my judgment they need not be, I don't find it fun anymore. I really don't enjoy the gut-wrenching feeling I have had too frequently in the last few years, most recently SC last weekend and the Rose Bowl against MSU. So my new plan is not to watch live (which was my habit in the bad old days). If I can record the game, I will and decide after I know the result whether to watch it. If I can't record it, I will just read about it. I am bone-weary of soul-crushing self-inflicted losses in which we seem not to be playing to win, but rather playing not to lose. I would much rather lose by going for it and trying to win but failing, as opposed to trying not to lose. 

[Rally]

Good summery, quotes, etc.  In case you missed it

http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=209646118

[Rally]

Good summery, quotes, etc.  In case you missed it

http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=209646118

[Rally]

This was produced in March but I just saw it.  How plays are developed.  Interesting.  If you haven't already seen it I think you will find it interesting.

http://youtu.be/AzDtSf8mcIU

[Rally]

This was produced in March but I just saw it.  How plays are developed.  Interesting.  If you haven't already seen it I think you will find it interesting.

http://youtu.be/AzDtSf8mcIU