Oregon St. Game Thread - Printable Version

Oregon St. Game Thread - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Oregon St. Game Thread (/thread-21156.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - SamuelMcF - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 12:18 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 11:20 AM)winflop Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 10:34 AM)lex24 Wrote: But I realize for some that giving Shaw credit for anything but being lucky enough to follow JH is not gonna happen.

I'll give Shaw credit for improving from last season to having a mediocre, middle-of-the-road team. He kept the seat from getting hot, not only for himself but (unfortunately) for his staff. The roster is still too thin, we still have too many injuries (for the third year in a row which makes it no longer a blip but a pattern), and on offense we still get into too many 3rd & 5+ situations.

Given the fact that we now have a three game winning streak (on the road) which includes a victory over a previously undefeated team which will playing for the CC, I give us credit for being somewhat better than mediocre.

Did you watch the game? Specifically the defense? Unfortunately I think winflop is right on the money.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - lex24 - 12-13-2020

H

(12-13-2020, 01:02 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 12:18 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 11:20 AM)winflop Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 10:34 AM)lex24 Wrote: But I realize for some that giving Shaw credit for anything but being lucky enough to follow JH is not gonna happen.

I'll give Shaw credit for improving from last season to having a mediocre, middle-of-the-road team. He kept the seat from getting hot, not only for himself but (unfortunately) for his staff. The roster is still too thin, we still have too many injuries (for the third year in a row which makes it no longer a blip but a pattern), and on offense we still get into too many 3rd & 5+ situations.

Given the fact that we now have a three game winning streak (on the road) which includes a victory over a previously undefeated team which will playing for the CC, I give us credit for being somewhat better than mediocre.

Did you watch the game? Specifically the defense? Unfortunately I think winflop is right on the money.

No one is saying this is a great football team. Or anything close. But the screams of 0-5 were loud. So one would think winning three straight on the road would be worthy of some praise for the staff. Speaking of which, the last drive was terrific until the false start. Burned clock. Mixed it up with run and pass. Were in position to essentially run clock out and score. Or come very close.

Mills had a terrific half. He’s getting better and better. The line played well. And while the defense is not strong, they made a couple big plays.

3 nice wins.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Brickcity - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 01:33 PM)lex24 Wrote: H
(12-13-2020, 01:02 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 12:18 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 11:20 AM)winflop Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 10:34 AM)lex24 Wrote: But I realize for some that giving Shaw credit for anything but being lucky enough to follow JH is not gonna happen.

I'll give Shaw credit for improving from last season to having a mediocre, middle-of-the-road team. He kept the seat from getting hot, not only for himself but (unfortunately) for his staff. The roster is still too thin, we still have too many injuries (for the third year in a row which makes it no longer a blip but a pattern), and on offense we still get into too many 3rd & 5+ situations.

Given the fact that we now have a three game winning streak (on the road) which includes a victory over a previously undefeated team which will playing for the CC, I give us credit for being somewhat better than mediocre.

Did you watch the game? Specifically the defense? Unfortunately I think winflop is right on the money.

No one is saying this is a great football team. Or anything close. But the screams of 0-5 were loud. So one would think winning three straight on the road would be worthy of some praise for the staff. Speaking of which, the last drive was terrific until the false start. Burned clock. Mixed it up with run and pass. Were in position to essentially run clock out and score. Or come very close.

Mills had a terrific half. He’s getting better and better. The line played well. And while the defense is not strong, they made a couple big plays.

3 nice wins.

"But the screams of 0-5 were loud." So, we should applaud Shaw for avoiding an 0-5 season? That seems like a pretty low bar to me. Look, I'll give him credit for getting his players to continue to battle. The team seems to have heart. But, the core problems with the program still remain, ones which others on this thread have highlighted. I think he'll have to get himself to solve them - principally the poor recruiting on defense and lack of injury prevention - before Stanford comes anywhere in the ballpark to being where it was five years ago.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - lex24 - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 02:15 PM)Brickcity Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 01:33 PM)lex24 Wrote: H
(12-13-2020, 01:02 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 12:18 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 11:20 AM)winflop Wrote: I'll give Shaw credit for improving from last season to having a mediocre, middle-of-the-road team. He kept the seat from getting hot, not only for himself but (unfortunately) for his staff. The roster is still too thin, we still have too many injuries (for the third year in a row which makes it no longer a blip but a pattern), and on offense we still get into too many 3rd & 5+ situations.

Given the fact that we now have a three game winning streak (on the road) which includes a victory over a previously undefeated team which will playing for the CC, I give us credit for being somewhat better than mediocre.

Did you watch the game? Specifically the defense? Unfortunately I think winflop is right on the money.

No one is saying this is a great football team. Or anything close. But the screams of 0-5 were loud. So one would think winning three straight on the road would be worthy of some praise for the staff. Speaking of which, the last drive was terrific until the false start. Burned clock. Mixed it up with run and pass. Were in position to essentially run clock out and score. Or come very close.

Mills had a terrific half. He’s getting better and better. The line played well. And while the defense is not strong, they made a couple big plays.

3 nice wins.

"But the screams of 0-5 were loud." So, we should applaud Shaw for avoiding an 0-5 season? That seems like a pretty low bar to me. Look, I'll give him credit for getting his players to continue to battle. The team seems to have heart. But, the core problems with the program still remain, ones which others on this thread have highlighted. I think he'll have to get himself to solve them - principally the poor recruiting on defense and lack of injury prevention - before Stanford comes anywhere in the ballpark to being where it was five years ago.

Continuing to battle? They won three straight. The lack of injury prevention is in my opinion one of the more ridiculous criticisms. (I guess Shanahan and the Niners really suck at S and C) Injuries are more of a function of luck than anything else. The  offensive line has certainly seemed significantly stronger this year. No injuries. Does the strength and conditioning coach get any credit for that? Guess not.

Look – my point is not that this program is where it was a few years back. My point is this program also isn’t in the toilet. Which is where a hell of a lot of people on this board we’re putting it just a few weeks ago. And that perhaps the coaching staff deserve some credit for turning it around and winning the final three games of the regular season under tough circumstances.

I also thought the playcalling and game planning from an offensive perspective this year was significantly better. Once they got Mills in a position where he was ready to go you could see the improvement. Nice mix of run and  pass. Ability to sustain long drives. And finish them. And a great improvement on both third down and the red zone. (Plus I haven’t noticed and DOG or wasted TOs as play clock runs out the last few weeks. They may have had one in first Q. But I think that was more a function that they didn’t like what they saw).

Specifics: they are 23-41 on third last 3 games. In RZ they are 11-12 with 9 TDS.

But nobody wants to give Tavita or Shawvita any credit. Ever. That would mean God help us that they might actually stick around. Never mind that Tavita has shown growth. (BTW - Mills looks better every week. Does Tavita get any credit there. Cause the CW here is he (and Shaw) can’t develop QB’s.

Stanford is not going to have a wide-open high tempo offense. To do so would be disastrous. Because they simply don’t have the numbers defensively to sustain that kind of play. Ever. And in order to play that style you need a lot of depth defensively. That’s not me speaking by the way that’s Oregon’s  former defensive coordinator back from their glory days. So they play the style of football that puts them in a position to be the most successful. And that starts with a running game and being able to control the football, grind clock and limit possessions.

The biggest differences this year offensively is first Mills and second since halftime of the Cal game the offensive line has picked it up significantly and Stanford’s been able to run quite well. And most importantly they’ve been able to do it at key times in the football game where they needed to .

So hey maybe Carberry isn’t a bum either.

I agree wholeheartedly btw that they need to recruit better on the defensive side.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - BostonCard - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 02:15 PM)Brickcity Wrote: "But the screams of 0-5 were loud." So, we should applaud Shaw for avoiding an 0-5 season? That seems like a pretty low bar to me.

That might be more of an indictment if we had gone 1-4 (or even 2-3). Alas, we have a winning record. We beat the Pac-12 North champion on the road. We got the axe back. I mean, third place in the Pac-12 North is not worthy of popping campaign corks or anything, but it's a bit better than "avoiding an 0-5 season".

BC

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Row80Critic - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 02:15 PM)Brickcity Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 01:33 PM)lex24 Wrote: H
(12-13-2020, 01:02 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 12:18 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 11:20 AM)winflop Wrote: I'll give Shaw credit for improving from last season to having a mediocre, middle-of-the-road team. He kept the seat from getting hot, not only for himself but (unfortunately) for his staff. The roster is still too thin, we still have too many injuries (for the third year in a row which makes it no longer a blip but a pattern), and on offense we still get into too many 3rd & 5+ situations.

Given the fact that we now have a three game winning streak (on the road) which includes a victory over a previously undefeated team which will playing for the CC, I give us credit for being somewhat better than mediocre.

Did you watch the game? Specifically the defense? Unfortunately I think winflop is right on the money.

No one is saying this is a great football team. Or anything close. But the screams of 0-5 were loud. So one would think winning three straight on the road would be worthy of some praise for the staff. Speaking of which, the last drive was terrific until the false start. Burned clock. Mixed it up with run and pass. Were in position to essentially run clock out and score. Or come very close.

Mills had a terrific half. He’s getting better and better. The line played well. And while the defense is not strong, they made a couple big plays.

3 nice wins.

"But the screams of 0-5 were loud." So, we should applaud Shaw for avoiding an 0-5 season? That seems like a pretty low bar to me. Look, I'll give him credit for getting his players to continue to battle. The team seems to have heart. But, the core problems with the program still remain, ones which others on this thread have highlighted. I think he'll have to get himself to solve them - principally the poor recruiting on defense and lack of injury prevention - before Stanford comes anywhere in the ballpark to being where it was five years ago.

Have to give the guys credit for making plays when it really counted, but all three of these wins could have gone either way. Blocked PAT with 58 seconds left avoided overtime at Kal; Washington was the most convincing win, but Stanford had to hang on for dear life; and of course a fumble killed the go-ahead or tying drive last night. Good teams make their own luck, I know, but still.... It's a weird team. With Mills practicing and playing for all games, I could see this team at 5-0. Without a good amount of "luck" at key moments, I could also see them at 0-5. I blame Covid. ;)

I'd also say that a coaching staff can't blame the same things for more than a season, maybe two, without taking responsibility for its continued existence. Poor execution, excessive injuries, not enough talent/depth, overly complicated schemes keeping talent off field, players not living up to hype, early departures and portal seekers -- whatever else -- if it keeps happening, it's on the coaching staff. Stanford may not be able to admit the non-academic types, but there's surely enough brainiac recruits to have (at least) winning seasons every year.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Brickcity - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 02:42 PM)Row80Critic Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 02:15 PM)Brickcity Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 01:33 PM)lex24 Wrote: H
(12-13-2020, 01:02 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 12:18 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Given the fact that we now have a three game winning streak (on the road) which includes a victory over a previously undefeated team which will playing for the CC, I give us credit for being somewhat better than mediocre.

Did you watch the game? Specifically the defense? Unfortunately I think winflop is right on the money.

No one is saying this is a great football team. Or anything close. But the screams of 0-5 were loud. So one would think winning three straight on the road would be worthy of some praise for the staff. Speaking of which, the last drive was terrific until the false start. Burned clock. Mixed it up with run and pass. Were in position to essentially run clock out and score. Or come very close.

Mills had a terrific half. He’s getting better and better. The line played well. And while the defense is not strong, they made a couple big plays.

3 nice wins.

"But the screams of 0-5 were loud." So, we should applaud Shaw for avoiding an 0-5 season? That seems like a pretty low bar to me. Look, I'll give him credit for getting his players to continue to battle. The team seems to have heart. But, the core problems with the program still remain, ones which others on this thread have highlighted. I think he'll have to get himself to solve them - principally the poor recruiting on defense and lack of injury prevention - before Stanford comes anywhere in the ballpark to being where it was five years ago.

Have to give the guys credit for making plays when it really counted, but all three of these wins could have gone either way. Blocked PAT with 58 seconds left avoided overtime at Kal; Washington was the most convincing win, but Stanford had to hang on for dear life; and of course a fumble killed the go-ahead or tying drive last night. Good teams make their own luck, I know, but still.... It's a weird team. With Mills practicing and playing for all games, I could see this team at 5-0. Without a good amount of "luck" at key moments, I could also see them at 0-5. I blame Covid. ;)

I'd also say that a coaching staff can't blame the same things for more than a season, maybe two, without taking responsibility for its continued existence. Poor execution, excessive injuries, not enough talent/depth, overly complicated schemes keeping talent off field, players not living up to hype, early departures and portal seekers -- whatever else -- if it keeps happening, it's on the coaching staff. Stanford may not be able to admit the non-academic types, but there's surely enough brainiac recruits to have (at least) winning seasons every year.

BINGO!

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - BostonCard - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 02:42 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: I'd also say that a coaching staff can't blame the same things for more than a season, maybe two, without taking responsibility for its continued existence. Poor execution, excessive injuries, not enough talent/depth, overly complicated schemes keeping talent off field, players not living up to hype, early departures and portal seekers -- whatever else -- if it keeps happening, it's on the coaching staff. Stanford may not be able to admit the non-academic types, but there's surely enough brainiac recruits to have (at least) winning seasons every year.

On this I agree with the Shaw critics. I find the "Shaw zigged when he should have zagged" during the game criticisms to be pretty tedious, but a legitimate criticism of the staff is that whether through recruiting, development, or injuries, the players that are being fielded by the team now are not, as a whole, as good as the players that we used to field, and that is obvious by the decline in all-Conference awards, NFL draft picks, and most importantly, wins.

BC

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - pefloresjr - 12-13-2020

I agree with you Lex but you will never get the Shawtagonists to agree. They have planted their flag and intend to stand by it.

The criticism regarding injuries has also been something that many take as gospel but is absolute foolishness. When Harbaugh brought in the new regime, the number of starts missed due to injury dropped noticeably and that seems to have made people believe that the coaches have some control over injuries. However, those decreases were mostly due to the fact that before Harbaugh, many players were not fully committed to their training and the team. Getting that commitment from the team and having them enforce it among the players was the thing that really reduced the lost starts due to injury. After that, it is pure chance and there isn't a damn thing the coaches can do about it. See the Niners and other well run pro teams that sometimes suffer critical injuries that take them from great teams to sub standard teams. I've actually spoken to several former Stanford and NFL pro players about this and they confirm it. Once you have good training and commitment, the rest is luck.  Stanford was down one trainer for a year but that simply wouldn't explain the injuries because they weren't the kind of injuries you can control for, they were simply bad luck.

You are also right that the Harbaugh/Shaw run foundation, clock burning offensive strategy is the path to success at Stanford. That is also the scheme that has given our defense a leg up for many years by limiting the time they have to log on the field. The "overly" complex schemes are simply formations and plays that have several options based on the things the defense is showing. When it is operating, it is next level football that works. Stanford gets smart players and should have a scheme that tries to take advantage of those smarts. I recall the color guy during Big Game noting when Mills audibled to a run play to the short side based on the defense. The play gained around 5 yards and wasn't anything that a regular fan would really notice but the announcer noted that the change to a successful modest gain was next level performance by Mills and Stanford. Shaw should get credit for that and he does from me. However, some people want to focus on "the Denny's menu" that Shaw uses while at the same time noting that Shanahan is a brilliant offensive mind despite the fact that he also has a big plastic play chart. Ridiculous. The same goes for his conservative play tendencies at the end of games. That has won Stanford more games than any of the Shawtagonists can count but they focus on the few games where that approach arguably cost us the game. You can't argue against that because it is based on speculation about what might have happened. I know we have to take the good outcomes with the bad and no team has a coach that magically always makes the winning decision.

I do criticize Shaw during games like everyone else at times but I don't think he doesn't know what he is doing or can't change to improve as some seem to. He has been slow to adjust to the new signing deadlines and lower get rate on offers but that has clearly caused a big change in the number of offers we have out for 2022. Shaw also needs to focus more recruiting on filling holes in our lineup but that is sometimes easier said than done given our limited recruiting pool. One thing I think is ridiculous in some critique of Shaw regarding recruiting is the idea that he isn't committed to it or is lazy. One example is the fact that we haven't used all of our official visits in the last few years. The reason for that was that Shaw loved the Big Visit and wanted to save those visits for that event. It was extremely successful for many years to have recruits on that visit get the news of their admission to Stanford and was a great recruiting and team bonding event. Shaw tried for too long to hang on to that success but the early signing dates have doomed it. I know our virtual visits stand out as special according to many recruits and I expect we will have adjusted the in person visits once those begin again. Yes the responsibility is Shaw's but the problems we have had in recruiting are not because the coaching staff lack commitment to it.

Shaw deserves great credit for getting this young team to perform well in very, very tough circumstances. This isn't a great team, but I love these guys and the way Shaw has them playing and improving. I do not "expect" that we will be great every year and know that there will be ups and downs. I believe Shaw has earned the right to see us through those ups and downs. If we end up staying down for too long, I will say it's time for him to go, but until then, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Looking forward to rooting on our guys and coaches next week in So Cal. Go Road Dogs!

Cheers,
Pete F.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - cardcrimson - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 01:33 PM)lex24 Wrote: Speaking of which, the last drive was terrific until the false start. Burned clock. Mixed it up with run and pass. Were in position to essentially run clock out and score. Or come very close.

The creativity of hitting a receiver who was lying on his back was just magic. Only Shawvita could have drawn up a play like that.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - teejers1 - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 03:52 PM)pefloresjr Wrote: I agree with you Lex but you will never get the Shawtagonists to agree. They have planted their flag and intend to stand by it.

The criticism regarding injuries has also been something that many take as gospel but is absolute foolishness. When Harbaugh brought in the new regime, the number of starts missed due to injury dropped noticeably and that seems to have made people believe that the coaches have some control over injuries. However, those decreases were mostly due to the fact that before Harbaugh, many players were not fully committed to their training and the team. Getting that commitment from the team and having them enforce it among the players was the thing that really reduced the lost starts due to injury. After that, it is pure chance and there isn't a damn thing the coaches can do about it. See the Niners and other well run pro teams that sometimes suffer critical injuries that take them from great teams to sub standard teams. I've actually spoken to several former Stanford and NFL pro players about this and they confirm it. Once you have good training and commitment, the rest is luck.  Stanford was down one trainer for a year but that simply wouldn't explain the injuries because they weren't the kind of injuries you can control for, they were simply bad luck.

You are also right that the Harbaugh/Shaw run foundation, clock burning offensive strategy is the path to success at Stanford. That is also the scheme that has given our defense a leg up for many years by limiting the time they have to log on the field. The "overly" complex schemes are simply formations and plays that have several options based on the things the defense is showing. When it is operating, it is next level football that works. Stanford gets smart players and should have a scheme that tries to take advantage of those smarts. I recall the color guy during Big Game noting when Mills audibled to a run play to the short side based on the defense. The play gained around 5 yards and wasn't anything that a regular fan would really notice but the announcer noted that the change to a successful modest gain was next level performance by Mills and Stanford. Shaw should get credit for that and he does from me. However, some people want to focus on "the Denny's menu" that Shaw uses while at the same time noting that Shanahan is a brilliant offensive mind despite the fact that he also has a big plastic play chart. Ridiculous. The same goes for his conservative play tendencies at the end of games. That has won Stanford more games than any of the Shawtagonists can count but they focus on the few games where that approach arguably cost us the game. You can't argue against that because it is based on speculation about what might have happened. I know we have to take the good outcomes with the bad and no team has a coach that magically always makes the winning decision.

I do criticize Shaw during games like everyone else at times but I don't think he doesn't know what he is doing or can't change to improve as some seem to. He has been slow to adjust to the new signing deadlines and lower get rate on offers but that has clearly caused a big change in the number of offers we have out for 2022. Shaw also needs to focus more recruiting on filling holes in our lineup but that is sometimes easier said than done given our limited recruiting pool. One thing I think is ridiculous in some critique of Shaw regarding recruiting is the idea that he isn't committed to it or is lazy. One example is the fact that we haven't used all of our official visits in the last few years. The reason for that was that Shaw loved the Big Visit and wanted to save those visits for that event. It was extremely successful for many years to have recruits on that visit get the news of their admission to Stanford and was a great recruiting and team bonding event. Shaw tried for too long to hang on to that success but the early signing dates have doomed it. I know our virtual visits stand out as special according to many recruits and I expect we will have adjusted the in person visits once those begin again. Yes the responsibility is Shaw's but the problems we have had in recruiting are not because the coaching staff lack commitment to it.

Shaw deserves great credit for getting this young team to perform well in very, very tough circumstances. This isn't a great team, but I love these guys and the way Shaw has them playing and improving. I do not "expect" that we will be great every year and know that there will be ups and downs. I believe Shaw has earned the right to see us through those ups and downs. If we end up staying down for too long, I will say it's time for him to go, but until then, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Looking forward to rooting on our guys and coaches next week in So Cal. Go Road Dogs!

Cheers,
Pete F.

The problem with Lex's position - and evidently yours, as you fully embrace him - is that Stanford should always be a "take-the-air-out and grind clock" kind of offense. Lex has maintained that position throughout all highs and lows, regardless of caliber of O or D, during the Shaw Era. It's poppycock.

The other problem is the fundamental misapprehension that the only way you can have a good running game is by grind-it-out, time consuming drives. That is also poppycock. I don't know why anyone buys into that false assumption. Stanford has had plenty of good, balanced, strong-running offenses that weren't grind-it-outers/bore everyone to death style of play. And btw, I agree that the plays called yesterday were better than Historic Shaw - but again, that bar is so low that people cling to improvements like its manna from heaven.

But hey, I guess we all should be ecstatic that Stanford is 3-2 . . . I get it, especially after the 0-2 start.

I just think you guys have lost all sense of perspective and what Stanford could be with better defensive recruiting (and if you think clinging onto Big Visit is anything other than recruiting malpractice, then you're not paying attention to what's going on in the real world) and an O that better plays to the team's considerable abilities.

But the horse is dead as can be.

Go Stanford. Beat the Bruins (assuming a game) and call it a good season.

P.S. When watching the game real time yesterday, did anyone else think Stanford had to run the ball on second down on its last possession of the 1H? It's a medium thing, but clock management was pretty bad there.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Spiny_Norman - 12-13-2020

Amid all of the talk about the coaching, don't forget to enjoy the win.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status/1338139866400391170[/twitter]

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - BostonCard - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 04:35 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 01:33 PM)lex24 Wrote: Speaking of which, the last drive was terrific until the false start. Burned clock. Mixed it up with run and pass. Were in position to essentially run clock out and score. Or come very close.

The creativity of hitting a receiver who was lying on his back was just magic. Only Shawvita could have drawn up a play like that.

It was a good call to put up a 6'5" receiver against a 5'10"ish DB, and the play probably should have drawn a PI flag (the DB had his back turned ccompletely to the ball). But yes, luck was certainly involved too.

Now, that being said, on that drive, we threw on second and nine, second and six, second and ten (the throw to Humphry's), and second and eight. The Shaw of old would have run on all those second downs in an attempt to "take the air out of the ball" and maximize time off the clock.

BC

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - lex24 - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 04:35 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 01:33 PM)lex24 Wrote: Speaking of which, the last drive was terrific until the false start. Burned clock. Mixed it up with run and pass. Were in position to essentially run clock out and score. Or come very close.

The creativity of hitting a receiver who was lying on his back was just magic. Only Shawvita could have drawn up a play like that.

Actually he got a guy singled up deepmwith a big size advantage. And the ball should have been caught clean.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - CTcard - 12-13-2020

(12-13-2020, 03:52 PM)pefloresjr Wrote: You are also right that the Harbaugh/Shaw run foundation, clock burning offensive strategy is the path to success at Stanford. ... The "overly" complex schemes are simply formations and plays that have several options based on the things the defense is showing.

Here's a point where I disagree with the predominant talking points of both the Shawpologists and Shawtagonists. There are too many arguments over the value of things Stanford isn't doing anymore.

Stanford hasn't had a run-foundation offense for years now. The last time we even called more run plays than pass plays in a season was 2017 (Love's big year). Even this year when we feel the run game has had a resurgence, Stanford is 10th in the conference in fraction of running plays. In the past several years Stanford has not only abandoned that offensive identity but abandoned most any identity at all, going for a whatever might work today model. This year, at least, one can see the offense evolving in a way one can imagine could work, but it does not have a strong run foundation.

Similarly, the complexity of Stanford's offense is down. The pass game has suffered from being too simple and the run game and blocking schemes were simplified, though this year there has been some return of pulling guards and fullback leads.
Stanford still runs a fairly large number of different sets and personnel groupings, though less than a few years ago, and does put more presnap reads on the QB than most teams. While some time ago Stanford seemed to be light on younger players contributing, particularly frosh, that seems mostly a thing of the past. A lot of true frosh have played the past couple of years, with a range of contribution levels.

(12-13-2020, 05:14 PM)teejers1 Wrote: P.S. When watching the game real time yesterday, did anyone else think Stanford had to run the ball on second down on its last possession of the 1H? It's a medium thing, but clock management was pretty bad there.

I assume you mean Stanford's second to last drive of the half, second and 14 from the Beav 34 with 1:30 left.
At that point they were still playing to get the first down and to have time remaining for a TD.
Stanford took a time out after the sack on first down.
Second down was a short, high percentage completion to Fehoko. It was a hard out, with a high likelihood of ending up out of bounds (which it did). At that point, they were still trying to save clock. Maybe a little reckless, but not crazy if you are trying for a TD.
I'd take more issue with the third down call. There was a reasonable chance of popping a draw for a first down, which would have the extra benefit of allowing for a clock stop on making a first down if successful, but also allowing for running another 40 seconds off the clock if not.

Of course as things turned out leaving the Beavs some clock didn't harm anything, and but for a holding call that extra time would have ended up allowing a bonus TD on the last play of the half.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Mick - 12-14-2020

(12-13-2020, 02:42 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: Have to give the guys credit for making plays when it really counted, but all three of these wins could have gone either way. Blocked PAT with 58 seconds left avoided overtime at Kal; Washington was the most convincing win, but Stanford had to hang on for dear life; and of course a fumble killed the go-ahead or tying drive last night. Good teams make their own luck, I know, but still.... It's a weird team. With Mills practicing and playing for all games, I could see this team at 5-0. Without a good amount of "luck" at key moments, I could also see them at 0-5. I blame Covid. ;)

We are 3-2. We avoided 0-5 by 1, 3 and 5 points.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Papa John - 12-14-2020

We missed 4-1 and the conference championship game by 3 points!

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - teejers1 - 12-14-2020

(12-13-2020, 06:21 PM)CTcard Wrote: I assume you mean Stanford's second to last drive of the half, second and 14 from the Beav 34 with 1:30 left.
At that point they were still playing to get the first down and to have time remaining for a TD.
Stanford took a time out after the sack on first down.
Second down was a short, high percentage completion to Fehoko. It was a hard out, with a high likelihood of ending up out of bounds (which it did). At that point, they were still trying to save clock. Maybe a little reckless, but not crazy if you are trying for a TD.
I'd take more issue with the third down call. There was a reasonable chance of popping a draw for a first down, which would have the extra benefit of allowing for a clock stop on making a first down if successful, but also allowing for running another 40 seconds off the clock if not.

Of course as things turned out leaving the Beavs some clock didn't harm anything, and but for a holding call that extra time would have ended up allowing a bonus TD on the last play of the half.

Maybe that was the down I was referring to, though I thought Stanford was more in midfield area. Regardless, the play should NOT be one that likely ends up stopping the clock (as the Fehoko sideline pass did). Maybe that's what chapped me most.

The problem with running a draw play on third down (or any play that comes up short of sticks) is that on fourth down OSU will definitely call a timeout to preserve clock for their final drive. If you do it on second down - OSU may be burning a TO without any guarantee of getting the ball back. Given that we stopped the clock ourselves, we failed to put OSU to that conundrum and permitted them to save a timeout. Real time, this seems like very basic clock management to me, as we had plenty of time to score from where we were without worrying about clock stoppage. People may say that reasonable minds can differ on this, but I disagree. It struck me as basic clock mismanagement.

Now, Shaw isn't alone in this - but he has made so many of these kinds of mistakes over the years that I can only attribute it to fundamentally not getting it. But if it's any comfort, Shaw isn't alone. Shanahan, as great an offensive mind as he is, has demonstrated clock management blindness himself. Think he is at 3 such situations already with the 'Niners, the most egregious being in game against Seattle in Super Bowl year regular season where there was no way on God's green earth that the Seahawks, who had no timeouts remaining, should have ever seen the ball in OT again. But because Shanahan went pass, pass (inc), pass (inc.), they did. And Seahawks won.

Part of basic game clock management is removing worst-case downside at EOH and EOG.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - old spanish trail - 12-14-2020

(12-14-2020, 07:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(12-13-2020, 06:21 PM)CTcard Wrote: I assume you mean Stanford's second to last drive of the half, second and 14 from the Beav 34 with 1:30 left.

At that point they were still playing to get the first down and to have time remaining for a TD.

Stanford took a time out after the sack on first down.

Second down was a short, high percentage completion to Fehoko. It was a hard out, with a high likelihood of ending up out of bounds (which it did). At that point, they were still trying to save clock. Maybe a little reckless, but not crazy if you are trying for a TD.

I'd take more issue with the third down call. There was a reasonable chance of popping a draw for a first down, which would have the extra benefit of allowing for a clock stop on making a first down if successful, but also allowing for running another 40 seconds off the clock if not.

Of course as things turned out leaving the Beavs some clock didn't harm anything, and but for a holding call that extra time would have ended up allowing a bonus TD on the last play of the half.

Maybe that was the down I was referring to, though I thought Stanford was more in midfield area. Regardless, the play should NOT be one that likely ends up stopping the clock (as the Fehoko sideline pass did). Maybe that's what chapped me most.

The problem with running a draw play on third down (or any play that comes up short of sticks) is that on fourth down OSU will definitely call a timeout to preserve clock for their final drive. If you do it on second down - Colorado may be burning a TO without any guarantee of getting the ball back. Given that we stopped the clock ourselves, we failed to put OSU to that conundrum and permitted them to save a timeout. Real time, this seems like very basic clock management to me, as we had plenty of time to score from where we were without worrying about clock stoppage. People may say that reasonable minds can differ on this, but I disagree. It struck me as basic clock mismanagement.

Now, Shaw isn't alone in this - but he has made so many of these kinds of mistakes over the years that I can only attribute it to fundamentally not getting it. But if it's any comfort, Shaw isn't alone. Shanahan, as great an offensive mind as he is, has demonstrated clock management blindness himself. Think he is at 3 such situations already with the 'Niners, the most egregious being in game against Seattle in Super Bowl year regular season where there was no way on God's green earth that the Seahawks, who had no timeouts remaining, should have ever seen the all in OT again. But because Shanahan went pass, pass (inc), pass (inc.), they did. And Seahawks won.

Part of basic game clock management is removing worst-case downside at EOH and EOG.

_________________________________________________________

I'm sorry, I haven't seen many clock management issues this year. There was one early on when we called TO after the kick off or quarter break. In fact, I think I saw more clock issues with the 49ers in the last three games than our whole season. And, I think Shanahan is a heck of a coach.

RE: Oregon St. Game Thread - Goose - 12-14-2020

(12-14-2020, 07:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Part of basic game clock management is removing worst-case downside at EOH and EOG.

True, but game clock management is only one aspect of play calling. You also want to call a play that gives you a first down. I assume we came to the line with two plays and Mills chose the pass because they were in an alignment to defend the run. I would have run a fly sweep, as Shaw did last year in a similar situation. It is a play that is a bit unexpected, takes quite a while to develop, and has a shot at making six yards. Just tell the man running it not to give ground even if you won't get the first down (to make sure we stay in FG range). In any case, clock management is ONE aspect of the play selection. It is not the only one. The coach must balance the possible outcomes. One thing I would NOT have done is run a stretch play to the right. They were ready for that big time. What Shaw chose was reasonable.