[estephan500]

Thankful for that.

That was the least good-feeling big game victory I've experienced.

I used to endlessly defend Shaw and Pep Hamilton. But the "Every first down hand it to Taylor" just felt insulting.  Just because you are a "run first" philosophy does not mean that you choose the same play each time.  Yes, it got 2 yards each time. We would have been more likely to get a TD if we mixed up even WHICH running play we tried.  I used to get annoyed when people would second guess shaw.  Not this time.  If we missed that FG it would have been overtime and I would not be betting on the outcome.

Plus this injury bug is just too much.

Now, I am going to focus on  the Axe and its elegance and history.

Go beavers.

Go Cardinal!

[estephan500]

Thankful for that.

That was the least good-feeling big game victory I've experienced.

I used to endlessly defend Shaw and Pep Hamilton. But the "Every first down hand it to Taylor" just felt insulting.  Just because you are a "run first" philosophy does not mean that you choose the same play each time.  Yes, it got 2 yards each time. We would have been more likely to get a TD if we mixed up even WHICH running play we tried.  I used to get annoyed when people would second guess shaw.  Not this time.  If we missed that FG it would have been overtime and I would not be betting on the outcome.

Plus this injury bug is just too much.

Now, I am going to focus on  the Axe and its elegance and history.

Go beavers.

Go Cardinal!

[JeffInCorvallis]

WE'VE GOT THE AXE!

[JeffInCorvallis]

WE'VE GOT THE AXE!

[estephan500]

I will admit that an important thing to see is that the weapons in our arsenal are just lessened. What with injuries and stone hands. And I grant to Shaw that the run first thing prevented an interception that last drive.

WE'VE GOT THE AXE!

[estephan500]

I will admit that an important thing to see is that the weapons in our arsenal are just lessened. What with injuries and stone hands. And I grant to Shaw that the run first thing prevented an interception that last drive.

WE'VE GOT THE AXE!

[fultonstreet]

But I'll take it and like it.

WE'VE GOT THE AXE!

[fultonstreet]

But I'll take it and like it.

WE'VE GOT THE AXE!

[Redrum]

Was the Luck rollout to Hewitt out of the backfield.  Attrition hitting us hard.  Hewitt might have to line up as a true tight end (instead of an H back) vs. ND

[Redrum]

Was the Luck rollout to Hewitt out of the backfield.  Attrition hitting us hard.  Hewitt might have to line up as a true tight end (instead of an H back) vs. ND

[washingtonismoney]

I thought we kept running line plunges on first down to set up a bomb. But it never happened.

We tried bombs several times on first down. Trouble was, Luck either overthrew, or it bounced off of receivers' hands.

I thought Shaw/Hamilton called a good game and were hampered by a very poor game from Luck.

[washingtonismoney]

I thought we kept running line plunges on first down to set up a bomb. But it never happened.

We tried bombs several times on first down. Trouble was, Luck either overthrew, or it bounced off of receivers' hands.

I thought Shaw/Hamilton called a good game and were hampered by a very poor game from Luck.

[estephan500]

Part of my crankiness (I've since had some advil and recommend it) was burning three time outs during the "run philosophy" drive.  Especially the last one that seemed to occur because everyone was basically shrugging and saying "uh, what the heck" ... it did not point to wise leadership

[estephan500]

Part of my crankiness (I've since had some advil and recommend it) was burning three time outs during the "run philosophy" drive.  Especially the last one that seemed to occur because everyone was basically shrugging and saying "uh, what the heck" ... it did not point to wise leadership

[KartyFan]

Those 2-yard runs helped us lead a drive that ran the clock from 10:45 down to 3:07 in the 4th quarter, and gave us the game-winning score. I thought that combined with safe play action to Hewitt worked just fine.

I thought the play calling was just fine this game, with bad offensive execution (especially in the first half)

But who cares, WE'VE GOT THE AXE!

[KartyFan]

Those 2-yard runs helped us lead a drive that ran the clock from 10:45 down to 3:07 in the 4th quarter, and gave us the game-winning score. I thought that combined with safe play action to Hewitt worked just fine.

I thought the play calling was just fine this game, with bad offensive execution (especially in the first half)

But who cares, WE'VE GOT THE AXE!

[DC]

We tried a bomb late in the game on first down.  Right after UC East Bay fumbled, we got the ball on their 39 yard line.  We tried a bomb to Davis Dudchuck.  Then we had two running plays before going for another running play on 4th and 2 which didn't work.

[DC]

We tried a bomb late in the game on first down.  Right after UC East Bay fumbled, we got the ball on their 39 yard line.  We tried a bomb to Davis Dudchuck.  Then we had two running plays before going for another running play on 4th and 2 which didn't work.

[Farm93]

11-0  ;)

That is the record of Stanford African-American head coaches in the Big Game.  In my time watching Big Game, Stanford African American coaches are 11-0.  All others are 3-9.  Let's just say I like 11-0, and prefer it to 3-9.  ;D

I love that Coach Shaw won the Axe and continued our African American coaching legacy.  I love that Coach Shaw is the coach.  While, Te.d.fo.rd was busy trying to stay calm and clearly was not, Shaw appeared cool and calm.

It was not Stanford's best game, but Stanford had to play Oregon last week.  Everything about the Big Game felt small last night.  The pre-game crowds in the tailgate areas were small, especially compared to last week.  Many of the parking lots were empty for quite a while, unlike last week.  The stadium was empty during most of the warm-ups and the electricity that was so apparent last week pre-game was gone.  And during the game it was almost whisper quiet for long stretches.  Yet the team played through it and won, which is more than Oregon was able to do against USC.  Shaw (and Luck) kept the team focused even though it was not Stanford's night and the stadium crowd was not there in numbers to support the team.  Pushing past all of that is a sign of a good team and a great coach.

We've got the Axe.  And we've got Coach Shaw.  And I am thankful for both.

Thanksgiving weekend is coming up and almost every BCS bowl is a possibility.  That's pretty sweet.

[Farm93]

11-0  ;)

That is the record of Stanford African-American head coaches in the Big Game.  In my time watching Big Game, Stanford African American coaches are 11-0.  All others are 3-9.  Let's just say I like 11-0, and prefer it to 3-9.  ;D

I love that Coach Shaw won the Axe and continued our African American coaching legacy.  I love that Coach Shaw is the coach.  While, Te.d.fo.rd was busy trying to stay calm and clearly was not, Shaw appeared cool and calm.

It was not Stanford's best game, but Stanford had to play Oregon last week.  Everything about the Big Game felt small last night.  The pre-game crowds in the tailgate areas were small, especially compared to last week.  Many of the parking lots were empty for quite a while, unlike last week.  The stadium was empty during most of the warm-ups and the electricity that was so apparent last week pre-game was gone.  And during the game it was almost whisper quiet for long stretches.  Yet the team played through it and won, which is more than Oregon was able to do against USC.  Shaw (and Luck) kept the team focused even though it was not Stanford's night and the stadium crowd was not there in numbers to support the team.  Pushing past all of that is a sign of a good team and a great coach.

We've got the Axe.  And we've got Coach Shaw.  And I am thankful for both.

Thanksgiving weekend is coming up and almost every BCS bowl is a possibility.  That's pretty sweet.

[Griffins78]

I'm really referring to the long drive that ended in a field goal, when we ran into the middle of the line on almost every first down.

As optimistic explained, those runs we're part of sustaining a long (as you said) and time consuming drive which regained control of the game, gave our defense a rest, took almost half the 4th Qtr off the clock, and ave us a two score lead and won the game.

What was concerning was not the play calling, but that their D was penetrating our OL and getting to our RB before they got to the line.

[Griffins78]

I'm really referring to the long drive that ended in a field goal, when we ran into the middle of the line on almost every first down.

As optimistic explained, those runs we're part of sustaining a long (as you said) and time consuming drive which regained control of the game, gave our defense a rest, took almost half the 4th Qtr off the clock, and ave us a two score lead and won the game.

What was concerning was not the play calling, but that their D was penetrating our OL and getting to our RB before they got to the line.

[Farm93]

C.a.l was dedicated to stopping the run.  And the C.a.l D is very good at run defense, but the effort to go with Power was important.  Insisting on Power kept all of the big & slow types on the field for C.a.l.  And this, in turn, allowed TEs to be open not too far from the line.  If Stanford had a pass first program in the 4th quarter the defenders types on the field would have been different.  And those players almost certainly would have forced Luck throw deeper.  Pros and cons with that score fast or punt strategy, but it is not consistent with the benefits of a Power-oriented team

The 7 minute drive for a FG to put the team up 2 scores was AWESOME.  Those that want something different probably do not understand the full game benefits of Power.  It would have been better for the RBs to get 5 or 6 yards a carry, but C.a.l's best players are better than that.

I am sure we can find a Te.e.ve.ns or H.a.rr.is type to bring back the spread offense which is such a horrific fit for the types of student athletes Stanford can recruit.  But rest assured, when trailing by 20-35 points the team would pass more in the fourth quarter.

I am pretty fond of the idea that Stanford, while leading by a TD in the fourth, plays a boring style that leads to 7-8 minute drive that ends up in points that pushes the lead to two scores. 

[Farm93]

C.a.l was dedicated to stopping the run.  And the C.a.l D is very good at run defense, but the effort to go with Power was important.  Insisting on Power kept all of the big & slow types on the field for C.a.l.  And this, in turn, allowed TEs to be open not too far from the line.  If Stanford had a pass first program in the 4th quarter the defenders types on the field would have been different.  And those players almost certainly would have forced Luck throw deeper.  Pros and cons with that score fast or punt strategy, but it is not consistent with the benefits of a Power-oriented team

The 7 minute drive for a FG to put the team up 2 scores was AWESOME.  Those that want something different probably do not understand the full game benefits of Power.  It would have been better for the RBs to get 5 or 6 yards a carry, but C.a.l's best players are better than that.

I am sure we can find a Te.e.ve.ns or H.a.rr.is type to bring back the spread offense which is such a horrific fit for the types of student athletes Stanford can recruit.  But rest assured, when trailing by 20-35 points the team would pass more in the fourth quarter.

I am pretty fond of the idea that Stanford, while leading by a TD in the fourth, plays a boring style that leads to 7-8 minute drive that ends up in points that pushes the lead to two scores. 

[ATLCard]

I was in the camp wondering about the 4th quarter play-calling, particularly the last drive.  Cal was not just stacking the box against the run, they were stacking between the tackles to stop the power game.  They should have been susceptible to anything that got outside, which is why the flares to Hewitt were working, and why the wildcat when Gaffney got outside should have been a big gainer if he didn't slip.  Imagine the Ducks against that defensive set -- they would have been scoring at will.  A lot of the calls to make someone pay for that strategy are downfield passes, and I understood the reluctance to go there given performance so far, receiver injuries (we're throwing a bomb to Dudchock?  Would have been his first catch of the year?), time in the game, etc.  But surely we had some other plays in the playbook to spring people outside the tackles?

I have been remarkably confident on 4th and short calls over the season, but had no confidence in the 4th and 2 fourth quarter call because we all expected it would be up the middle and Cal's whole Q4 defense was set up to stuff those.  1 yard okay, but not 2.

Isn't it great that we can quibble about strategy after winning the Big Game and going 10-1?  In between bitching about play-calling I pinch myself every now and then.

[ATLCard]

I was in the camp wondering about the 4th quarter play-calling, particularly the last drive.  Cal was not just stacking the box against the run, they were stacking between the tackles to stop the power game.  They should have been susceptible to anything that got outside, which is why the flares to Hewitt were working, and why the wildcat when Gaffney got outside should have been a big gainer if he didn't slip.  Imagine the Ducks against that defensive set -- they would have been scoring at will.  A lot of the calls to make someone pay for that strategy are downfield passes, and I understood the reluctance to go there given performance so far, receiver injuries (we're throwing a bomb to Dudchock?  Would have been his first catch of the year?), time in the game, etc.  But surely we had some other plays in the playbook to spring people outside the tackles?

I have been remarkably confident on 4th and short calls over the season, but had no confidence in the 4th and 2 fourth quarter call because we all expected it would be up the middle and Cal's whole Q4 defense was set up to stuff those.  1 yard okay, but not 2.

Isn't it great that we can quibble about strategy after winning the Big Game and going 10-1?  In between bitching about play-calling I pinch myself every now and then.

[fullmetal]

I was thinking a sweep or toss seeing kal put 8-10 in the box.  They were betting the farm on stopping the run and would have been easily exploited, I think.  Think Pete Carroll on 4th-and-1 against Texas in the '06 Rose Bowl.  Texas guessed correctly, stopped Lendale White, and drove for the win.  Sometimes a little trickery is needed.

What was up with that fullback-between-the-legs run that went for 2 yards?  Not the effective kind of trickeration :p

[fullmetal]

I was thinking a sweep or toss seeing kal put 8-10 in the box.  They were betting the farm on stopping the run and would have been easily exploited, I think.  Think Pete Carroll on 4th-and-1 against Texas in the '06 Rose Bowl.  Texas guessed correctly, stopped Lendale White, and drove for the win.  Sometimes a little trickery is needed.

What was up with that fullback-between-the-legs run that went for 2 yards?  Not the effective kind of trickeration :p

[Farm93]

I was thinking a sweep or toss seeing kal put 8-10 in the box.  They were betting the farm on stopping the run and would have been easily exploited, I think.  Think Pete Carroll on 4th-and-1 against Texas in the '06 Rose Bowl.  Texas guessed correctly, stopped Lendale White, and drove for the win.  Sometimes a little trickery is needed.

What was up with that fullback-between-the-legs run that went for 2 yards?  Not the effective kind of trickeration :p

and to review...after the trickeration play?

Stanford had a turnover?
Stanford scored a FG?
Or Stanford scored a TD?

Yeah, right...a TD.  Hey, I think DeCastro probably missed a few blocks along the way too, but a win is a win.  And a TD scoring drive is a TD scoring drive.  If the bit of trickeration kept the team upbeat during practice, or gave the O-Line something fun to work on then it all paid off.  IMHO

[Farm93]

I was thinking a sweep or toss seeing kal put 8-10 in the box.  They were betting the farm on stopping the run and would have been easily exploited, I think.  Think Pete Carroll on 4th-and-1 against Texas in the '06 Rose Bowl.  Texas guessed correctly, stopped Lendale White, and drove for the win.  Sometimes a little trickery is needed.

What was up with that fullback-between-the-legs run that went for 2 yards?  Not the effective kind of trickeration :p

and to review...after the trickeration play?

Stanford had a turnover?
Stanford scored a FG?
Or Stanford scored a TD?

Yeah, right...a TD.  Hey, I think DeCastro probably missed a few blocks along the way too, but a win is a win.  And a TD scoring drive is a TD scoring drive.  If the bit of trickeration kept the team upbeat during practice, or gave the O-Line something fun to work on then it all paid off.  IMHO

[fullmetal]

You think a random fullback hand-off between the legs really contributed to the TD?

[fullmetal]

You think a random fullback hand-off between the legs really contributed to the TD?

[Farm93]

You think a random fullback hand-off between the legs really contributed to the TD?

Every thing contributed to the win.  Every player, every play.  Coach speak, you know.

But in this case, the trickeration did not lose yards.  It becomes yet another thing that Notre Dame will need to plan for, so I am fine with it. 

Do you think the trickeration cost us the game?  or the TD opportunity?  Oh wait,...

'Cause last I checked the team scored a TD on that drive and won the game.  This type of Sunday morning quarterbacking is astounding given the fact that the team won, and the team even scored at TD on the drive with this play.  No coach calls the perfect game and it certainly was not the best play of the game.  But I suspect its value goes far beyond the yards gained.  As many coaches note, you've got to give your FBs the ball every once in a while as a reward for all of their hard work.  In that regard, the play was AWESOME.

[Farm93]

You think a random fullback hand-off between the legs really contributed to the TD?

Every thing contributed to the win.  Every player, every play.  Coach speak, you know.

But in this case, the trickeration did not lose yards.  It becomes yet another thing that Notre Dame will need to plan for, so I am fine with it. 

Do you think the trickeration cost us the game?  or the TD opportunity?  Oh wait,...

'Cause last I checked the team scored a TD on that drive and won the game.  This type of Sunday morning quarterbacking is astounding given the fact that the team won, and the team even scored at TD on the drive with this play.  No coach calls the perfect game and it certainly was not the best play of the game.  But I suspect its value goes far beyond the yards gained.  As many coaches note, you've got to give your FBs the ball every once in a while as a reward for all of their hard work.  In that regard, the play was AWESOME.

[fullmetal]

Our fullback can line up as a tight end and still catches balls out of the backfield.  He doesn't lack for carries either.  /shrug  I'm more concerned with the state of the WR corps and whether the playcalling can make up for the dearth of receiver depth.  Having just watched the Giants-Eagles game, I think Philly does a great job scheming with only a few receivers available--Jackson, Celek, and Cooper.

[fullmetal]

Our fullback can line up as a tight end and still catches balls out of the backfield.  He doesn't lack for carries either.  /shrug  I'm more concerned with the state of the WR corps and whether the playcalling can make up for the dearth of receiver depth.  Having just watched the Giants-Eagles game, I think Philly does a great job scheming with only a few receivers available--Jackson, Celek, and Cooper.

[estephan500]

I am totally against Sunday morning qbing, especially its truly pathetic incarnation that takes place in online comment threads below sports articles...  The exception could only be where (1) the thing was egregious and absurd, which contrary to how I felt at the beginning of this thread, this one was not. or (2) the coach has been proven a total loser clown, in which case all restrictions are off, or (3) the Sunday morning comments are within a clearly implied "this guy knows what he is doing, I just think it's interesting to suggest this modification."  with regard to this drive, I am at number 3, just thinking that it didn't need to be identical Taylor calls. And secondly, burning the timeouts unnecessarily was terrifying and pointed to some mixup.

about the comments about the ass-kicking African Americans, I have been an increasing Shaw admirer, getting a sense that he is part of an a.a. Sports illuminati (his twitter feed has him hanging out with Williams sisters, tiger woods, etc) ... And secondly, he opened my eyes with an amazing motto. I don't know if this is his own or a quote:
"there is no magic in football.". Someone can let me know if that is a David shaw original.

[estephan500]

I am totally against Sunday morning qbing, especially its truly pathetic incarnation that takes place in online comment threads below sports articles...  The exception could only be where (1) the thing was egregious and absurd, which contrary to how I felt at the beginning of this thread, this one was not. or (2) the coach has been proven a total loser clown, in which case all restrictions are off, or (3) the Sunday morning comments are within a clearly implied "this guy knows what he is doing, I just think it's interesting to suggest this modification."  with regard to this drive, I am at number 3, just thinking that it didn't need to be identical Taylor calls. And secondly, burning the timeouts unnecessarily was terrifying and pointed to some mixup.

about the comments about the ass-kicking African Americans, I have been an increasing Shaw admirer, getting a sense that he is part of an a.a. Sports illuminati (his twitter feed has him hanging out with Williams sisters, tiger woods, etc) ... And secondly, he opened my eyes with an amazing motto. I don't know if this is his own or a quote:
"there is no magic in football.". Someone can let me know if that is a David shaw original.