09-06-2015, 06:35 AM
Watching this game on TV only one thing comes to mind.What the hell is going on!
Poll: Do we need help - You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Please tell me what's going on I'm lost?
36.36%
4
36.36%
What is the real deal ?
63.64%
7
63.64%
* You voted for this item.
Show Results
What is the problem really???
09-06-2015, 06:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2015, 07:10 AM by PrinceLightfoot.)
Our offense is predictable and does not utilize its players effectively. It is also probably too complex...do we really need three plays called in the huddle? There is such a thing as paralysis by analysis. Guys need to be able to play, too, and not think solely. This is a veteran offense...if they cannot put it together, the strategy employed is simply bad.
Defense is young and they were asked to do it all.
Defense is young and they were asked to do it all.
If I had a dollar every time I was distracted, I wish I had some ice cream.
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2015, 07:10 AM by PrinceLightfoot.)
Our offense is predictable and does not utilize its players effectively. It is also probably too complex...do we really need three plays called in the huddle? There is such a thing as paralysis by analysis. Guys need to be able to play, too, and not think solely. This is a veteran offense...if they cannot put it together, the strategy employed is simply bad.
Defense is young and they were asked to do it all.
Defense is young and they were asked to do it all.
If I had a dollar every time I was distracted, I wish I had some ice cream.
09-06-2015, 07:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2015, 07:11 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Here is the problem. Everything Stanford does is slow. Whether it's getting kids into school, the length of time it takes for players to "learn the system," how long it takes to get a play called, how slow-developing plays are, to how long it takes to make in-game adjustments, to how long it takes to change philosophies to overall approach and evolve to the standards of modern football, there isn't anything Stanford football does fast. Not a thing.Â
Literally, I feel like putting on the Stanford uniform makes a guy lose a step. If not purely physically, certainly mentally. The players are so bogged down in making the game way more complex than it needs to be that they can't just concentrate on making plays.Â
If the results were there by doing everything excruciatingly slowly, being slow would be just fine. However, the results aren't there.
We hear about how Hogan has mastered the offense, knows it backwards and forwards, is calm, nothing fazes him. OK, great, but where is the production? He has the worst game of his career after three years as a starter? Maybe if the weapons like Bryce Love, Trent Irwin, and Dalton Schultz were put in positions to succeed and make plays, Hogan and Stanford would not have had such a stinker of a game?Â
Just watching a bit of the Texas-ND game, the commentators said Texas is moving to a less complicated offensive approach specifically so they can get the best players they recruit on the field faster. If Stanford has to wait two years to get production from the best players they recruit, A) Stanford is going to be underutilizing the talent it has at its disposal and B) seeing a drop-off in the talent willing to come to Stanford. It stands to reason that if the other teams are getting their most talented players on the field faster, Stanford is going to be at a large disadvantage over the long haul. Stanford ran 62 offensive plays against Northwestern while NU ran 76 against Stanford. The (supposedly) more talented team should be running more plays because the more plays the better team runs, the greater the odds are of winning the game.
To be clear, I'm not saying you can't win by being slow and deliberate. It's possible, so long as the execution is flawless. But when you have such complexity it makes precise execution much more difficult, especially in college football when there isn't that much formal practice time. The good news is Stanford's defense is way far ahead of its offense in terms of keeping pace with the evolution of college football. The offense is painfully behind the times and needs to show some sense of urgency to catch up. Otherwise, Stanford's program will just be a microcosm of the Northwestern game.
Even Wisconsin, USC, and Alabama have simplified their offensive approaches and are playing at a faster pace.
Literally, I feel like putting on the Stanford uniform makes a guy lose a step. If not purely physically, certainly mentally. The players are so bogged down in making the game way more complex than it needs to be that they can't just concentrate on making plays.Â
If the results were there by doing everything excruciatingly slowly, being slow would be just fine. However, the results aren't there.
We hear about how Hogan has mastered the offense, knows it backwards and forwards, is calm, nothing fazes him. OK, great, but where is the production? He has the worst game of his career after three years as a starter? Maybe if the weapons like Bryce Love, Trent Irwin, and Dalton Schultz were put in positions to succeed and make plays, Hogan and Stanford would not have had such a stinker of a game?Â
Just watching a bit of the Texas-ND game, the commentators said Texas is moving to a less complicated offensive approach specifically so they can get the best players they recruit on the field faster. If Stanford has to wait two years to get production from the best players they recruit, A) Stanford is going to be underutilizing the talent it has at its disposal and B) seeing a drop-off in the talent willing to come to Stanford. It stands to reason that if the other teams are getting their most talented players on the field faster, Stanford is going to be at a large disadvantage over the long haul. Stanford ran 62 offensive plays against Northwestern while NU ran 76 against Stanford. The (supposedly) more talented team should be running more plays because the more plays the better team runs, the greater the odds are of winning the game.
To be clear, I'm not saying you can't win by being slow and deliberate. It's possible, so long as the execution is flawless. But when you have such complexity it makes precise execution much more difficult, especially in college football when there isn't that much formal practice time. The good news is Stanford's defense is way far ahead of its offense in terms of keeping pace with the evolution of college football. The offense is painfully behind the times and needs to show some sense of urgency to catch up. Otherwise, Stanford's program will just be a microcosm of the Northwestern game.
Even Wisconsin, USC, and Alabama have simplified their offensive approaches and are playing at a faster pace.
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2015, 07:11 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Here is the problem. Everything Stanford does is slow. Whether it's getting kids into school, the length of time it takes for players to "learn the system," how long it takes to get a play called, how slow-developing plays are, to how long it takes to make in-game adjustments, to how long it takes to change philosophies to overall approach and evolve to the standards of modern football, there isn't anything Stanford football does fast. Not a thing.Â
Literally, I feel like putting on the Stanford uniform makes a guy lose a step. If not purely physically, certainly mentally. The players are so bogged down in making the game way more complex than it needs to be that they can't just concentrate on making plays.Â
If the results were there by doing everything excruciatingly slowly, being slow would be just fine. However, the results aren't there.
We hear about how Hogan has mastered the offense, knows it backwards and forwards, is calm, nothing fazes him. OK, great, but where is the production? He has the worst game of his career after three years as a starter? Maybe if the weapons like Bryce Love, Trent Irwin, and Dalton Schultz were put in positions to succeed and make plays, Hogan and Stanford would not have had such a stinker of a game?Â
Just watching a bit of the Texas-ND game, the commentators said Texas is moving to a less complicated offensive approach specifically so they can get the best players they recruit on the field faster. If Stanford has to wait two years to get production from the best players they recruit, A) Stanford is going to be underutilizing the talent it has at its disposal and B) seeing a drop-off in the talent willing to come to Stanford. It stands to reason that if the other teams are getting their most talented players on the field faster, Stanford is going to be at a large disadvantage over the long haul. Stanford ran 62 offensive plays against Northwestern while NU ran 76 against Stanford. The (supposedly) more talented team should be running more plays because the more plays the better team runs, the greater the odds are of winning the game.
To be clear, I'm not saying you can't win by being slow and deliberate. It's possible, so long as the execution is flawless. But when you have such complexity it makes precise execution much more difficult, especially in college football when there isn't that much formal practice time. The good news is Stanford's defense is way far ahead of its offense in terms of keeping pace with the evolution of college football. The offense is painfully behind the times and needs to show some sense of urgency to catch up. Otherwise, Stanford's program will just be a microcosm of the Northwestern game.
Even Wisconsin, USC, and Alabama have simplified their offensive approaches and are playing at a faster pace.
Literally, I feel like putting on the Stanford uniform makes a guy lose a step. If not purely physically, certainly mentally. The players are so bogged down in making the game way more complex than it needs to be that they can't just concentrate on making plays.Â
If the results were there by doing everything excruciatingly slowly, being slow would be just fine. However, the results aren't there.
We hear about how Hogan has mastered the offense, knows it backwards and forwards, is calm, nothing fazes him. OK, great, but where is the production? He has the worst game of his career after three years as a starter? Maybe if the weapons like Bryce Love, Trent Irwin, and Dalton Schultz were put in positions to succeed and make plays, Hogan and Stanford would not have had such a stinker of a game?Â
Just watching a bit of the Texas-ND game, the commentators said Texas is moving to a less complicated offensive approach specifically so they can get the best players they recruit on the field faster. If Stanford has to wait two years to get production from the best players they recruit, A) Stanford is going to be underutilizing the talent it has at its disposal and B) seeing a drop-off in the talent willing to come to Stanford. It stands to reason that if the other teams are getting their most talented players on the field faster, Stanford is going to be at a large disadvantage over the long haul. Stanford ran 62 offensive plays against Northwestern while NU ran 76 against Stanford. The (supposedly) more talented team should be running more plays because the more plays the better team runs, the greater the odds are of winning the game.
To be clear, I'm not saying you can't win by being slow and deliberate. It's possible, so long as the execution is flawless. But when you have such complexity it makes precise execution much more difficult, especially in college football when there isn't that much formal practice time. The good news is Stanford's defense is way far ahead of its offense in terms of keeping pace with the evolution of college football. The offense is painfully behind the times and needs to show some sense of urgency to catch up. Otherwise, Stanford's program will just be a microcosm of the Northwestern game.
Even Wisconsin, USC, and Alabama have simplified their offensive approaches and are playing at a faster pace.
09-06-2015, 07:43 AM
(09-06-2015, 06:59 AM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:Our offense is predictable and does not utilize its players effectively. It is also probably too complex...do we really need three plays called in the huddle? There is such a thing as paralysis by analysis. Guys need to be able to play, too, and not think solely. This is a veteran offense...if they cannot put it together, the strategy employed is simply bad.
Defense is young and they were asked to do it all.
It did seem like NW was well prepared for just about everything we tried to do offensively.
(09-06-2015, 06:59 AM)PrinceLightfoot link Wrote:Our offense is predictable and does not utilize its players effectively. It is also probably too complex...do we really need three plays called in the huddle? There is such a thing as paralysis by analysis. Guys need to be able to play, too, and not think solely. This is a veteran offense...if they cannot put it together, the strategy employed is simply bad.
Defense is young and they were asked to do it all.
It did seem like NW was well prepared for just about everything we tried to do offensively.
09-06-2015, 12:20 PM
(09-06-2015, 07:43 AM)JPRI link Wrote:It did seem like NW was well prepared for just about everything we tried to do offensively.
This is a story line that has become annoyingly common.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(09-06-2015, 07:43 AM)JPRI link Wrote:It did seem like NW was well prepared for just about everything we tried to do offensively.
This is a story line that has become annoyingly common.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
09-06-2015, 12:43 PM
(09-06-2015, 12:20 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=12672.msg127073#msg127073 date=1441550601]
It did seem like NW was well prepared for just about everything we tried to do offensively.
This is a story line that has become annoyingly common.
[/quote]
The conspiracy theory that explains nearly everything bad that has happened to us over last year and a game is this....
....someone, somehow, is tipping the defenses to our playcalls on nearly every down.Â
That has to be it.
Or maybe we are just predictable--despite all the pre-snap activity, which other teams now know to ignore.
(09-06-2015, 12:20 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=12672.msg127073#msg127073 date=1441550601]
It did seem like NW was well prepared for just about everything we tried to do offensively.
This is a story line that has become annoyingly common.
[/quote]
The conspiracy theory that explains nearly everything bad that has happened to us over last year and a game is this....
....someone, somehow, is tipping the defenses to our playcalls on nearly every down.Â
That has to be it.
Or maybe we are just predictable--despite all the pre-snap activity, which other teams now know to ignore.
09-06-2015, 01:41 PM
I agree most everything OF said. I think the problem is with Shaw and the coaching style/philosophy. The NW game brought back ugly memories from the last few years. I have often not enjoyed watching even when Stanford won under Shaw, even the Rose Bowl win vs. Wisc. The game was bad-to-dreadful from the end of the 1st quarter on. The only thing that made it fun at all was the first RB win since 1972. Under Shaw, we have all too often been slow, leaden, uncreative, conservative, robotic/mechanical, unable to make plays that are not on our script, often seemingly unprepared, and prone to avoidable mental mistakes. Shaw has real strengths as a coach and representative of Stanford, but his weaknesses -- particularly as a strategist, motivator and in-game coach -- are not just bad, they produce what is for me tortuous play. I am sick of watching our now highly-rated guys play on a seemingly tight leash/script and fail to make plays while the opposing coach trust his guys and lets them try to make plays and win. Think back to the Rose Bowl vs. MSU. The MSU quarterback Conor Cook came into that game as a relative unknown and young. The talking heads predicted the MSU coach would install a game plan to protect him, and they expected Cook to be on a short lease. Instead, Dantonio let him play, even after he threw a pick six in the 1st half. Cook rewarded Dantonio's confidence and he craved us up. Shaw never did that with our guys, so we dully and predictably stuck with power runs right to the infuriating failure on 4th down.
I agree most everything OF said. I think the problem is with Shaw and the coaching style/philosophy. The NW game brought back ugly memories from the last few years. I have often not enjoyed watching even when Stanford won under Shaw, even the Rose Bowl win vs. Wisc. The game was bad-to-dreadful from the end of the 1st quarter on. The only thing that made it fun at all was the first RB win since 1972. Under Shaw, we have all too often been slow, leaden, uncreative, conservative, robotic/mechanical, unable to make plays that are not on our script, often seemingly unprepared, and prone to avoidable mental mistakes. Shaw has real strengths as a coach and representative of Stanford, but his weaknesses -- particularly as a strategist, motivator and in-game coach -- are not just bad, they produce what is for me tortuous play. I am sick of watching our now highly-rated guys play on a seemingly tight leash/script and fail to make plays while the opposing coach trust his guys and lets them try to make plays and win. Think back to the Rose Bowl vs. MSU. The MSU quarterback Conor Cook came into that game as a relative unknown and young. The talking heads predicted the MSU coach would install a game plan to protect him, and they expected Cook to be on a short lease. Instead, Dantonio let him play, even after he threw a pick six in the 1st half. Cook rewarded Dantonio's confidence and he craved us up. Shaw never did that with our guys, so we dully and predictably stuck with power runs right to the infuriating failure on 4th down.
09-06-2015, 01:53 PM
I'm very grateful for the Rose Bowl win, which not even the Genius was able to bring. For a long time, I think the fan base had assumed that was no longer within Stanford's reach.
I as well as most of the Stanford fan base, including the Shaw opponents had no problem with the predictable offense when Toby Gerhart was plowing up the middle, running on supposed pass plays. The problem is that it's no longer working, and that needs to be fixed, from top to bottom.
I as well as most of the Stanford fan base, including the Shaw opponents had no problem with the predictable offense when Toby Gerhart was plowing up the middle, running on supposed pass plays. The problem is that it's no longer working, and that needs to be fixed, from top to bottom.
I'm very grateful for the Rose Bowl win, which not even the Genius was able to bring. For a long time, I think the fan base had assumed that was no longer within Stanford's reach.
I as well as most of the Stanford fan base, including the Shaw opponents had no problem with the predictable offense when Toby Gerhart was plowing up the middle, running on supposed pass plays. The problem is that it's no longer working, and that needs to be fixed, from top to bottom.
I as well as most of the Stanford fan base, including the Shaw opponents had no problem with the predictable offense when Toby Gerhart was plowing up the middle, running on supposed pass plays. The problem is that it's no longer working, and that needs to be fixed, from top to bottom.
09-06-2015, 03:18 PM
Maybe one problem is the staff hasn't realized our players are different these days. For all of our history until recently our teams, usually, consist d of a small number of gifted players and a whole bunch of intelligent mediocre players. With notable exceptions we got recruits who weren't coveted elsewhere. They had to be taught, coached up, built up, and put into a system designed to minimize the effect of the team's lack of athleticism. That is no longer true. Except for linemen who obviously need time to physically mature (with few exceptions) today's recruits can play. The best can play now. Despite the staff's recent recruiting success I don't think they quite believe it. With truly elite players they are beginning to understand, as evident by more and more fresh playing. But aside from the "5 stars" (I don't mean that literally) they need to realize that position recruits who used to be 3, 2, 1 or no stars we now have 4 and 3 stars. I know some people who, after years of struggle, finally hit it big but don't realize it, have a hard time believing it, and need some luck to work through that self- doubt to a point where they can fully capitalize on that success. I was one of them. I think that is where our staff is now.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
Maybe one problem is the staff hasn't realized our players are different these days. For all of our history until recently our teams, usually, consist d of a small number of gifted players and a whole bunch of intelligent mediocre players. With notable exceptions we got recruits who weren't coveted elsewhere. They had to be taught, coached up, built up, and put into a system designed to minimize the effect of the team's lack of athleticism. That is no longer true. Except for linemen who obviously need time to physically mature (with few exceptions) today's recruits can play. The best can play now. Despite the staff's recent recruiting success I don't think they quite believe it. With truly elite players they are beginning to understand, as evident by more and more fresh playing. But aside from the "5 stars" (I don't mean that literally) they need to realize that position recruits who used to be 3, 2, 1 or no stars we now have 4 and 3 stars. I know some people who, after years of struggle, finally hit it big but don't realize it, have a hard time believing it, and need some luck to work through that self- doubt to a point where they can fully capitalize on that success. I was one of them. I think that is where our staff is now.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
09-06-2015, 03:48 PM
Maybe it is a lack of communication between the coaches and the players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcvou0SAxZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcvou0SAxZI
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Maybe it is a lack of communication between the coaches and the players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcvou0SAxZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcvou0SAxZI
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
09-06-2015, 08:40 PM
I would really like to know how our OL is so bad now. These last two years are easily our highest-ranked line in terms of stars, right? So wtf happened that they're worse than the old TWU? Turley's still here, Bloomgren's still the OL coach, he was all along, right? Is this one of those weird cases where having better recruits is hurting us somehow? That seems unlikely...
I would really like to know how our OL is so bad now. These last two years are easily our highest-ranked line in terms of stars, right? So wtf happened that they're worse than the old TWU? Turley's still here, Bloomgren's still the OL coach, he was all along, right? Is this one of those weird cases where having better recruits is hurting us somehow? That seems unlikely...
09-07-2015, 07:54 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2015, 08:12 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Most of you know I follow Ca.l and Stanford very closely and root for both teams. I have hesitated to say this until now, but because so many Stanford fans are looking for answers - and because past history often allows us to foresee and hopefully learn from past mistakes - I'm going to say it. David Shaw is going down a very similar path as Jeff Tedford. And it really should be no surprise, because neither Ca.l or Stanford has historically demanded high performance from their football programs.
Though Shaw has achieved more than Tedford as a head coach (and hasn't yet had a losing season), and had a predecessor build the foundation of the Stanford program, relatively speaking, Shaw and Tedford delivered outsized results relative to the overall history of the two programs they were/are at. When Tedford made Ca.l a serious contender, he was lavished with praise, NFL head coaching jobs were offered, and he was rewarded with largesse for past performance, with no accountability to future performance. This made him comfortable, and as a result, Tedford slowly became soft. This eventually found its way to his team. As his team softened, he became more obsessed with the Xs and Os of the offense, convinced that if he could just get his team to execute these magical plays, all would be well. Then he got lazy with recruiting, and figured if he could bring better athletes to Ca.l that would solve his problems. Well, what happened was his offense became too complex while being at the same time predictable, because he just couldn't change who he was; he was more concerned about his comfort than winning because his employer didn't demand winning. So the losses mounted, too many guys flunked out and recruiting went in the sh*tter. Ca.l's administration didn't demand more performance or hold Tedford accountable to winning at the same level he had won, as a condition of his big contract extension. So in the end, Ca.l got what should have been expected, sliding results with no accountability for performance; a coach who was going to get paid millions whether he won or lost, even after being fired!
Shaw may not lower Stanford's standards of recruiting, in fact he seems to be raising them. However, the one thing I have heard people (including Hulk) say that they worry about with Shaw is the fact the players could be too comfortable and not tough enough, not physically, but mentally. This is because Shaw, like Tedford was, is too comfortable, IMO. He's got his dream job and isn't looking for a bigger one. He lives in Palo Alto. He went to four BCS games in his first four years as a Head Coach. He's got the NFL knocking on his door. He played for the school he coached at. Who is going to tell him he's got to maintain championship seasons or be fired? And does Stanford/Muir even demand this? As for the players, how can they have it better than being on the Stanford campus, set up with degrees to take care of them for life? Is losing a few games a year all that bad when you have all that going for you?Â
Harbaugh made sure losing was unacceptable because he wanted more, frankly a bigger job in the NFL. He was self-motivated to win and didn't need anyone demanding him to perform. Shaw has proven he can win, but he isn't looking for a bigger job. That means he must be held accountable for winning championships or his job will be more about his comfort than needing to win. That is just human nature. You really think Shaw would punt from the NU 37 if he knew he would be fired if he didn't get to the playoff this year? Or he knew his team's scoring average had to improve this year or he would take a pay cut? Everyone needs to be held accountable to performance either by their own selves or by others, or they won't perform. When you have everything you want, it's going to be tough to be that self-motivated to continue to maintain the highest possible performance level when there are no consequences for slipping results. Nobody is going to go out of their comfort zone to maintain performance in such conditions.
In any case, the common denominator with Tedford and Shaw was/is that they were/are too comfortable at institutions that don't historically demand winning championships. Tedford was motivated to be a top-paid head coach and performed until he became one. While nothing short of a championship was acceptable to Harbaugh, Stanford had that as a standard of performance in the program. Shaw wanted to prove he could be a top-flight coach and got results until he did. When good, highly self-motivated guys were present, Ca.l and Stanford won championships (Cal won a "co-Chapionship" in 2009). But the institutions have never demanded that performance themselves, so it doesn't naturally exist. Coaches can easily get comfortable in those environments, so the institutions must demand that performance from coaches who have proven themselves or they will not maintain it.
Many here will scoff at the notion Shaw is Tedford in the making, but as someone who has observed both Ca.l and Stanford probably closer than anyone here, my perspective is probably different than most here too. It seems safe to say Shaw doesn't want to win more than he wants to be comfortable. If this is the case, his employer has to make it clear to him he is expected to win at a certain level or suffer the consequences. Those four BCS bowls are nice, but Shaw has to know they don't mean squat in the context of how his performance is viewed in the future. If Stanford lets Shaw rest on those laurels, there really is no reason to expect the football team to be an annual championship contender.
Though Shaw has achieved more than Tedford as a head coach (and hasn't yet had a losing season), and had a predecessor build the foundation of the Stanford program, relatively speaking, Shaw and Tedford delivered outsized results relative to the overall history of the two programs they were/are at. When Tedford made Ca.l a serious contender, he was lavished with praise, NFL head coaching jobs were offered, and he was rewarded with largesse for past performance, with no accountability to future performance. This made him comfortable, and as a result, Tedford slowly became soft. This eventually found its way to his team. As his team softened, he became more obsessed with the Xs and Os of the offense, convinced that if he could just get his team to execute these magical plays, all would be well. Then he got lazy with recruiting, and figured if he could bring better athletes to Ca.l that would solve his problems. Well, what happened was his offense became too complex while being at the same time predictable, because he just couldn't change who he was; he was more concerned about his comfort than winning because his employer didn't demand winning. So the losses mounted, too many guys flunked out and recruiting went in the sh*tter. Ca.l's administration didn't demand more performance or hold Tedford accountable to winning at the same level he had won, as a condition of his big contract extension. So in the end, Ca.l got what should have been expected, sliding results with no accountability for performance; a coach who was going to get paid millions whether he won or lost, even after being fired!
Shaw may not lower Stanford's standards of recruiting, in fact he seems to be raising them. However, the one thing I have heard people (including Hulk) say that they worry about with Shaw is the fact the players could be too comfortable and not tough enough, not physically, but mentally. This is because Shaw, like Tedford was, is too comfortable, IMO. He's got his dream job and isn't looking for a bigger one. He lives in Palo Alto. He went to four BCS games in his first four years as a Head Coach. He's got the NFL knocking on his door. He played for the school he coached at. Who is going to tell him he's got to maintain championship seasons or be fired? And does Stanford/Muir even demand this? As for the players, how can they have it better than being on the Stanford campus, set up with degrees to take care of them for life? Is losing a few games a year all that bad when you have all that going for you?Â
Harbaugh made sure losing was unacceptable because he wanted more, frankly a bigger job in the NFL. He was self-motivated to win and didn't need anyone demanding him to perform. Shaw has proven he can win, but he isn't looking for a bigger job. That means he must be held accountable for winning championships or his job will be more about his comfort than needing to win. That is just human nature. You really think Shaw would punt from the NU 37 if he knew he would be fired if he didn't get to the playoff this year? Or he knew his team's scoring average had to improve this year or he would take a pay cut? Everyone needs to be held accountable to performance either by their own selves or by others, or they won't perform. When you have everything you want, it's going to be tough to be that self-motivated to continue to maintain the highest possible performance level when there are no consequences for slipping results. Nobody is going to go out of their comfort zone to maintain performance in such conditions.
In any case, the common denominator with Tedford and Shaw was/is that they were/are too comfortable at institutions that don't historically demand winning championships. Tedford was motivated to be a top-paid head coach and performed until he became one. While nothing short of a championship was acceptable to Harbaugh, Stanford had that as a standard of performance in the program. Shaw wanted to prove he could be a top-flight coach and got results until he did. When good, highly self-motivated guys were present, Ca.l and Stanford won championships (Cal won a "co-Chapionship" in 2009). But the institutions have never demanded that performance themselves, so it doesn't naturally exist. Coaches can easily get comfortable in those environments, so the institutions must demand that performance from coaches who have proven themselves or they will not maintain it.
Many here will scoff at the notion Shaw is Tedford in the making, but as someone who has observed both Ca.l and Stanford probably closer than anyone here, my perspective is probably different than most here too. It seems safe to say Shaw doesn't want to win more than he wants to be comfortable. If this is the case, his employer has to make it clear to him he is expected to win at a certain level or suffer the consequences. Those four BCS bowls are nice, but Shaw has to know they don't mean squat in the context of how his performance is viewed in the future. If Stanford lets Shaw rest on those laurels, there really is no reason to expect the football team to be an annual championship contender.
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2015, 08:12 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Most of you know I follow Ca.l and Stanford very closely and root for both teams. I have hesitated to say this until now, but because so many Stanford fans are looking for answers - and because past history often allows us to foresee and hopefully learn from past mistakes - I'm going to say it. David Shaw is going down a very similar path as Jeff Tedford. And it really should be no surprise, because neither Ca.l or Stanford has historically demanded high performance from their football programs.
Though Shaw has achieved more than Tedford as a head coach (and hasn't yet had a losing season), and had a predecessor build the foundation of the Stanford program, relatively speaking, Shaw and Tedford delivered outsized results relative to the overall history of the two programs they were/are at. When Tedford made Ca.l a serious contender, he was lavished with praise, NFL head coaching jobs were offered, and he was rewarded with largesse for past performance, with no accountability to future performance. This made him comfortable, and as a result, Tedford slowly became soft. This eventually found its way to his team. As his team softened, he became more obsessed with the Xs and Os of the offense, convinced that if he could just get his team to execute these magical plays, all would be well. Then he got lazy with recruiting, and figured if he could bring better athletes to Ca.l that would solve his problems. Well, what happened was his offense became too complex while being at the same time predictable, because he just couldn't change who he was; he was more concerned about his comfort than winning because his employer didn't demand winning. So the losses mounted, too many guys flunked out and recruiting went in the sh*tter. Ca.l's administration didn't demand more performance or hold Tedford accountable to winning at the same level he had won, as a condition of his big contract extension. So in the end, Ca.l got what should have been expected, sliding results with no accountability for performance; a coach who was going to get paid millions whether he won or lost, even after being fired!
Shaw may not lower Stanford's standards of recruiting, in fact he seems to be raising them. However, the one thing I have heard people (including Hulk) say that they worry about with Shaw is the fact the players could be too comfortable and not tough enough, not physically, but mentally. This is because Shaw, like Tedford was, is too comfortable, IMO. He's got his dream job and isn't looking for a bigger one. He lives in Palo Alto. He went to four BCS games in his first four years as a Head Coach. He's got the NFL knocking on his door. He played for the school he coached at. Who is going to tell him he's got to maintain championship seasons or be fired? And does Stanford/Muir even demand this? As for the players, how can they have it better than being on the Stanford campus, set up with degrees to take care of them for life? Is losing a few games a year all that bad when you have all that going for you?Â
Harbaugh made sure losing was unacceptable because he wanted more, frankly a bigger job in the NFL. He was self-motivated to win and didn't need anyone demanding him to perform. Shaw has proven he can win, but he isn't looking for a bigger job. That means he must be held accountable for winning championships or his job will be more about his comfort than needing to win. That is just human nature. You really think Shaw would punt from the NU 37 if he knew he would be fired if he didn't get to the playoff this year? Or he knew his team's scoring average had to improve this year or he would take a pay cut? Everyone needs to be held accountable to performance either by their own selves or by others, or they won't perform. When you have everything you want, it's going to be tough to be that self-motivated to continue to maintain the highest possible performance level when there are no consequences for slipping results. Nobody is going to go out of their comfort zone to maintain performance in such conditions.
In any case, the common denominator with Tedford and Shaw was/is that they were/are too comfortable at institutions that don't historically demand winning championships. Tedford was motivated to be a top-paid head coach and performed until he became one. While nothing short of a championship was acceptable to Harbaugh, Stanford had that as a standard of performance in the program. Shaw wanted to prove he could be a top-flight coach and got results until he did. When good, highly self-motivated guys were present, Ca.l and Stanford won championships (Cal won a "co-Chapionship" in 2009). But the institutions have never demanded that performance themselves, so it doesn't naturally exist. Coaches can easily get comfortable in those environments, so the institutions must demand that performance from coaches who have proven themselves or they will not maintain it.
Many here will scoff at the notion Shaw is Tedford in the making, but as someone who has observed both Ca.l and Stanford probably closer than anyone here, my perspective is probably different than most here too. It seems safe to say Shaw doesn't want to win more than he wants to be comfortable. If this is the case, his employer has to make it clear to him he is expected to win at a certain level or suffer the consequences. Those four BCS bowls are nice, but Shaw has to know they don't mean squat in the context of how his performance is viewed in the future. If Stanford lets Shaw rest on those laurels, there really is no reason to expect the football team to be an annual championship contender.
Though Shaw has achieved more than Tedford as a head coach (and hasn't yet had a losing season), and had a predecessor build the foundation of the Stanford program, relatively speaking, Shaw and Tedford delivered outsized results relative to the overall history of the two programs they were/are at. When Tedford made Ca.l a serious contender, he was lavished with praise, NFL head coaching jobs were offered, and he was rewarded with largesse for past performance, with no accountability to future performance. This made him comfortable, and as a result, Tedford slowly became soft. This eventually found its way to his team. As his team softened, he became more obsessed with the Xs and Os of the offense, convinced that if he could just get his team to execute these magical plays, all would be well. Then he got lazy with recruiting, and figured if he could bring better athletes to Ca.l that would solve his problems. Well, what happened was his offense became too complex while being at the same time predictable, because he just couldn't change who he was; he was more concerned about his comfort than winning because his employer didn't demand winning. So the losses mounted, too many guys flunked out and recruiting went in the sh*tter. Ca.l's administration didn't demand more performance or hold Tedford accountable to winning at the same level he had won, as a condition of his big contract extension. So in the end, Ca.l got what should have been expected, sliding results with no accountability for performance; a coach who was going to get paid millions whether he won or lost, even after being fired!
Shaw may not lower Stanford's standards of recruiting, in fact he seems to be raising them. However, the one thing I have heard people (including Hulk) say that they worry about with Shaw is the fact the players could be too comfortable and not tough enough, not physically, but mentally. This is because Shaw, like Tedford was, is too comfortable, IMO. He's got his dream job and isn't looking for a bigger one. He lives in Palo Alto. He went to four BCS games in his first four years as a Head Coach. He's got the NFL knocking on his door. He played for the school he coached at. Who is going to tell him he's got to maintain championship seasons or be fired? And does Stanford/Muir even demand this? As for the players, how can they have it better than being on the Stanford campus, set up with degrees to take care of them for life? Is losing a few games a year all that bad when you have all that going for you?Â
Harbaugh made sure losing was unacceptable because he wanted more, frankly a bigger job in the NFL. He was self-motivated to win and didn't need anyone demanding him to perform. Shaw has proven he can win, but he isn't looking for a bigger job. That means he must be held accountable for winning championships or his job will be more about his comfort than needing to win. That is just human nature. You really think Shaw would punt from the NU 37 if he knew he would be fired if he didn't get to the playoff this year? Or he knew his team's scoring average had to improve this year or he would take a pay cut? Everyone needs to be held accountable to performance either by their own selves or by others, or they won't perform. When you have everything you want, it's going to be tough to be that self-motivated to continue to maintain the highest possible performance level when there are no consequences for slipping results. Nobody is going to go out of their comfort zone to maintain performance in such conditions.
In any case, the common denominator with Tedford and Shaw was/is that they were/are too comfortable at institutions that don't historically demand winning championships. Tedford was motivated to be a top-paid head coach and performed until he became one. While nothing short of a championship was acceptable to Harbaugh, Stanford had that as a standard of performance in the program. Shaw wanted to prove he could be a top-flight coach and got results until he did. When good, highly self-motivated guys were present, Ca.l and Stanford won championships (Cal won a "co-Chapionship" in 2009). But the institutions have never demanded that performance themselves, so it doesn't naturally exist. Coaches can easily get comfortable in those environments, so the institutions must demand that performance from coaches who have proven themselves or they will not maintain it.
Many here will scoff at the notion Shaw is Tedford in the making, but as someone who has observed both Ca.l and Stanford probably closer than anyone here, my perspective is probably different than most here too. It seems safe to say Shaw doesn't want to win more than he wants to be comfortable. If this is the case, his employer has to make it clear to him he is expected to win at a certain level or suffer the consequences. Those four BCS bowls are nice, but Shaw has to know they don't mean squat in the context of how his performance is viewed in the future. If Stanford lets Shaw rest on those laurels, there really is no reason to expect the football team to be an annual championship contender.
09-07-2015, 08:17 AM
(09-07-2015, 08:11 AM)garvin link Wrote:I am as unhappy as anybody with Saturday's game. But comparing a single loss to the total dysfunction of Jeff Tedford's teams is absurd. If Stanford is 3-9 at the end of the season, then I'll listen to you.
What if Stanford is 6-6?
I certainly want more data before I completely write this team and this coaching staff off (with the exception of Shaw's continued baffling conservatism in the face of all evidence that it's dumb), but OF builds a compelling narrative there. If that game wasn't a fluke, I'll think he's on to something.
(09-07-2015, 08:11 AM)garvin link Wrote:I am as unhappy as anybody with Saturday's game. But comparing a single loss to the total dysfunction of Jeff Tedford's teams is absurd. If Stanford is 3-9 at the end of the season, then I'll listen to you.
What if Stanford is 6-6?
I certainly want more data before I completely write this team and this coaching staff off (with the exception of Shaw's continued baffling conservatism in the face of all evidence that it's dumb), but OF builds a compelling narrative there. If that game wasn't a fluke, I'll think he's on to something.
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-07-2015, 08:24 AM
(09-07-2015, 07:54 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Many here will scoff at the notion Shaw is Tedford in the making, but as someone who has observed both Ca.l and Stanford probably closer than anyone here, my perspective is probably different than most here too.
different than -> different from
(09-07-2015, 07:54 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Many here will scoff at the notion Shaw is Tedford in the making, but as someone who has observed both Ca.l and Stanford probably closer than anyone here, my perspective is probably different than most here too.
different than -> different from
09-07-2015, 08:26 AM
I think there is evidence to suggest there is some whistling past the graveyard going on here. In a highly, highly competitive industry like college football, it doesn't take very much slippage to fall from grace. IMO, you have to be extremely vigilant to maintain your edge. You can fall very fast if not careful, and if you wait too long to make changes when desired results aren't realized, it can take years to get back to the top.
So call me reactionary or preposterous all you want, but there are real parallels between Ca.l and Stanford. Frankly, the fact you're not at all concerned, Garvin, suggests the conditions already exist for that fall to take place.
Gene Chizik won a national title in 2010 and was fired in 2012. In 2013, Auburn was in the title game again with a new coach.Â
So call me reactionary or preposterous all you want, but there are real parallels between Ca.l and Stanford. Frankly, the fact you're not at all concerned, Garvin, suggests the conditions already exist for that fall to take place.
Gene Chizik won a national title in 2010 and was fired in 2012. In 2013, Auburn was in the title game again with a new coach.Â
I think there is evidence to suggest there is some whistling past the graveyard going on here. In a highly, highly competitive industry like college football, it doesn't take very much slippage to fall from grace. IMO, you have to be extremely vigilant to maintain your edge. You can fall very fast if not careful, and if you wait too long to make changes when desired results aren't realized, it can take years to get back to the top.
So call me reactionary or preposterous all you want, but there are real parallels between Ca.l and Stanford. Frankly, the fact you're not at all concerned, Garvin, suggests the conditions already exist for that fall to take place.
Gene Chizik won a national title in 2010 and was fired in 2012. In 2013, Auburn was in the title game again with a new coach.Â
So call me reactionary or preposterous all you want, but there are real parallels between Ca.l and Stanford. Frankly, the fact you're not at all concerned, Garvin, suggests the conditions already exist for that fall to take place.
Gene Chizik won a national title in 2010 and was fired in 2012. In 2013, Auburn was in the title game again with a new coach.Â
09-07-2015, 09:06 AM
(09-07-2015, 08:30 AM)garvin link Wrote:What narrative? Losing was unacceptable to Jim Harbaugh? He lost 21 games at Stanford. Shaw could lose every game the rest of the season and still have suffered fewer defeats than Harbaugh. After three consecutive bowl games, the AD didn't fire Shaw for going 8-5 and winning a bowl game last season? In what universe would have have been a sensible action? What coach would be interested in taking a position at Stanford if failing to make the Rose Bowl was a firing offense? That the fact that Shaw likes Stanford and wants to stay here should be held against him? Really? You want to go back to hiring resume-builders who were out of here after three seasons? Was that a formula for success?
You're comparing apples and oranges, though. Hardballs inherited a team that was as disorganized, without confidence, and flat-out bad as any in the country. You can't point to Shaw's relatively fewer losses and make some case for his greatness. He inherited a system, a well run machine, an identity, not to mention top-shelf players who bought into all that. Shaw did well to smoothly carry the torch and continue and even elevate Stanford's success, but you write of Shaw as if in some vacuum.
Irrespective of Shaw's relatively sterling win-loss record and its place in Stanford history, all I've needed to see is the rapid disintegration of our offense to know that he is not capable of running a productive offense that takes advantage of team personnel and strengths, or that minimizes team weaknesses. The offense is lost out there, period.
Maybe Shaw's a great head coach, but imo we won't know that until or unless he learns (or is forced) to hand the keys to a good OC and give him free rein. Maybe Bloomgren is partly responsible for this offensive mess, but that's still on Shaw to correct. How I wish Bloomgren were kept at offensive line and we had a real OC from outside the program running the offense. Not just a good Xs and Os guy, but someone who understands sustaining drives with rhythm and flow, and who adjusts to personnel and what the opposing team is doing. Easier said than done, finding a good OC, but Stanford ought to try at least. My hunch is Shaw's career on the Farm will depend on it, whether he or Muir ever see it that way.
(09-07-2015, 08:30 AM)garvin link Wrote:What narrative? Losing was unacceptable to Jim Harbaugh? He lost 21 games at Stanford. Shaw could lose every game the rest of the season and still have suffered fewer defeats than Harbaugh. After three consecutive bowl games, the AD didn't fire Shaw for going 8-5 and winning a bowl game last season? In what universe would have have been a sensible action? What coach would be interested in taking a position at Stanford if failing to make the Rose Bowl was a firing offense? That the fact that Shaw likes Stanford and wants to stay here should be held against him? Really? You want to go back to hiring resume-builders who were out of here after three seasons? Was that a formula for success?
You're comparing apples and oranges, though. Hardballs inherited a team that was as disorganized, without confidence, and flat-out bad as any in the country. You can't point to Shaw's relatively fewer losses and make some case for his greatness. He inherited a system, a well run machine, an identity, not to mention top-shelf players who bought into all that. Shaw did well to smoothly carry the torch and continue and even elevate Stanford's success, but you write of Shaw as if in some vacuum.
Irrespective of Shaw's relatively sterling win-loss record and its place in Stanford history, all I've needed to see is the rapid disintegration of our offense to know that he is not capable of running a productive offense that takes advantage of team personnel and strengths, or that minimizes team weaknesses. The offense is lost out there, period.
Maybe Shaw's a great head coach, but imo we won't know that until or unless he learns (or is forced) to hand the keys to a good OC and give him free rein. Maybe Bloomgren is partly responsible for this offensive mess, but that's still on Shaw to correct. How I wish Bloomgren were kept at offensive line and we had a real OC from outside the program running the offense. Not just a good Xs and Os guy, but someone who understands sustaining drives with rhythm and flow, and who adjusts to personnel and what the opposing team is doing. Easier said than done, finding a good OC, but Stanford ought to try at least. My hunch is Shaw's career on the Farm will depend on it, whether he or Muir ever see it that way.
09-07-2015, 09:12 AM
(09-07-2015, 07:54 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Most of you know I follow Ca.l and Stanford very closely and root for both teams. I have hesitated to say this until now, but because so many Stanford fans are looking for answers - and because past history often allows us to foresee and hopefully learn from past mistakes - I'm going to say it. David Shaw is going down a very similar path as Jeff Tedford. And it really should be no surprise, because neither Ca.l or Stanford has historically demanded high performance from their football programs.I appreciate your comments and perspective and hope others here don't give you too hard a time. I have thoroughly enjoyed having you and some other outsiders posting here from time to time. A changed perspective is good for us.
I do think that Tedford and Shaw are fundamentally different people and worked for different kinds of institutions. Stanford would never have permitted Shaw to recruit and play academically sub standard players the way C.al permitted Tedford, but even more important is that Tedford was willing to do so, and Shaw would never do so even if permitted. Their values systems are just fundamentally different. So you could say that C.al and its coach were both willing to sell out academics to improve the team--but even that failed. Neither Stanford nor its coach would be willing to do that.
And that gives David Shaw a different motivation than Tedford ever had--Shaw has the chip on his shoulder to prove that a high level of football performance is in fact compatible with a high level of academic performance. This is in his DNA and since he was a student athlete at Stanford under Walsh he has wanted to establish that basic compatibility in the face of the naysayers and doubters. Walsh could never quite do it, and Shaw wants to save the old fashioned student-athlete from the cesspool of semi-pro athletics. The only way he can accomplish that is to build Stanford into a perennial power house school. If he did it anywhere but at Stanford, he would not be able to prove his point. He can't accomplish this goal in the pros or at any other school--a national championship at a place with extremely high academic standards would be the classic David vs. Goliath story, complete with the moral and ethical implications. It has nothing to do with his salary or comfort level, but with his pride and his ideology.Â
No, Shaw's problem is not that he has become soft or complacent. He continues to attract top talent--both students and some of his assistant coaches. He has everything he needs to fulfill his mission except he lacks the offensive mind necessary to do so. He needs to find a young Bill Walsh somewhere to become his offensive coordinator.Â
(09-07-2015, 07:54 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Most of you know I follow Ca.l and Stanford very closely and root for both teams. I have hesitated to say this until now, but because so many Stanford fans are looking for answers - and because past history often allows us to foresee and hopefully learn from past mistakes - I'm going to say it. David Shaw is going down a very similar path as Jeff Tedford. And it really should be no surprise, because neither Ca.l or Stanford has historically demanded high performance from their football programs.I appreciate your comments and perspective and hope others here don't give you too hard a time. I have thoroughly enjoyed having you and some other outsiders posting here from time to time. A changed perspective is good for us.
I do think that Tedford and Shaw are fundamentally different people and worked for different kinds of institutions. Stanford would never have permitted Shaw to recruit and play academically sub standard players the way C.al permitted Tedford, but even more important is that Tedford was willing to do so, and Shaw would never do so even if permitted. Their values systems are just fundamentally different. So you could say that C.al and its coach were both willing to sell out academics to improve the team--but even that failed. Neither Stanford nor its coach would be willing to do that.
And that gives David Shaw a different motivation than Tedford ever had--Shaw has the chip on his shoulder to prove that a high level of football performance is in fact compatible with a high level of academic performance. This is in his DNA and since he was a student athlete at Stanford under Walsh he has wanted to establish that basic compatibility in the face of the naysayers and doubters. Walsh could never quite do it, and Shaw wants to save the old fashioned student-athlete from the cesspool of semi-pro athletics. The only way he can accomplish that is to build Stanford into a perennial power house school. If he did it anywhere but at Stanford, he would not be able to prove his point. He can't accomplish this goal in the pros or at any other school--a national championship at a place with extremely high academic standards would be the classic David vs. Goliath story, complete with the moral and ethical implications. It has nothing to do with his salary or comfort level, but with his pride and his ideology.Â
No, Shaw's problem is not that he has become soft or complacent. He continues to attract top talent--both students and some of his assistant coaches. He has everything he needs to fulfill his mission except he lacks the offensive mind necessary to do so. He needs to find a young Bill Walsh somewhere to become his offensive coordinator.Â
09-07-2015, 09:16 AM
Any talk of the head coach being fired is just silly. Mainly because he doesn't deserve it. If that isn't enough, consider the firing practices of the AD. unless Shaw moons the crowd next Saturday or starts hanging around the middle school girls locker room he is here until he decides to go. Ask Dawkins.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
Any talk of the head coach being fired is just silly. Mainly because he doesn't deserve it. If that isn't enough, consider the firing practices of the AD. unless Shaw moons the crowd next Saturday or starts hanging around the middle school girls locker room he is here until he decides to go. Ask Dawkins.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
09-07-2015, 10:29 AM
I recall that playcalling duties were taken away from Shaw under certain circumstances when Harbaugh was coach. Frankly, I think our muy intelligente players need a top level OC, an NFL level OC like Greg Roman. If we get that back, we'll be scoring 35 per game again.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
I recall that playcalling duties were taken away from Shaw under certain circumstances when Harbaugh was coach. Frankly, I think our muy intelligente players need a top level OC, an NFL level OC like Greg Roman. If we get that back, we'll be scoring 35 per game again.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
09-07-2015, 10:36 AM
(09-07-2015, 10:29 AM)Mick link Wrote:an NFL level OC like Greg Roman.Â
I'm not so sure many 49er fans would agree with you on that.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »