The CardBoard
Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - 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: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? (/thread-6507.html)

Pages: 1 2

Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - OutsiderFan - 01-01-2014

The difference in the 2014 Rose Bowl game was one team realized it couldn't run the ball at will on the other team and decided to throw it more than maybe it wanted, and the other team continued to stubbornly pound its head into a wall without accepting it's preferred approach wasn't working.

Can anyone think of why putting the ball in Hogan's hands as a passer when the run was continually being stuffed, would have been a bad idea?  It was like Shaw's mindset was "We're going to do what we do.  If they stop us from doing what we do, we will lose.  I'm OK with that."





Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - washingtonismoney - 01-01-2014

No, shaw has been pretty consistent in his preference this year for Hogan to: a) not throw much; b) only throw deep when he does. No need to resort to rococo psychological explanations.

EDIT: I remain impressed by Stanford fans' ability to reduce any game, no matter what else occurred, to the offense and specifically Shaw's alleged choices in guiding it.

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - estephan500 - 01-01-2014

If you call the OP's question "psychological," then I think unfortunately we do need to resort to psychological questions. Just because he has shown that preference in past games does not mean that his full rigidity in the face of real information isn't deeply questionable.

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - OutsiderFan - 01-01-2014

WIM,

The difference in those other games was Stanford was running the ball effectively.  That was not the case against Michigan State. 

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - oman - 01-01-2014

rococo for rococo puffs.





Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - JeffInCorvallis - 01-01-2014

Hogan has not shown the ability to throw the intermediate ball at any time this season.  This is one of the best secondaries we have faced this year.  Although the play calling could have been better in the second half, not sure that we could have done a ton better, especially with Montgomery out in the 4th quarter. 

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - AthleticsDynasty - 01-01-2014

I want to hear Shaw's explanation for kicking the FG. That is what peole should be talking about not him choosing to run the ball.

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - OutsiderFan - 01-01-2014

While I would not have kicked the FG, it wasn't a horrible decision.  Yes, you still need a TD, but if the defense gets the ball back for the offense in a minute - like it did - your offense has 3 minutes to score a TD.  That's plenty of time.

However, even had the 4th down been converted, Stanford managed to burn over a minute off the clock to get 10 yards on the last possession, in part by going to a huddle.  There was only 1:40 left, with no timeouts, and Stanford still needed 60+ yards.  Stanford was going to need more passing yards to win the game and they continually chose against trying to get them.


Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - Bruce Wang - 01-01-2014

Chillax people.  Our modus operandi is to go to a BCS game every year and win one every other year.  We'll win a big post season game next year.

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - DC - 01-01-2014

Your options are limited when you have a weak passing attack (unless the other teams stacks the box to stop the run and puts single on the receivers).  Combine that with predictable play calling where you only run between the tackles and your most imaginative play is a reverse.  Then, when you don´t get the absolute domination at the LOS that you have come to rely on, the result is predictable.

If we could have held on to a couple more interceptions, we would have had a chance to win, but by and large MSU played better than us.

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - Farm93 - 01-01-2014

(01-01-2014, 07:36 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Can anyone think of why putting the ball in Hogan's hands as a passer when the run was continually being stuffed, would have been a bad idea?  It was like Shaw's mindset was "We're going to do what we do.  If they stop us from doing what we do, we will lose.  I'm OK with that."

During clutch wins throughout 2012 & 2013 the post game news conferences included comments that were almost exactly what you noted.  Except for instead of that lose idea, it is centered on the idea that this approach is our ONLY real chance at sustainable success.  And that commitment to "Our game plan" enabled Stanford to carry the day, etc.

I can hear the quotes now, "We must impose our will, and if we are able to do that we can beat any team in the country."  Your quote is not that far from that paraphrased theme of Coach Shaw.  Even with 3 minutes left in the game Stanford just needed to impose their will for one drive and that would have produced a win.

If the score was 24-3 5 minutes into the third quarter I could see a need to switch up things.  24-20, I suspect Coach Shaw and the team believed they were just 3 good plays away from winning the game.  And the best plays would be produced by sticking with the program.  I am not sure that was true today, but can't imagine complaining about it when the stubbornness has produced so many good results for Stanford fans.

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - BostonCard - 01-01-2014

Actually, the reverse was off a QB option; I don't think I've ever seen that, and certainly not recently.

Razzle dazzle doesn't work very well when you are facing a smart, disciplined defense, which we did.  MSU has phenomenal corners who did a good job covering our corners one on one.  That let MSU stack the box against the run and blitz against the pass.

We actually tried a few things; we tried a shovel pass, we had a few long pass plays to get them to back the safety, and we tried to go outside.  About the only thing I didn't see was a screen, but unless they overpursued, it probably wouldn't have worked.  We tried a couple bubble screens that were both well defended.

Those asking for changes in playcallimh need to specify what they would have done different.

bC



Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - washingtonismoney - 01-01-2014

(01-01-2014, 09:31 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Actually, the reverse was off a QB option; I don't think I've ever seen that, and certainly not recently.

We've actually run it a couple times this season, both to good results. The first time was the first ASU game -- Kelsey Young ran for 32 yards. We did it another time but it escapes my mind as to which one. The cute twist this time was using Rector as the recipient.

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - BostonCard - 01-01-2014

(01-01-2014, 09:30 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9302.msg80306#msg80306 date=1388630182]
Can anyone think of why putting the ball in Hogan's hands as a passer when the run was continually being stuffed, would have been a bad idea?  It was like Shaw's mindset was "We're going to do what we do.  If they stop us from doing what we do, we will lose.  I'm OK with that."

During clutch wins throughout 2012 & 2013 the post game news conferences included comments that were almost exactly what you noted.  Except for instead of that lose idea, it is centered on the idea that this approach is our ONLY real chance at sustainable success.  And that commitment to "Our game plan" enabled Stanford to carry the day, etc.

I can hear the quotes now, "We must impose our will, and if we are able to do that we can beat any team in the country."  Your quote is not that far from that paraphrased theme of Coach Shaw.  Even with 3 minutes left in the game Stanford just needed to impose their will for one drive and that would have produced a win.

If the score was 24-3 5 minutes into the third quarter I could see a need to switch up things.  24-20, I suspect Coach Shaw and the team believed they were just 3 good plays away from winning the game.  And the best plays would be produced by sticking with the program.  I am not sure that was true today, but can't imagine complaining about it when the stubbornness has produced so many good results for Stanford fans.
[/quote]

Not to mention that during the loss against Utah, shaw was assailed for abandoning our identity.

BC

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - washingtonismoney - 01-01-2014

(01-01-2014, 07:49 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:The difference in those other games was Stanford was running the ball effectively.  That was not the case against Michigan State.

Not really... Stanford's had a few games this year when we haven't been terribly effective running (e.g. SC*, Cal). That doesn't change those two observations about the passing offense. They don't trust Hogan to throw a lot or intermediate.

* this is a case when the stats are deceptive. Remember, half those yards were gained on a play that should've been a stop and a third-down draw play. Not really an effective running day at all.

(01-01-2014, 09:39 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Not to mention that during the loss against Utah, shaw was assailed for abandoning our identity.

Yeah, Shaw is attacked for lack of creativity/variety until he actually does something different and unpredictable.

The real problem with those two plays against Utah was targeting TEs and not involving some sort of play action or run fake. The other underlying issue is overreliance on TEs in the first place. I'm not a fan of having three of the five skill players not be threats to touch the ball, and I maintain the Cajuste/Rector/Montgomery/Hewitt/Gaffney combination was probably our best.

Different?? - Redrum - 01-01-2014

1. Tight ends that aren't just road graders.
2. Throw to them as the LBs and safeties shoot line gaps and the corners go deep with WRs.
3.  MSU selling out to stop Gaffney?  Good, let them tackle an emptyhanded Gaffney while Hogan uses his mobility to find receivers or run.  Five (maybe more) yards of Hogan is better than 2 yards and a pile of Gaffney. 

Re: Different?? - washingtonismoney - 01-01-2014

(01-01-2014, 09:46 PM)Redrum link Wrote:1. Tight ends that aren't just road graders.

There's a good reason they haven't been targeted terribly often. Of course, that raises the question as to why they're on the field so often.

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - BostonCard - 01-01-2014

We don't have those on our roster, or they are redshirting.  Sorry, dudchock and Hopkins are not effective e pass catching tight ends.

We had a few read option plays.  They worked ok.  Hogan had 8 carries for 51 yards.  Hogan throwing on the run is something that worked well last year, but he hasn't been able to do as well this year.

BC

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - washingtonismoney - 01-01-2014

(01-01-2014, 09:55 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:We had a few read option plays.  They worked ok.  Hogan had 8 carries for 51 yards.  Hogan throwing on the run is something that worked well last year, but he hasn't been able to do as well this year.

The evolution the coaches have taken w/r/t Hogan's legs has been interesting. He runs much less frequently, and that reduction has mostly come from worse teams. He rarely scrambles, passing or throwing. We seem to have a pitch count on him. And in general a pitch count is a pretty good idea, but sometimes you want to push your guy and have him go for the complete game. I think this game is one of a few examples this year where Stanford could've profited from getting Hogan 10-15 carries.

Re: Was David Shaw trying to prove a point or win a game? - Farm93 - 01-01-2014

I got to see 10 games this year (So amazed about that good fortune, but that is for a different time and thread), I long ago realized that this particular squad had some flaws.  This team outperformed my expectations to reach this Rose Bowl.  They played well, but did not do enough to cap the year with a Rose Bowl win.

Now, we can contrast Stanford's effort with that of Baylor.  Baylor is getting thumped by UCF's O.  Baylor looks like they are trying to play flag football.  They are reaching and grabbing getting all kinds of penalties, but when a UCF Knight actually has the ball they look like touching him might get them hurt.

Also for those that were not at the game.  The in-stadium pregame show included interviews with everyday fans from the stands.  One MSU fan noted that he watched Michigan in one Rose Bowl and pledged to take his children to the NEXT MSU Rose Bowl game.  And "now" he was so happy to be able to take his kids AND GRANDKIDS to the game.  It was a helpful reminder that going to the Rose Bowl 3 times in 15 years is a pretty sweet run since it was obvious when he made that pledge his kids were not even teenagers.

And, as we all know, there is a certain school in the Bay Area with fans that would happily take ANY Rose Bowl result as long as their team got to the game.

Stanford Football 2013 - Pac-12 Champs!  That honor means it was a very good year.