[gocard14]

As ugly as this season has been, it's worth looking at a few of the bright spots.

(1) Despite having our worst offense since 2007, we are 3 plays away from being 8-2. Realistically this team is not too far off from our 2012 Rose Bowl winning team, we just have had the opposite break in close games.

(2) Some young players (Mccaffrey, Kalambayi, our redshirt frosh TEs, harrison phillips) look like they will be true superstars going forward.

(3) Our O-line has been improving in the run game, and played their best game in that regard against Utah (though Peat uncharacteristically gave up a few big sacks). Were it not for their ridiculous punter that might have showed on the scoreboard a little more.

Now looking forward to next year.  We will have an experienced O-line (especially if Peat stays) that could easily go from being a weakness to a strength.  Depending on Chryst or Burns progress, we may or may not have improved QB play.  A few coaching tweaks could also go a long way.

We lose a lot of talent on Defense, but have shown a surprising ability to bounce back from these losses over the  past 3 years and I have faith in our coach and system. 

TLDR: This has been a tough year, but this team is not as bad as its record shows and has the potential to bounce back next year.

[gocard14]

As ugly as this season has been, it's worth looking at a few of the bright spots.

(1) Despite having our worst offense since 2007, we are 3 plays away from being 8-2. Realistically this team is not too far off from our 2012 Rose Bowl winning team, we just have had the opposite break in close games.

(2) Some young players (Mccaffrey, Kalambayi, our redshirt frosh TEs, harrison phillips) look like they will be true superstars going forward.

(3) Our O-line has been improving in the run game, and played their best game in that regard against Utah (though Peat uncharacteristically gave up a few big sacks). Were it not for their ridiculous punter that might have showed on the scoreboard a little more.

Now looking forward to next year.  We will have an experienced O-line (especially if Peat stays) that could easily go from being a weakness to a strength.  Depending on Chryst or Burns progress, we may or may not have improved QB play.  A few coaching tweaks could also go a long way.

We lose a lot of talent on Defense, but have shown a surprising ability to bounce back from these losses over the  past 3 years and I have faith in our coach and system. 

TLDR: This has been a tough year, but this team is not as bad as its record shows and has the potential to bounce back next year.

[StanFan88]

I am optimistic about next year, but I'd be more optimistic about next year if Shaw weren't so wedded to football in a phone booth with play action that he runs it no matter what personnel he has.

[StanFan88]

I am optimistic about next year, but I'd be more optimistic about next year if Shaw weren't so wedded to football in a phone booth with play action that he runs it no matter what personnel he has.

[Stymie]

Thanks for that, gocard.  I've been depressed, but I'm a Pollyanna like you and see a rosier future than the recent past and can imagine both a whupping of the 59ers, a win over the teddybears (can't wait to see how that come out in our spellcheck...) and some sort of bowl game against a decent opponent where we go 3-0 for the rest of the season.  Then a bumper crop of young Stanfordites in February.

My dreams also include Chryst or Burns lining up as QB in our first game next year and leading a simplified but more interesting and effective offense.  And, of course, more McCaffrey.

Time to go to sleep, and dream further and deeper, and zzzzzzzzzzz.......

[Stymie]

Thanks for that, gocard.  I've been depressed, but I'm a Pollyanna like you and see a rosier future than the recent past and can imagine both a whupping of the 59ers, a win over the teddybears (can't wait to see how that come out in our spellcheck...) and some sort of bowl game against a decent opponent where we go 3-0 for the rest of the season.  Then a bumper crop of young Stanfordites in February.

My dreams also include Chryst or Burns lining up as QB in our first game next year and leading a simplified but more interesting and effective offense.  And, of course, more McCaffrey.

Time to go to sleep, and dream further and deeper, and zzzzzzzzzzz.......

[doug]

Based on watching Shaw's teams play, Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse. I don't think there is a credible opposing view as to that point. He demonstrates this in almost every game, most recently foregoing a potentially game-winning FG to instead punt from Utah's 34-yard line with less than 2 minutes remaining.

My fear now, admittedly based mostly on speculation combined with that established fact, is that Shaw inherited a team whose culture had been completely transformed by Harbaugh. Those were the guys (many not highly regarded as recruits) that took us to 4 straight BCS games. However, now the guys who embodied Harbaugh's culture have largely left the system. This year's team has only the last remnants of that culture, and the consequences are evident in our record and play. Our guys don't make key plays like they used to, and I think that is a reflection of Shaw's priorities. They play with a "negative" motivation, fearing the consequences of making a mistake more than positive rewards (credit/promotions/props) they might get from making a play. In addition to ending in a lot more losses, this play-not-to-lose style is intolerably boring to me. I don't enjoy watching our games anymore.

I fear the culture of Shaw's teams going forward will increasingly reflect this coaching style and personality, with the primary orientation not to make mistakes rather than playing to make plays and win. After Shaw became HC, I thought 2012 would be the true test whether he is up to the new standard that had been set -- we were going to be successful in 2010 with Andrew Luck almost regardless of Shaw's coaching. However, I now think 2015 is the real test. The entire team will be a product of Shaw's program and coaching. Without major changes in his coaching style and philosophy (which I do not anticipate happening), I am not optimistic.

[doug]

Based on watching Shaw's teams play, Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse. I don't think there is a credible opposing view as to that point. He demonstrates this in almost every game, most recently foregoing a potentially game-winning FG to instead punt from Utah's 34-yard line with less than 2 minutes remaining.

My fear now, admittedly based mostly on speculation combined with that established fact, is that Shaw inherited a team whose culture had been completely transformed by Harbaugh. Those were the guys (many not highly regarded as recruits) that took us to 4 straight BCS games. However, now the guys who embodied Harbaugh's culture have largely left the system. This year's team has only the last remnants of that culture, and the consequences are evident in our record and play. Our guys don't make key plays like they used to, and I think that is a reflection of Shaw's priorities. They play with a "negative" motivation, fearing the consequences of making a mistake more than positive rewards (credit/promotions/props) they might get from making a play. In addition to ending in a lot more losses, this play-not-to-lose style is intolerably boring to me. I don't enjoy watching our games anymore.

I fear the culture of Shaw's teams going forward will increasingly reflect this coaching style and personality, with the primary orientation not to make mistakes rather than playing to make plays and win. After Shaw became HC, I thought 2012 would be the true test whether he is up to the new standard that had been set -- we were going to be successful in 2010 with Andrew Luck almost regardless of Shaw's coaching. However, I now think 2015 is the real test. The entire team will be a product of Shaw's program and coaching. Without major changes in his coaching style and philosophy (which I do not anticipate happening), I am not optimistic.

[FarmBoy]

My fear now, admittedly based mostly on speculation combined with that established fact, is that Shaw inherited a team whose culture had been completely transformed by Harbaugh. Those were the guys (many not highly regarded as recruits) that took us to 4 straight BCS games. However, now the guys who embodied Harbaugh's culture have largely left the system. This year's team has only the last remnants of that culture, and the consequences are evident in our record and play. Our guys don't make key plays like they used to, and I think that is a reflection of Shaw's priorities. They play with a "negative" motivation, fearing the consequences of making a mistake more than positive rewards (credit/promotions/props) they might get from making a play. In addition to ending in a lot more losses, this play-not-to-lose style is intolerably boring to me. I don't enjoy watching our games anymore.

And this is the narrative I expect Stanford to have to recruit against in the coming months. Is 2014 a blip on the stock chart or a natural correction to Shaw's baseline performance? After 2011, everyone expected 2012 to be the true reflection of Shaw. Then it would be 2013 because half the 2012 roster was recruited by Harbaugh. After 2013's success, the narrative died away, but I don't doubt the recruiting leads at other Pac12 schools are reopening it.

This team has lost its mojo. It's not just that this year things aren't breaking for us like they did in '12 and '13. We're playing much more tentatively. Last year, Hogan would air it out to Cajuste, Ty or Rector a few times a game. This year, we only challenge deep once or twice, it seems. I think there's a confidence issue in the locker room, as much as an issue with personnel, tactics and game plan. And if so, that is squarely on Shaw's shoulders to fix.

[FarmBoy]

My fear now, admittedly based mostly on speculation combined with that established fact, is that Shaw inherited a team whose culture had been completely transformed by Harbaugh. Those were the guys (many not highly regarded as recruits) that took us to 4 straight BCS games. However, now the guys who embodied Harbaugh's culture have largely left the system. This year's team has only the last remnants of that culture, and the consequences are evident in our record and play. Our guys don't make key plays like they used to, and I think that is a reflection of Shaw's priorities. They play with a "negative" motivation, fearing the consequences of making a mistake more than positive rewards (credit/promotions/props) they might get from making a play. In addition to ending in a lot more losses, this play-not-to-lose style is intolerably boring to me. I don't enjoy watching our games anymore.

And this is the narrative I expect Stanford to have to recruit against in the coming months. Is 2014 a blip on the stock chart or a natural correction to Shaw's baseline performance? After 2011, everyone expected 2012 to be the true reflection of Shaw. Then it would be 2013 because half the 2012 roster was recruited by Harbaugh. After 2013's success, the narrative died away, but I don't doubt the recruiting leads at other Pac12 schools are reopening it.

This team has lost its mojo. It's not just that this year things aren't breaking for us like they did in '12 and '13. We're playing much more tentatively. Last year, Hogan would air it out to Cajuste, Ty or Rector a few times a game. This year, we only challenge deep once or twice, it seems. I think there's a confidence issue in the locker room, as much as an issue with personnel, tactics and game plan. And if so, that is squarely on Shaw's shoulders to fix.

[stupac2]

Based on watching Shaw's teams play, Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse.

Because that 4th down conversion on our opening drive was definitely the risk-averse thing to do.  ::)

You can debate going for that FG, but I think it's at the very least a 50-50 decision. Williamson isn't exactly rock solid, even though he hit that same distance in OT it was still his career-long and you have to figure it's <50% chance to make it (hell, most NFL kickers are hardly automatic at 51). If he misses, which is likely, Utah just needs two first downs to get into their kicker's range, and he's going to be in the NFL some day. I can totally understand why Shaw punted there, since given the way our defense was playing you had to think:

1) Utah was never scoring after the punt.
2) We had a good shot of getting the ball back.
3) We had a very good shot in OT.

If we win in OT I don't think anyone is questioning that decision because it's just not a clearly bad call.

[stupac2]

Based on watching Shaw's teams play, Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse.

Because that 4th down conversion on our opening drive was definitely the risk-averse thing to do.  ::)

You can debate going for that FG, but I think it's at the very least a 50-50 decision. Williamson isn't exactly rock solid, even though he hit that same distance in OT it was still his career-long and you have to figure it's <50% chance to make it (hell, most NFL kickers are hardly automatic at 51). If he misses, which is likely, Utah just needs two first downs to get into their kicker's range, and he's going to be in the NFL some day. I can totally understand why Shaw punted there, since given the way our defense was playing you had to think:

1) Utah was never scoring after the punt.
2) We had a good shot of getting the ball back.
3) We had a very good shot in OT.

If we win in OT I don't think anyone is questioning that decision because it's just not a clearly bad call.

[stupac2]

This team has lost its mojo. It's not just that this year things aren't breaking for us like they did in '12 and '13. We're playing much more tentatively. Last year, Hogan would air it out to Cajuste, Ty or Rector a few times a game. This year, we only challenge deep once or twice, it seems.

Were you watching the same game as me? Hogan threw deep a bunch of times, they were just all dropped. Also, this year we've been doing more intermediate-level passing, which makes sense since we can and it's less boom-or-bust. And, finally, the gameplan against Utah was clearly to run the ball, especially to the perimeter, likely because that seemed like a weakness. It also seemed to work pretty well to me, especially given the WR dropsies.

[stupac2]

This team has lost its mojo. It's not just that this year things aren't breaking for us like they did in '12 and '13. We're playing much more tentatively. Last year, Hogan would air it out to Cajuste, Ty or Rector a few times a game. This year, we only challenge deep once or twice, it seems.

Were you watching the same game as me? Hogan threw deep a bunch of times, they were just all dropped. Also, this year we've been doing more intermediate-level passing, which makes sense since we can and it's less boom-or-bust. And, finally, the gameplan against Utah was clearly to run the ball, especially to the perimeter, likely because that seemed like a weakness. It also seemed to work pretty well to me, especially given the WR dropsies.

[AtlantaBadger]

[quote author=doug link=topic=11130.msg105436#msg105436 date=1416247734]Based on watching Shaw's teams play, Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse.

Because that 4th down conversion on our opening drive was definitely the risk-averse thing to do.  ::)

You can debate going for that FG, but I think it's at the very least a 50-50 decision. Williamson isn't exactly rock solid, even though he hit that same distance in OT it was still his career-long and you have to figure it's <50% chance to make it (hell, most NFL kickers are hardly automatic at 51). If he misses, which is likely, Utah just needs two first downs to get into their kicker's range, and he's going to be in the NFL some day. I can totally understand why Shaw punted there, since given the way our defense was playing you had to think:

1) Utah was never scoring after the punt.
2) We had a good shot of getting the ball back.
3) We had a very good shot in OT.

If we win in OT I don't think anyone is questioning that decision because it's just not a clearly bad call.
[/quote]

Your #1 is undoubtedly true. 

But even though #2 is also true (and it did happen), the genius offensive coaching staff screwed the pooch there by burning a timeout on third down to come up with an unsuccessful third down play, so we only had two timeouts left, ensuring that while we indeed did get the ball back, we had only around 30 seconds (and NO timeouts) for our juggernaut offense to orchestrate a scoring drive.  Given our performance not only in the game so far but all season, that is a highly questionable proposition.

Finally, your #3 is demonstrably at odds with reality.    If ever there was a team NOT built for overtime, it is this Stanford offense.  We are 127th out of 128 in red zone scoring efficiency in the entire FBS.  Giving us the ball on the 25-yard line is a recipe for disaster, not success.  How can anyone, especially our coaches, think that just getting to OT was the right strategy?  If Shaw "trusts his defense" then try the FG and if we miss, trust the D to stop Utah from getting in FG range.  He needed to channel Herm Edwards there, but did not.  "You play to win the game."

[AtlantaBadger]

[quote author=doug link=topic=11130.msg105436#msg105436 date=1416247734]Based on watching Shaw's teams play, Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse.

Because that 4th down conversion on our opening drive was definitely the risk-averse thing to do.  ::)

You can debate going for that FG, but I think it's at the very least a 50-50 decision. Williamson isn't exactly rock solid, even though he hit that same distance in OT it was still his career-long and you have to figure it's <50% chance to make it (hell, most NFL kickers are hardly automatic at 51). If he misses, which is likely, Utah just needs two first downs to get into their kicker's range, and he's going to be in the NFL some day. I can totally understand why Shaw punted there, since given the way our defense was playing you had to think:

1) Utah was never scoring after the punt.
2) We had a good shot of getting the ball back.
3) We had a very good shot in OT.

If we win in OT I don't think anyone is questioning that decision because it's just not a clearly bad call.
[/quote]

Your #1 is undoubtedly true. 

But even though #2 is also true (and it did happen), the genius offensive coaching staff screwed the pooch there by burning a timeout on third down to come up with an unsuccessful third down play, so we only had two timeouts left, ensuring that while we indeed did get the ball back, we had only around 30 seconds (and NO timeouts) for our juggernaut offense to orchestrate a scoring drive.  Given our performance not only in the game so far but all season, that is a highly questionable proposition.

Finally, your #3 is demonstrably at odds with reality.    If ever there was a team NOT built for overtime, it is this Stanford offense.  We are 127th out of 128 in red zone scoring efficiency in the entire FBS.  Giving us the ball on the 25-yard line is a recipe for disaster, not success.  How can anyone, especially our coaches, think that just getting to OT was the right strategy?  If Shaw "trusts his defense" then try the FG and if we miss, trust the D to stop Utah from getting in FG range.  He needed to channel Herm Edwards there, but did not.  "You play to win the game."

[82lsju]

Your #1 is undoubtedly true. 

But even though #2 is also true (and it did happen), the genius offensive coaching staff screwed the pooch there by burning a timeout on third down to come up with an unsuccessful third down play, so we only had two timeouts left, ensuring that while we indeed did get the ball back, we had only around 30 seconds (and NO timeouts) for our juggernaut offense to orchestrate a scoring drive.  Given our performance not only in the game so far but all season, that is a highly questionable proposition.

Finally, your #3 is demonstrably at odds with reality.    If ever there was a team NOT built for overtime, it is this Stanford offense.  We are 127th out of 128 in red zone scoring efficiency in the entire FBS.  Giving us the ball on the 25-yard line is a recipe for disaster, not success.  How can anyone, especially our coaches, think that just getting to OT was the right strategy?  If Shaw "trusts his defense" then try the FG and if we miss, trust the D to stop Utah from getting in FG range.  He needed to channel Herm Edwards there, but did not.  "You play to win the game."

+1

Shaw certainly appears to play "not to lose" and this was just the most recent example.

If we give up 14 points I think we'll have a challenging time winning Big Game unless we get some scores from the defense and/or special teams.......

[82lsju]

Your #1 is undoubtedly true. 

But even though #2 is also true (and it did happen), the genius offensive coaching staff screwed the pooch there by burning a timeout on third down to come up with an unsuccessful third down play, so we only had two timeouts left, ensuring that while we indeed did get the ball back, we had only around 30 seconds (and NO timeouts) for our juggernaut offense to orchestrate a scoring drive.  Given our performance not only in the game so far but all season, that is a highly questionable proposition.

Finally, your #3 is demonstrably at odds with reality.    If ever there was a team NOT built for overtime, it is this Stanford offense.  We are 127th out of 128 in red zone scoring efficiency in the entire FBS.  Giving us the ball on the 25-yard line is a recipe for disaster, not success.  How can anyone, especially our coaches, think that just getting to OT was the right strategy?  If Shaw "trusts his defense" then try the FG and if we miss, trust the D to stop Utah from getting in FG range.  He needed to channel Herm Edwards there, but did not.  "You play to win the game."

+1

Shaw certainly appears to play "not to lose" and this was just the most recent example.

If we give up 14 points I think we'll have a challenging time winning Big Game unless we get some scores from the defense and/or special teams.......

[stupac2]

Finally, your #3 is demonstrably at odds with reality.    If ever there was a team NOT built for overtime, it is this Stanford offense.  We are 127th out of 128 in red zone scoring efficiency in the entire FBS.  Giving us the ball on the 25-yard line is a recipe for disaster, not success.  How can anyone, especially our coaches, think that just getting to OT was the right strategy?  If Shaw "trusts his defense" then try the FG and if we miss, trust the D to stop Utah from getting in FG range.  He needed to channel Herm Edwards there, but did not.  "You play to win the game."

I don't think this is right. I mean, yes, our offense has been bad in the red zone, but we weren't against Utah. And we were dominating in the second-half, but our starting field position had been so bad we didn't get anything to show for it. I think that, in that moment, trusting our defense to keep them out of the end zone in OT was a really good bet, and in that case you love our odds. I don't think Shaw could see their sudden offense competence in OT coming given what had happened previously.

Anyway, my overall point is that this is clearly debatable and the whole "SHAW IS SUPER CONSERVATIVE" meme is just clearly false. Shaw's probably not in the top 50% of conservative coaches, even though he's sometimes more conservative than I'd like. But there are many who are much, much worse.

[stupac2]

Finally, your #3 is demonstrably at odds with reality.    If ever there was a team NOT built for overtime, it is this Stanford offense.  We are 127th out of 128 in red zone scoring efficiency in the entire FBS.  Giving us the ball on the 25-yard line is a recipe for disaster, not success.  How can anyone, especially our coaches, think that just getting to OT was the right strategy?  If Shaw "trusts his defense" then try the FG and if we miss, trust the D to stop Utah from getting in FG range.  He needed to channel Herm Edwards there, but did not.  "You play to win the game."

I don't think this is right. I mean, yes, our offense has been bad in the red zone, but we weren't against Utah. And we were dominating in the second-half, but our starting field position had been so bad we didn't get anything to show for it. I think that, in that moment, trusting our defense to keep them out of the end zone in OT was a really good bet, and in that case you love our odds. I don't think Shaw could see their sudden offense competence in OT coming given what had happened previously.

Anyway, my overall point is that this is clearly debatable and the whole "SHAW IS SUPER CONSERVATIVE" meme is just clearly false. Shaw's probably not in the top 50% of conservative coaches, even though he's sometimes more conservative than I'd like. But there are many who are much, much worse.

[doug]

stupac2, I think your response to my comment "Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse" is more a response to my semantics -- particularly my use of "relentlessly" --  than it is to the crux of my point. You cite one example of for it on 4th down during our first possession. I did not watch the 1st half of the Utah game and so was unaware we went for it on 4th down, but I still can't say I concede your counterpoint without knowing the circumstances. Going for it on 4th down on the 1st possession of the game is quite different than eschewing a makable FG for the win at the end of the game in which the defense had played brilliantly. I do, however, acknowledge that my use of "relentlessly" was a bit strong and perhaps an expression of my frustration/exasperation.

But I stand by my points. Shaw is extremely risk-averse and unwilling to take chances he does not deem almost absolutely necessary, and I could cite numerous examples. Off the top of my head, I can think of only one time Shaw took a risk that was not absolutely necessary. It was in the 2012 Oregon game when he had Hogan throw on 4th down to Hewitt. The play was unsuccessful, because Hogan short-armed the throw, but otherwise the play had worked perfectly. The Oregon defense was sold out to stop the predictable plunge into the middle of the line. The defense was completely fooled, and Hewitt was wide open and would have gained big yardage, and possibly scored, if Hogan had delivered the ball. Even though the play was unsuccessful, I applauded the call then and now.

And here's a curiosity: we ended up winning that game. I think by "playing not to lose," Shaw signals to his players that he does not fully trust them and does not believe they will make plays. And I think that becomes self-fulfilling. I think that is an important reason our guys don't make plays now like they used to. Harbaugh certainly had flaws and I don't think he was as good a representative of the university as Shaw is, but he had a unique ability (in my experience) to make his guys believe in themselves and then go out onto the field and actually make the plays that validated that belief. I think that is one of the biggest differences between Shaw and Harbaugh. Without some of that instinct to go for it and the inherent message that conveys to his players that Shaw believes in them and believes that they will make the plays he asks them to make, I fear that our best seasons are behind us and we will not be much fun to watch as well. 

[doug]

stupac2, I think your response to my comment "Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse" is more a response to my semantics -- particularly my use of "relentlessly" --  than it is to the crux of my point. You cite one example of for it on 4th down during our first possession. I did not watch the 1st half of the Utah game and so was unaware we went for it on 4th down, but I still can't say I concede your counterpoint without knowing the circumstances. Going for it on 4th down on the 1st possession of the game is quite different than eschewing a makable FG for the win at the end of the game in which the defense had played brilliantly. I do, however, acknowledge that my use of "relentlessly" was a bit strong and perhaps an expression of my frustration/exasperation.

But I stand by my points. Shaw is extremely risk-averse and unwilling to take chances he does not deem almost absolutely necessary, and I could cite numerous examples. Off the top of my head, I can think of only one time Shaw took a risk that was not absolutely necessary. It was in the 2012 Oregon game when he had Hogan throw on 4th down to Hewitt. The play was unsuccessful, because Hogan short-armed the throw, but otherwise the play had worked perfectly. The Oregon defense was sold out to stop the predictable plunge into the middle of the line. The defense was completely fooled, and Hewitt was wide open and would have gained big yardage, and possibly scored, if Hogan had delivered the ball. Even though the play was unsuccessful, I applauded the call then and now.

And here's a curiosity: we ended up winning that game. I think by "playing not to lose," Shaw signals to his players that he does not fully trust them and does not believe they will make plays. And I think that becomes self-fulfilling. I think that is an important reason our guys don't make plays now like they used to. Harbaugh certainly had flaws and I don't think he was as good a representative of the university as Shaw is, but he had a unique ability (in my experience) to make his guys believe in themselves and then go out onto the field and actually make the plays that validated that belief. I think that is one of the biggest differences between Shaw and Harbaugh. Without some of that instinct to go for it and the inherent message that conveys to his players that Shaw believes in them and believes that they will make the plays he asks them to make, I fear that our best seasons are behind us and we will not be much fun to watch as well. 

[CornFed]

The point that doug raised, which has been roiling around in my brain in recent weeks, is the issue of culture within the team.  As someone who is not privy to the inner workings of the team, my concerns are only conjecture.  But the deterioration of the team's overall performance continually has triggered these thoughts for me.

When Harbaugh was announced as the new head coach, who among us was instantly seduced by his comments regarding his goals for a national championship, much less a PAC12 championship?  My first reaction was bemusement.  Stanford had had top-notch head coaches in the past.  Some of them had achieved truly great things.  John Ralston, Bill Walsh, Dennis Green.  They provided legends and priceless memories to one extent or another.  Yet no one in my experience ever talked even remotely seriously about national championships for a Stanford football team.  No one.  Ever.

Furthermore, our consistent historical identity related to some distant memories of legendary QB's like Plunkett, Bunce, Brodie, Bunce, Elway.  We were, for a time, "QB U" and were seen as a "finesse" team with occasionally great skill position players, but lacking the physical strength and team speed of the annual contenders for the national championship.  Which was why the gigantic upsets of teams like Ohio State (purported by SI to be the greatest team in college football history) in the 1971 Rose Bowl were so epic.

This all changed under Jim Harbaugh.  For all his foibles and idiosyncrasies, Jim Harbaugh delivered an experience which gave rise to realistic notions of a national championship.  Without the benefit of the time needed to assemble much of his own talent he crafted the The Greatest Upset of All Time.  Much of that incredible outcome was achieved by convincing the players that they were capable of INTIMIDATING other teams.  They saw themselves as tougher, harder-working and more in shape than ANYONE they faced.  Whether or not that was initially true or not, the players actually believed it, and, for a while, it was true.

David Shaw is not that kind of maniacal force.  On the contrary, he is quite cerebral about most things about which I have seen him speak.  While that is far more appealing to me personally, I can see where that does not necessarily generate the conquering rampage that Harbaugh personified.  Inspirational people in a field like football do not necessarily create that expression purely verbally.  Harbaugh's participation in field drills is an example that exemplifies pure emotion.

Right now, I feel we have a quality head coach.  He is still pretty young.  Perhaps he is trying to implement a Harbaugh mentality when it really doesn't play to his persona.  I hope that he remains our head coach for a very long time and evolves to an expression of his own type of football.  I further hope that 2014 is the "shock" to him that such an evolution is needed and can be successful.

[CornFed]

The point that doug raised, which has been roiling around in my brain in recent weeks, is the issue of culture within the team.  As someone who is not privy to the inner workings of the team, my concerns are only conjecture.  But the deterioration of the team's overall performance continually has triggered these thoughts for me.

When Harbaugh was announced as the new head coach, who among us was instantly seduced by his comments regarding his goals for a national championship, much less a PAC12 championship?  My first reaction was bemusement.  Stanford had had top-notch head coaches in the past.  Some of them had achieved truly great things.  John Ralston, Bill Walsh, Dennis Green.  They provided legends and priceless memories to one extent or another.  Yet no one in my experience ever talked even remotely seriously about national championships for a Stanford football team.  No one.  Ever.

Furthermore, our consistent historical identity related to some distant memories of legendary QB's like Plunkett, Bunce, Brodie, Bunce, Elway.  We were, for a time, "QB U" and were seen as a "finesse" team with occasionally great skill position players, but lacking the physical strength and team speed of the annual contenders for the national championship.  Which was why the gigantic upsets of teams like Ohio State (purported by SI to be the greatest team in college football history) in the 1971 Rose Bowl were so epic.

This all changed under Jim Harbaugh.  For all his foibles and idiosyncrasies, Jim Harbaugh delivered an experience which gave rise to realistic notions of a national championship.  Without the benefit of the time needed to assemble much of his own talent he crafted the The Greatest Upset of All Time.  Much of that incredible outcome was achieved by convincing the players that they were capable of INTIMIDATING other teams.  They saw themselves as tougher, harder-working and more in shape than ANYONE they faced.  Whether or not that was initially true or not, the players actually believed it, and, for a while, it was true.

David Shaw is not that kind of maniacal force.  On the contrary, he is quite cerebral about most things about which I have seen him speak.  While that is far more appealing to me personally, I can see where that does not necessarily generate the conquering rampage that Harbaugh personified.  Inspirational people in a field like football do not necessarily create that expression purely verbally.  Harbaugh's participation in field drills is an example that exemplifies pure emotion.

Right now, I feel we have a quality head coach.  He is still pretty young.  Perhaps he is trying to implement a Harbaugh mentality when it really doesn't play to his persona.  I hope that he remains our head coach for a very long time and evolves to an expression of his own type of football.  I further hope that 2014 is the "shock" to him that such an evolution is needed and can be successful.

[Bruce Wang]

We had Andrew call the plays and then had Skov the Elder fire the team up.  Of the Frosh, maybe Chryst and Phillips can fill those roles...

[Bruce Wang]

We had Andrew call the plays and then had Skov the Elder fire the team up.  Of the Frosh, maybe Chryst and Phillips can fill those roles...

[yvonne]

I think Aziz could have filled the vocal leader role, but then he got hurt.

[yvonne]

I think Aziz could have filled the vocal leader role, but then he got hurt.

[Fresbone]

I attended an event where Billy Beane was they speaker recently. He commented that what made him a mediocre pro player was that he could not handle when he performed poorly; outstanding players can walk a player and throw the next pitch right down the middle of the strike zone and know that the opposing batter will miss.

My concern about Shaw is that he needs to be that kind of a coach. If he is not that kind of coach, his players will not be that kind of players. I am not and have not been calling for Shaw's head to roll, but I think that is the fundamental change he needs to make as an individual to become a great coach.

He also needs to keep in mind that from here out, until we get the 6th win, every drive that gets past the 50 is in 4 down territory.

[Fresbone]

I attended an event where Billy Beane was they speaker recently. He commented that what made him a mediocre pro player was that he could not handle when he performed poorly; outstanding players can walk a player and throw the next pitch right down the middle of the strike zone and know that the opposing batter will miss.

My concern about Shaw is that he needs to be that kind of a coach. If he is not that kind of coach, his players will not be that kind of players. I am not and have not been calling for Shaw's head to roll, but I think that is the fundamental change he needs to make as an individual to become a great coach.

He also needs to keep in mind that from here out, until we get the 6th win, every drive that gets past the 50 is in 4 down territory.

[Class_of_75]

Bruce Jenkins of the Chronicle says we're disappointing and dull.
http://www.sfgate.com/college/jenkins/ar...896449.php

[Class_of_75]

Bruce Jenkins of the Chronicle says we're disappointing and dull.
http://www.sfgate.com/college/jenkins/ar...896449.php

[stupac2]

stupac2, I think your response to my comment "Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse" is more a response to my semantics -- particularly my use of "relentlessly" --  than it is to the crux of my point. You cite one example of for it on 4th down during our first possession. I did not watch the 1st half of the Utah game and so was unaware we went for it on 4th down, but I still can't say I concede your counterpoint without knowing the circumstances. Going for it on 4th down on the 1st possession of the game is quite different than eschewing a makable FG for the win at the end of the game in which the defense had played brilliantly. I do, however, acknowledge that my use of "relentlessly" was a bit strong and perhaps an expression of my frustration/exasperation.

But I stand by my points. Shaw is extremely risk-averse and unwilling to take chances he does not deem almost absolutely necessary, and I could cite numerous examples. Off the top of my head, I can think of only one time Shaw took a risk that was not absolutely necessary. It was in the 2012 Oregon game when he had Hogan throw on 4th down to Hewitt. The play was unsuccessful, because Hogan short-armed the throw, but otherwise the play had worked perfectly. The Oregon defense was sold out to stop the predictable plunge into the middle of the line. The defense was completely fooled, and Hewitt was wide open and would have gained big yardage, and possibly scored, if Hogan had delivered the ball. Even though the play was unsuccessful, I applauded the call then and now.

And here's a curiosity: we ended up winning that game. I think by "playing not to lose," Shaw signals to his players that he does not fully trust them and does not believe they will make plays. And I think that becomes self-fulfilling. I think that is an important reason our guys don't make plays now like they used to. Harbaugh certainly had flaws and I don't think he was as good a representative of the university as Shaw is, but he had a unique ability (in my experience) to make his guys believe in themselves and then go out onto the field and actually make the plays that validated that belief. I think that is one of the biggest differences between Shaw and Harbaugh. Without some of that instinct to go for it and the inherent message that conveys to his players that Shaw believes in them and believes that they will make the plays he asks them to make, I fear that our best seasons are behind us and we will not be much fun to watch as well.

The thing is that you are just flat-out wrong. We did a similar 4th down conversion like the one against Utah against USC in 2012 (fake FB dive then pitch it out). You cited the one against Oregon that's another big one. So that's 3 big 4th down conversion attempts that come off the top of my head, against, what, a questionable punt and the ending of the Fiesta Bowl?

I get that this season is frustrating, but I really wish we'd restrict complaints to things that can actually be backed up with evidence and not meaningless confirmation bias.

[stupac2]

stupac2, I think your response to my comment "Shaw is relentlessly risk-averse" is more a response to my semantics -- particularly my use of "relentlessly" --  than it is to the crux of my point. You cite one example of for it on 4th down during our first possession. I did not watch the 1st half of the Utah game and so was unaware we went for it on 4th down, but I still can't say I concede your counterpoint without knowing the circumstances. Going for it on 4th down on the 1st possession of the game is quite different than eschewing a makable FG for the win at the end of the game in which the defense had played brilliantly. I do, however, acknowledge that my use of "relentlessly" was a bit strong and perhaps an expression of my frustration/exasperation.

But I stand by my points. Shaw is extremely risk-averse and unwilling to take chances he does not deem almost absolutely necessary, and I could cite numerous examples. Off the top of my head, I can think of only one time Shaw took a risk that was not absolutely necessary. It was in the 2012 Oregon game when he had Hogan throw on 4th down to Hewitt. The play was unsuccessful, because Hogan short-armed the throw, but otherwise the play had worked perfectly. The Oregon defense was sold out to stop the predictable plunge into the middle of the line. The defense was completely fooled, and Hewitt was wide open and would have gained big yardage, and possibly scored, if Hogan had delivered the ball. Even though the play was unsuccessful, I applauded the call then and now.

And here's a curiosity: we ended up winning that game. I think by "playing not to lose," Shaw signals to his players that he does not fully trust them and does not believe they will make plays. And I think that becomes self-fulfilling. I think that is an important reason our guys don't make plays now like they used to. Harbaugh certainly had flaws and I don't think he was as good a representative of the university as Shaw is, but he had a unique ability (in my experience) to make his guys believe in themselves and then go out onto the field and actually make the plays that validated that belief. I think that is one of the biggest differences between Shaw and Harbaugh. Without some of that instinct to go for it and the inherent message that conveys to his players that Shaw believes in them and believes that they will make the plays he asks them to make, I fear that our best seasons are behind us and we will not be much fun to watch as well.

The thing is that you are just flat-out wrong. We did a similar 4th down conversion like the one against Utah against USC in 2012 (fake FB dive then pitch it out). You cited the one against Oregon that's another big one. So that's 3 big 4th down conversion attempts that come off the top of my head, against, what, a questionable punt and the ending of the Fiesta Bowl?

I get that this season is frustrating, but I really wish we'd restrict complaints to things that can actually be backed up with evidence and not meaningless confirmation bias.

[slide]

in 2014, Stanford (including this weekend's successful 4th down conversion) is tied for #122 in the country for successful 4th down conversions.  it is tied for #119 in number of 4th down attempts.  pretty ineffective and a far cry from the executional success Stanford had in 2011 when it was #2 in successful (%) of 4th down conversions.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/nati...ort01.html

[slide]

in 2014, Stanford (including this weekend's successful 4th down conversion) is tied for #122 in the country for successful 4th down conversions.  it is tied for #119 in number of 4th down attempts.  pretty ineffective and a far cry from the executional success Stanford had in 2011 when it was #2 in successful (%) of 4th down conversions.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/nati...ort01.html

[CowboyIndian]

a far cry from the executional success Stanford had in 2011 when it was #2 in successful (%) of 4th down conversions.

Hmmmm...wonder who was QBing that team.

[CowboyIndian]

a far cry from the executional success Stanford had in 2011 when it was #2 in successful (%) of 4th down conversions.

Hmmmm...wonder who was QBing that team.

[gocard14]

I'm just going to go ahead and say that I believe we are the victims of regression/bad luck in the close games department.

We can talk about the lack of vocal leadership, the loss of the "Harbaugh"ian mentality, and coaching choices until the cows come home, but just because a bad outcome happened doesn't mean we can pinpoint a clear reason. There may or may not be truth to any of those points, its a difficult thing to say from the sidelines.  What we can say is that we were likely worse then our record showed in 2012. We are better then our record shows this year.

[gocard14]

I'm just going to go ahead and say that I believe we are the victims of regression/bad luck in the close games department.

We can talk about the lack of vocal leadership, the loss of the "Harbaugh"ian mentality, and coaching choices until the cows come home, but just because a bad outcome happened doesn't mean we can pinpoint a clear reason. There may or may not be truth to any of those points, its a difficult thing to say from the sidelines.  What we can say is that we were likely worse then our record showed in 2012. We are better then our record shows this year.