[ChicagoCard]

IIRC neither of those fumble recoveries were particularly good defensive plays, just being in the right spot after ORST screwed up.

The first one they royally screwed up an exchange. On the one that allowed Stanford the late 4th qtr opportunity, Stanford had guys in the backfield, notably PK who got all over Nall. The ball didn't came out easily but when it did, two other Stanford players were in the backfield to pounce.

[ChicagoCard]

IIRC neither of those fumble recoveries were particularly good defensive plays, just being in the right spot after ORST screwed up.

The first one they royally screwed up an exchange. On the one that allowed Stanford the late 4th qtr opportunity, Stanford had guys in the backfield, notably PK who got all over Nall. The ball didn't came out easily but when it did, two other Stanford players were in the backfield to pounce.

[martyup]

Our top performers on D.  I swear I remember Phillips get a sack last night.  Perez had his best game ever.

                      TOT-SOLO-SACKS-TFL-PD-QB HUR-TD
Harrison Phillips 9 5 0 2 0 0 0
Quenton Meeks 8 4 0 0 0 0 0
Jordan Perez 7 5 1 1 0 0 0
Justin Reid 6 2 0 0 0 0 0
A. Murphy         5 4 0 0 0 0
Bobby Okereke 5 4 0 0 0 0 0

[martyup]

Our top performers on D.  I swear I remember Phillips get a sack last night.  Perez had his best game ever.

                      TOT-SOLO-SACKS-TFL-PD-QB HUR-TD
Harrison Phillips 9 5 0 2 0 0 0
Quenton Meeks 8 4 0 0 0 0 0
Jordan Perez 7 5 1 1 0 0 0
Justin Reid 6 2 0 0 0 0 0
A. Murphy         5 4 0 0 0 0
Bobby Okereke 5 4 0 0 0 0 0

[BostonCard]

Our top performers on D.  I swear I remember Phillips get a sack last night.  Perez had his best game ever.

                      TOT-SOLO-SACKS-TFL-PD-QB HUR-TD
Harrison Phillips 9 5 0 2 0 0 0
Quenton Meeks 8 4 0 0 0 0 0
Jordan Perez 7 5 1 1 0 0 0
Justin Reid 6 2 0 0 0 0 0
A. Murphy         5 4 0 0 0 0
Bobby Okereke 5 4 0 0 0 0 0

Quick, take that down before WIM sees it!

Just kidding.  I agree with him on the game.  There was room for improvement on the defensive side, but as I posted elsewhere, the defense played well enough for us to win.  14 points allowed is enough in most cases to win given a half-competent offense (and even a pretty incompetent one).  OSU's last four drives: 10 plays, 28 yards, punt; 6 plays, 12 yards, punt; 3 plays, 8 yards, fumble; 4 plays, 31 yards, interception.  They gave the offense every chance to win they needed.

Also boneheaded plays and all, the forced fumble and recovery that set up the winning touchdown was a credit to the defense (and a great play by Kalambayi, not a simple unforced error by Nalls).  They also forced a turnover that led to a short field and a field goal (the offense mustered 0 yards following the fumble recovery towards the end of the first half.

BC

[BostonCard]

Our top performers on D.  I swear I remember Phillips get a sack last night.  Perez had his best game ever.

                      TOT-SOLO-SACKS-TFL-PD-QB HUR-TD
Harrison Phillips 9 5 0 2 0 0 0
Quenton Meeks 8 4 0 0 0 0 0
Jordan Perez 7 5 1 1 0 0 0
Justin Reid 6 2 0 0 0 0 0
A. Murphy         5 4 0 0 0 0
Bobby Okereke 5 4 0 0 0 0 0

Quick, take that down before WIM sees it!

Just kidding.  I agree with him on the game.  There was room for improvement on the defensive side, but as I posted elsewhere, the defense played well enough for us to win.  14 points allowed is enough in most cases to win given a half-competent offense (and even a pretty incompetent one).  OSU's last four drives: 10 plays, 28 yards, punt; 6 plays, 12 yards, punt; 3 plays, 8 yards, fumble; 4 plays, 31 yards, interception.  They gave the offense every chance to win they needed.

Also boneheaded plays and all, the forced fumble and recovery that set up the winning touchdown was a credit to the defense (and a great play by Kalambayi, not a simple unforced error by Nalls).  They also forced a turnover that led to a short field and a field goal (the offense mustered 0 yards following the fumble recovery towards the end of the first half.

BC

[BigSky]

I’ve watched $5 million dollar Shaw blow games with terrible decisions from the time he took over, particularly big games. Last night was not a big game, but was one of the most frustrating.  Quarterback was inept. Period.  Refusing to play Costello is incomprehensible. 

[BigSky]

I’ve watched $5 million dollar Shaw blow games with terrible decisions from the time he took over, particularly big games. Last night was not a big game, but was one of the most frustrating.  Quarterback was inept. Period.  Refusing to play Costello is incomprehensible. 

[winflop]

Aside from some mind blowing, brain cramp, penalties, the defense did play well.

And other than a half-dozen bad throws, Chryst played pretty well too.

[winflop]

Aside from some mind blowing, brain cramp, penalties, the defense did play well.

And other than a half-dozen bad throws, Chryst played pretty well too.

[BostonCard]

I’ve watched $5 million dollar Shaw blow games with terrible decisions from the time he took over, particularly big games. Last night was not a big game, but was one of the most frustrating.  Quarterback was inept. Period.  Refusing to play Costello is incomprehensible.

Shaw is 70-19 since becoming head coach.  That means that for every game he has “blown” he has won us 3.5.  I will take that ratio every day of the week and twice on Saturday.  It’s certainly better than the years when Walt Harris lost 17 games in a two year span.  Hell, even Tyrone Willingham, who I consider a good coach at Stanford made us bowl eligible only four times in seven years.  Bill Walsh, in his second stint missed out on a bowl twice in three years.  How many times has Shaw missed out on a bowl game?

Big Games?  Shaw is 3-0 in the PAC-12 championship.  He’s 2-1 in the Rose Bowl.  He’s 4-2 in bowl games overall.

With all this in the balance, I’m ok if Shaw occasionally “blows games with terrible decisions” because his overall record speaks for itself.  There are maybe four coaches in the country, who could have taken over for Harbaugh in 2011 and won 70 games at Stanford, and truth be told it’s likely that coaches like Saban, Sweeney, and Meyer probably wouldn’t have the degree of success they had at their respective schools if they had to do it at Stanford.

So cut the bs.  Want to criticize how we played on Thursday?  Be my guest; it was a crap performance and deserves criticism.  But shaw’s Overall record speaks for itself, and I think he deserves a bit more respect than he’s getting from ungrateful “fans”. 😡

BC

[BostonCard]

I’ve watched $5 million dollar Shaw blow games with terrible decisions from the time he took over, particularly big games. Last night was not a big game, but was one of the most frustrating.  Quarterback was inept. Period.  Refusing to play Costello is incomprehensible.

Shaw is 70-19 since becoming head coach.  That means that for every game he has “blown” he has won us 3.5.  I will take that ratio every day of the week and twice on Saturday.  It’s certainly better than the years when Walt Harris lost 17 games in a two year span.  Hell, even Tyrone Willingham, who I consider a good coach at Stanford made us bowl eligible only four times in seven years.  Bill Walsh, in his second stint missed out on a bowl twice in three years.  How many times has Shaw missed out on a bowl game?

Big Games?  Shaw is 3-0 in the PAC-12 championship.  He’s 2-1 in the Rose Bowl.  He’s 4-2 in bowl games overall.

With all this in the balance, I’m ok if Shaw occasionally “blows games with terrible decisions” because his overall record speaks for itself.  There are maybe four coaches in the country, who could have taken over for Harbaugh in 2011 and won 70 games at Stanford, and truth be told it’s likely that coaches like Saban, Sweeney, and Meyer probably wouldn’t have the degree of success they had at their respective schools if they had to do it at Stanford.

So cut the bs.  Want to criticize how we played on Thursday?  Be my guest; it was a crap performance and deserves criticism.  But shaw’s Overall record speaks for itself, and I think he deserves a bit more respect than he’s getting from ungrateful “fans”. 😡

BC

[lex24]

+1

[quote author=BigSky link=topic=17794.msg208819#msg208819 date=1509173311]
I’ve watched $5 million dollar Shaw blow games with terrible decisions from the time he took over, particularly big games. Last night was not a big game, but was one of the most frustrating.  Quarterback was inept. Period.  Refusing to play Costello is incomprehensible.

Shaw is 70-19 since becoming head coach.  That means that for every game he has “blown” he has won us 3.5.  I will take that ratio every day of the week and twice on Saturday.  It’s certainly better than the years when Walt Harris lost 17 games in a two year span.  Hell, even Tyrone Willingham, who I consider a good coach at Stanford made us bowl eligible only four times in seven years.  Bill Walsh, in his second stint missed out on a bowl twice in three years.  How many times has Shaw missed out on a bowl game?

Big Games?  Shaw is 3-0 in the PAC-12 championship.  He’s 2-1 in the Rose Bowl.  He’s 4-2 in bowl games overall.

With all this in the balance, I’m ok if Shaw occasionally “blows games with terrible decisions” because his overall record speaks for itself.  There are maybe four coaches in the country, who could have taken over for Harbaugh in 2011 and won 70 games at Stanford, and truth be told it’s likely that coaches like Saban, Sweeney, and Meyer probably wouldn’t have the degree of success they had at their respective schools if they had to do it at Stanford.

So cut the bs.  Want to criticize how we played on Thursday?  Be my guest; it was a crap performance and deserves criticism.  But shaw’s Overall record speaks for itself, and I think he deserves a bit more respect than he’s getting from ungrateful “fans”. 😡

BC
[/quote]

[lex24]

+1

[quote author=BigSky link=topic=17794.msg208819#msg208819 date=1509173311]
I’ve watched $5 million dollar Shaw blow games with terrible decisions from the time he took over, particularly big games. Last night was not a big game, but was one of the most frustrating.  Quarterback was inept. Period.  Refusing to play Costello is incomprehensible.

Shaw is 70-19 since becoming head coach.  That means that for every game he has “blown” he has won us 3.5.  I will take that ratio every day of the week and twice on Saturday.  It’s certainly better than the years when Walt Harris lost 17 games in a two year span.  Hell, even Tyrone Willingham, who I consider a good coach at Stanford made us bowl eligible only four times in seven years.  Bill Walsh, in his second stint missed out on a bowl twice in three years.  How many times has Shaw missed out on a bowl game?

Big Games?  Shaw is 3-0 in the PAC-12 championship.  He’s 2-1 in the Rose Bowl.  He’s 4-2 in bowl games overall.

With all this in the balance, I’m ok if Shaw occasionally “blows games with terrible decisions” because his overall record speaks for itself.  There are maybe four coaches in the country, who could have taken over for Harbaugh in 2011 and won 70 games at Stanford, and truth be told it’s likely that coaches like Saban, Sweeney, and Meyer probably wouldn’t have the degree of success they had at their respective schools if they had to do it at Stanford.

So cut the bs.  Want to criticize how we played on Thursday?  Be my guest; it was a crap performance and deserves criticism.  But shaw’s Overall record speaks for itself, and I think he deserves a bit more respect than he’s getting from ungrateful “fans”. 😡

BC
[/quote]

[CornFed]

Hear!  Hear!

[CornFed]

Hear!  Hear!

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=BigSky link=topic=17794.msg208819#msg208819 date=1509173311]
I’ve watched $5 million dollar Shaw blow games with terrible decisions from the time he took over, particularly big games. Last night was not a big game, but was one of the most frustrating.  Quarterback was inept. Period.  Refusing to play Costello is incomprehensible.

Shaw is 70-19 since becoming head coach.  That means that for every game he has “blown” he has won us 3.5.  I will take that ratio every day of the week and twice on Saturday.  It’s certainly better than the years when Walt Harris lost 17 games in a two year span.  Hell, even Tyrone Willingham, who I consider a good coach at Stanford made us bowl eligible only four times in seven years.  Bill Walsh, in his second stint missed out on a bowl twice in three years.  How many times has Shaw missed out on a bowl game?

Big Games?  Shaw is 3-0 in the PAC-12 championship.  He’s 2-1 in the Rose Bowl.  He’s 4-2 in bowl games overall.

With all this in the balance, I’m ok if Shaw occasionally “blows games with terrible decisions” because his overall record speaks for itself.  There are maybe four coaches in the country, who could have taken over for Harbaugh in 2011 and won 70 games at Stanford, and truth be told it’s likely that coaches like Saban, Sweeney, and Meyer probably wouldn’t have the degree of success they had at their respective schools if they had to do it at Stanford.

So cut the bs.  Want to criticize how we played on Thursday?  Be my guest; it was a crap performance and deserves criticism.  But shaw’s Overall record speaks for itself, and I think he deserves a bit more respect than he’s getting from ungrateful “fans”. 😡

BC
[/quote]

But in that one Rose Bowl loss, tell me you didn't beat your head against the wall after four straight runs up the middle to seal our fate. There's no other head coach I'd want at Stanford, but sometimes he's maddening. It's like a marriage: I love my wife. But that doesn't mean she doesn't drive me crazy on occasion.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=BigSky link=topic=17794.msg208819#msg208819 date=1509173311]
I’ve watched $5 million dollar Shaw blow games with terrible decisions from the time he took over, particularly big games. Last night was not a big game, but was one of the most frustrating.  Quarterback was inept. Period.  Refusing to play Costello is incomprehensible.

Shaw is 70-19 since becoming head coach.  That means that for every game he has “blown” he has won us 3.5.  I will take that ratio every day of the week and twice on Saturday.  It’s certainly better than the years when Walt Harris lost 17 games in a two year span.  Hell, even Tyrone Willingham, who I consider a good coach at Stanford made us bowl eligible only four times in seven years.  Bill Walsh, in his second stint missed out on a bowl twice in three years.  How many times has Shaw missed out on a bowl game?

Big Games?  Shaw is 3-0 in the PAC-12 championship.  He’s 2-1 in the Rose Bowl.  He’s 4-2 in bowl games overall.

With all this in the balance, I’m ok if Shaw occasionally “blows games with terrible decisions” because his overall record speaks for itself.  There are maybe four coaches in the country, who could have taken over for Harbaugh in 2011 and won 70 games at Stanford, and truth be told it’s likely that coaches like Saban, Sweeney, and Meyer probably wouldn’t have the degree of success they had at their respective schools if they had to do it at Stanford.

So cut the bs.  Want to criticize how we played on Thursday?  Be my guest; it was a crap performance and deserves criticism.  But shaw’s Overall record speaks for itself, and I think he deserves a bit more respect than he’s getting from ungrateful “fans”. 😡

BC
[/quote]

But in that one Rose Bowl loss, tell me you didn't beat your head against the wall after four straight runs up the middle to seal our fate. There's no other head coach I'd want at Stanford, but sometimes he's maddening. It's like a marriage: I love my wife. But that doesn't mean she doesn't drive me crazy on occasion.

[winflop]

It's like a marriage: I love my wife. But that doesn't mean she doesn't drive me crazy on occasion.

And it also means I will call my wife out when I think she's wrong - not because I think she's a bad person, but because I think she can be a BETTER person

[winflop]

It's like a marriage: I love my wife. But that doesn't mean she doesn't drive me crazy on occasion.

And it also means I will call my wife out when I think she's wrong - not because I think she's a bad person, but because I think she can be a BETTER person

[BostonCard]

Sure, I’m happy to find fault in his Rose Bowl coaching against MSU, or the Fiesta Bowl... as soon as the Shaw critics give him credit for beating Wisconsin the year before and beating the pants off of Iowa two years later.  But critics will complain that Wisconsin sucked that year (never mind that Michigan State and Oklahoma State were really good teams), and Shaw “only won” against Iowa because we had McCaffrey (and who recruited C-Mac?).

There seems to be an unhealthy fixation here on the losses.  The woulda, coulda, shoulda games, without an equal acknowledgement of the 3.5 times as many wins that we have had under Shaw.  I feel like a lot of you take him for granted.  And some day, he will be gone, and we will probably pine for the days when we lost in a Rose Bowl, because it is unlikely that we will even be there as often as we have under Shaw.

Three Rose bowls, folks.  Before that it had been 2001.  Before that it had been before I was born.  I’ll take the occasional four straight runs up the middle against MSU, because frustrated as I was I was watching Stanford in Pasadena, something most Cal fans have never done.

And I don’t know about you guys, but more often than not when I call out my wife, it turns out she was right all along.

BC

[BostonCard]

Sure, I’m happy to find fault in his Rose Bowl coaching against MSU, or the Fiesta Bowl... as soon as the Shaw critics give him credit for beating Wisconsin the year before and beating the pants off of Iowa two years later.  But critics will complain that Wisconsin sucked that year (never mind that Michigan State and Oklahoma State were really good teams), and Shaw “only won” against Iowa because we had McCaffrey (and who recruited C-Mac?).

There seems to be an unhealthy fixation here on the losses.  The woulda, coulda, shoulda games, without an equal acknowledgement of the 3.5 times as many wins that we have had under Shaw.  I feel like a lot of you take him for granted.  And some day, he will be gone, and we will probably pine for the days when we lost in a Rose Bowl, because it is unlikely that we will even be there as often as we have under Shaw.

Three Rose bowls, folks.  Before that it had been 2001.  Before that it had been before I was born.  I’ll take the occasional four straight runs up the middle against MSU, because frustrated as I was I was watching Stanford in Pasadena, something most Cal fans have never done.

And I don’t know about you guys, but more often than not when I call out my wife, it turns out she was right all along.

BC

[JohnR34231]

Sure, I’m happy to find fault in his Rose Bowl coaching against MSU, or the Fiesta Bowl... as soon as the Shaw critics give him credit for beating Wisconsin the year before and beating the pants off of Iowa two years later.  But critics will complain that Wisconsin sucked that year (never mind that Michigan State and Oklahoma State were really good teams), and Shaw “only won” against Iowa because we had McCaffrey (and who recruited C-Mac?).

There seems to be an unhealthy fixation here on the losses.  The woulda, coulda, shoulda games, without an equal acknowledgement of the 3.5 times as many wins that we have had under Shaw.  I feel like a lot of you take him for granted.  And some day, he will be gone, and we will probably pine for the days when we lost in a Rose Bowl, because it is unlikely that we will even be there as often as we have under Shaw.

Three Rose bowls, folks.  Before that it had been 2001.  Before that it had been before I was born.  I’ll take the occasional four straight runs up the middle against MSU, because frustrated as I was I was watching Stanford in Pasadena, something most ןɐɔ fans have never done.

And I don’t know about you guys, but more often than not when I call out my wife, it turns out she was right all along.

BC

Bottom line, IMO, is that some fans just enjoy complaining. They would much rather throw brickbats at a coach when he does something wrong than compliment him when he does something right. Kind of perverse, but that's the way they are. Also, I don't think it's unique to Stanford.

[JohnR34231]

Sure, I’m happy to find fault in his Rose Bowl coaching against MSU, or the Fiesta Bowl... as soon as the Shaw critics give him credit for beating Wisconsin the year before and beating the pants off of Iowa two years later.  But critics will complain that Wisconsin sucked that year (never mind that Michigan State and Oklahoma State were really good teams), and Shaw “only won” against Iowa because we had McCaffrey (and who recruited C-Mac?).

There seems to be an unhealthy fixation here on the losses.  The woulda, coulda, shoulda games, without an equal acknowledgement of the 3.5 times as many wins that we have had under Shaw.  I feel like a lot of you take him for granted.  And some day, he will be gone, and we will probably pine for the days when we lost in a Rose Bowl, because it is unlikely that we will even be there as often as we have under Shaw.

Three Rose bowls, folks.  Before that it had been 2001.  Before that it had been before I was born.  I’ll take the occasional four straight runs up the middle against MSU, because frustrated as I was I was watching Stanford in Pasadena, something most ןɐɔ fans have never done.

And I don’t know about you guys, but more often than not when I call out my wife, it turns out she was right all along.

BC

Bottom line, IMO, is that some fans just enjoy complaining. They would much rather throw brickbats at a coach when he does something wrong than compliment him when he does something right. Kind of perverse, but that's the way they are. Also, I don't think it's unique to Stanford.

[stupac2]

There seems to be an unhealthy fixation here on the losses.  The woulda, coulda, shoulda games, without an equal acknowledgement of the 3.5 times as many wins that we have had under Shaw.

I don't necessarily think that's a problem, in general there's more to say when things are bad than when they're good. What bothers me is the generally poor quality of the analysis about these issues. It's never "Against MSU teams had had success with these types of plays that we had the personnel to run, we should have been running those instead of playing into their strength, run defense up the middle." It's just "Running up the middle didn't work therefore it was bad!" Like, sure, I get that the former takes more work (and much more actual football knowledge) but the latter is just hindsight bias. This is why I think carping about playcalling is largely meritless, unless you're willing to do the legwork to show that it was a bad idea before it was run then you're just blowing hot air. (And when people actually do that legwork they often, surprise surprise, find out they were wrong. I distinctly remember someone running the numbers on the Wildcat and finding out that it gained more yardage than our average non-Wildcat running play.)

It's easy to harp on bad outcomes without considering whether the methods that lead to the outcome were good or bad. It's possible to do things the right way and have it turn out badly. It's possible to do things badly and get lucky (though generally not consistently). At this point Shaw has had enough success that, while you can certainly find areas where he can improve*, he is very, very clearly doing more right than wrong.

*My personal biggest problem is his 4th-down decision making. Though I think he's better than average, especially for someone with an NFL pedigree, the analysis that leads to the conclusion that you should almost always go for it on short yardage is incredibly straightforward and accessible. There's really no excuse for getting that wrong.

Bottom line, IMO, is that some fans just enjoy complaining. They would much rather throw brickbats at a coach when he does something wrong than compliment him when he does something right. Kind of perverse, but that's the way they are. Also, I don't think it's unique to Stanford.

It's definitely not. Look on reddit game threads and you'll see the same types of things, but magnified by a significant amount. It's disappointing, though, because you'd expect the Stanford fanbase to be, you know, smarter and more able and willing to take a big picture view, instead of getting caught in easy and lazy modes of thinking.

[stupac2]

There seems to be an unhealthy fixation here on the losses.  The woulda, coulda, shoulda games, without an equal acknowledgement of the 3.5 times as many wins that we have had under Shaw.

I don't necessarily think that's a problem, in general there's more to say when things are bad than when they're good. What bothers me is the generally poor quality of the analysis about these issues. It's never "Against MSU teams had had success with these types of plays that we had the personnel to run, we should have been running those instead of playing into their strength, run defense up the middle." It's just "Running up the middle didn't work therefore it was bad!" Like, sure, I get that the former takes more work (and much more actual football knowledge) but the latter is just hindsight bias. This is why I think carping about playcalling is largely meritless, unless you're willing to do the legwork to show that it was a bad idea before it was run then you're just blowing hot air. (And when people actually do that legwork they often, surprise surprise, find out they were wrong. I distinctly remember someone running the numbers on the Wildcat and finding out that it gained more yardage than our average non-Wildcat running play.)

It's easy to harp on bad outcomes without considering whether the methods that lead to the outcome were good or bad. It's possible to do things the right way and have it turn out badly. It's possible to do things badly and get lucky (though generally not consistently). At this point Shaw has had enough success that, while you can certainly find areas where he can improve*, he is very, very clearly doing more right than wrong.

*My personal biggest problem is his 4th-down decision making. Though I think he's better than average, especially for someone with an NFL pedigree, the analysis that leads to the conclusion that you should almost always go for it on short yardage is incredibly straightforward and accessible. There's really no excuse for getting that wrong.

Bottom line, IMO, is that some fans just enjoy complaining. They would much rather throw brickbats at a coach when he does something wrong than compliment him when he does something right. Kind of perverse, but that's the way they are. Also, I don't think it's unique to Stanford.

It's definitely not. Look on reddit game threads and you'll see the same types of things, but magnified by a significant amount. It's disappointing, though, because you'd expect the Stanford fanbase to be, you know, smarter and more able and willing to take a big picture view, instead of getting caught in easy and lazy modes of thinking.

[BostonCard]

Very well stated, stupac.

By the way, MSU had NFL caliber defensive backs.  I mean maybe we should have thrown instead of running it up the middle (and with the clock ticking, it tilted the balance in that direction).  But, it was not clearly evident a priori that generally speaking, MSU was vulnerable to the pass.  In fact Michigan State was the top program in the country defending the pass (in terms of PER against).  Then again, they were third best in the country in rushing defense (ypc).

The bottom line is that we were playing one of the top defenses in the country.  They were second in total defense, third in scoring defense that year.  The other team is trying to win too, and sometimes they play well and make plays when they need to.  Thinking that different play calling would have resulted in a different outcome provides some measure of comfort, but sometimes a team just outplays you, and to believe otherwise denies the other team a measure of agency that it does possess.

BC

[BostonCard]

Very well stated, stupac.

By the way, MSU had NFL caliber defensive backs.  I mean maybe we should have thrown instead of running it up the middle (and with the clock ticking, it tilted the balance in that direction).  But, it was not clearly evident a priori that generally speaking, MSU was vulnerable to the pass.  In fact Michigan State was the top program in the country defending the pass (in terms of PER against).  Then again, they were third best in the country in rushing defense (ypc).

The bottom line is that we were playing one of the top defenses in the country.  They were second in total defense, third in scoring defense that year.  The other team is trying to win too, and sometimes they play well and make plays when they need to.  Thinking that different play calling would have resulted in a different outcome provides some measure of comfort, but sometimes a team just outplays you, and to believe otherwise denies the other team a measure of agency that it does possess.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also if I talked to (or about) my wife the way some people he talk about Shaw, she would have left me long ago.  What bothers me is not the criticism, but the lack of respect.  And I think Shaw has earned our respect.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also if I talked to (or about) my wife the way some people he talk about Shaw, she would have left me long ago.  What bothers me is not the criticism, but the lack of respect.  And I think Shaw has earned our respect.

BC

[CornFed]

"And I don’t know about you guys, but more often than not when I call out my wife, it turns out she was right all along.

BC"

I learned, quite some time ago, that when I wake up in the morning, I just kiss her and say, "You might be right".  Starts everything off on the right foot.  🤣

[CornFed]

"And I don’t know about you guys, but more often than not when I call out my wife, it turns out she was right all along.

BC"

I learned, quite some time ago, that when I wake up in the morning, I just kiss her and say, "You might be right".  Starts everything off on the right foot.  🤣

[washingtonismoney]

Not to wade further into the meta-debates about Shaw, but one thing has always puzzled me: the centrality of Shaw's (alleged) tendency to stick to his pre-established game plan. More critical people might call it stubbornness, more supportive, a certain kind of fortitude, but basically everyone agrees that that character quality is Shaw's. (Shaw, too, agrees; he often talks about sticking to identity etc. etc.)

I also kind of agree which makes it weird that I'm writing this post. Nevertheless I think focusing on Shaw's cussedness obscures a lot about how his coaching works. For example, to generalize: most of the Shaw critics also think he plays true or redshirt freshmen too rarely. But I saw, and have seen, relatively little acknowledgement that starting Walker Little -- in a dramatic third-game shift -- is an example both of: a) a non-stubborn adjustment that worked and b) playing a true freshman. In other words, Shaw failed to live up to stereotype and no one really adjusted their mental models of him.

So I basically think Shaw, like all coaches, is constantly changing things and adjusting them. (I haven't counted, but would bet lunch that Stanford plays much more in shotgun than it did in 2011.)  I don't think he's changed quite as much as the average coach, but then again he also wins more than the average coach. Fewer losses are the result of fewer problems, and fewer problems means fewer changes.

[washingtonismoney]

Not to wade further into the meta-debates about Shaw, but one thing has always puzzled me: the centrality of Shaw's (alleged) tendency to stick to his pre-established game plan. More critical people might call it stubbornness, more supportive, a certain kind of fortitude, but basically everyone agrees that that character quality is Shaw's. (Shaw, too, agrees; he often talks about sticking to identity etc. etc.)

I also kind of agree which makes it weird that I'm writing this post. Nevertheless I think focusing on Shaw's cussedness obscures a lot about how his coaching works. For example, to generalize: most of the Shaw critics also think he plays true or redshirt freshmen too rarely. But I saw, and have seen, relatively little acknowledgement that starting Walker Little -- in a dramatic third-game shift -- is an example both of: a) a non-stubborn adjustment that worked and b) playing a true freshman. In other words, Shaw failed to live up to stereotype and no one really adjusted their mental models of him.

So I basically think Shaw, like all coaches, is constantly changing things and adjusting them. (I haven't counted, but would bet lunch that Stanford plays much more in shotgun than it did in 2011.)  I don't think he's changed quite as much as the average coach, but then again he also wins more than the average coach. Fewer losses are the result of fewer problems, and fewer problems means fewer changes.

[lex24]

Criticism is fine. And it comes with the territory. We all second guess.  And of course when we do our play or our strategy always works. Prove otherwise.

I’m with BC. It’s not the particularized criticism. It’s the tone. And the overwrought response when things go wrong.

Most of what a head coach does starts when the game ends and ends when the game starts. Getting your team ready etc. Shaw has excelled on those fronts.

I disagree with some of his game day decisions, play calling clock management (micro scale. On a macro scale I think he manages a game well) and on the number of pages in that play book. But then I Coached a lot of basketball. My only football coaching was two years of 8th grade flag football.
And my biggest beef is people will CONSTANTLY throw a couple big game bad decisions out and try to “define” him with that.

You can choose to celebrate the good or dwell on the bad.

Not to wade further into the meta-debates about Shaw, but one thing has always puzzled me: the centrality of Shaw's (alleged) tendency to stick to his pre-established game plan. More critical people might call it stubbornness, more supportive, a certain kind of fortitude, but basically everyone agrees that that character quality is Shaw's. (Shaw, too, agrees; he often talks about sticking to identity etc. etc.)

I also kind of agree which makes it weird that I'm writing this post. Nevertheless I think focusing on Shaw's cussedness obscures a lot about how his coaching works. For example, to generalize: most of the Shaw critics also think he plays true or redshirt freshmen too rarely. But I saw, and have seen, relatively little acknowledgement that starting Walker Little -- in a dramatic third-game shift -- is an example both of: a) a non-stubborn adjustment that worked and b) playing a true freshman. In other words, Shaw failed to live up to stereotype and no one really adjusted their mental models of him.

So I basically think Shaw, like all coaches, is constantly changing things and adjusting them. (I haven't counted, but would bet lunch that Stanford plays much more in shotgun than it did in 2011.)  I don't think he's changed quite as much as the average coach, but then again he also wins more than the average coach. Fewer losses are the result of fewer problems, and fewer problems means fewer changes.

[lex24]

Criticism is fine. And it comes with the territory. We all second guess.  And of course when we do our play or our strategy always works. Prove otherwise.

I’m with BC. It’s not the particularized criticism. It’s the tone. And the overwrought response when things go wrong.

Most of what a head coach does starts when the game ends and ends when the game starts. Getting your team ready etc. Shaw has excelled on those fronts.

I disagree with some of his game day decisions, play calling clock management (micro scale. On a macro scale I think he manages a game well) and on the number of pages in that play book. But then I Coached a lot of basketball. My only football coaching was two years of 8th grade flag football.
And my biggest beef is people will CONSTANTLY throw a couple big game bad decisions out and try to “define” him with that.

You can choose to celebrate the good or dwell on the bad.

Not to wade further into the meta-debates about Shaw, but one thing has always puzzled me: the centrality of Shaw's (alleged) tendency to stick to his pre-established game plan. More critical people might call it stubbornness, more supportive, a certain kind of fortitude, but basically everyone agrees that that character quality is Shaw's. (Shaw, too, agrees; he often talks about sticking to identity etc. etc.)

I also kind of agree which makes it weird that I'm writing this post. Nevertheless I think focusing on Shaw's cussedness obscures a lot about how his coaching works. For example, to generalize: most of the Shaw critics also think he plays true or redshirt freshmen too rarely. But I saw, and have seen, relatively little acknowledgement that starting Walker Little -- in a dramatic third-game shift -- is an example both of: a) a non-stubborn adjustment that worked and b) playing a true freshman. In other words, Shaw failed to live up to stereotype and no one really adjusted their mental models of him.

So I basically think Shaw, like all coaches, is constantly changing things and adjusting them. (I haven't counted, but would bet lunch that Stanford plays much more in shotgun than it did in 2011.)  I don't think he's changed quite as much as the average coach, but then again he also wins more than the average coach. Fewer losses are the result of fewer problems, and fewer problems means fewer changes.

[stupac2]

Not to wade further into the meta-debates about Shaw, but one thing has always puzzled me: the centrality of Shaw's (alleged) tendency to stick to his pre-established game plan. More critical people might call it stubbornness, more supportive, a certain kind of fortitude, but basically everyone agrees that that character quality is Shaw's. (Shaw, too, agrees; he often talks about sticking to identity etc. etc.)

I also kind of agree which makes it weird that I'm writing this post. Nevertheless I think focusing on Shaw's cussedness obscures a lot about how his coaching works. For example, to generalize: most of the Shaw critics also think he plays true or redshirt freshmen too rarely. But I saw, and have seen, relatively little acknowledgement that starting Walker Little -- in a dramatic third-game shift -- is an example both of: a) a non-stubborn adjustment that worked and b) playing a true freshman. In other words, Shaw failed to live up to stereotype and no one really adjusted their mental models of him.

So I basically think Shaw, like all coaches, is constantly changing things and adjusting them. (I haven't counted, but would bet lunch that Stanford plays much more in shotgun than it did in 2011.)  I don't think he's changed quite as much as the average coach, but then again he also wins more than the average coach. Fewer losses are the result of fewer problems, and fewer problems means fewer changes.

I think the "stubborn" thing is one of those epithets that generally means "consistently does things I don't like". There's not much evidence that Shaw is stubborn about everything, he changes stuff all the time. It's been noted a number of times that we switched from man to zone run blocking to great effect in 2015, and against ORST the announcers had a segment queued up about how the quick pitch with the QB blocking the backside has become one of our primary running plays this year, and I don't believe we ever ran it before. Also of note: have we seen the wildcat at all this year?

Perhaps there are areas where Shaw has consistently refused to change despite evidence that his approach is suboptimal (I earlier mentioned 4th down decision-making as a potential candidate there, but honestly I think we might go for it more frequently now than we used to), but I don't think that they're particularly important in the grand scheme of things.

[stupac2]

Not to wade further into the meta-debates about Shaw, but one thing has always puzzled me: the centrality of Shaw's (alleged) tendency to stick to his pre-established game plan. More critical people might call it stubbornness, more supportive, a certain kind of fortitude, but basically everyone agrees that that character quality is Shaw's. (Shaw, too, agrees; he often talks about sticking to identity etc. etc.)

I also kind of agree which makes it weird that I'm writing this post. Nevertheless I think focusing on Shaw's cussedness obscures a lot about how his coaching works. For example, to generalize: most of the Shaw critics also think he plays true or redshirt freshmen too rarely. But I saw, and have seen, relatively little acknowledgement that starting Walker Little -- in a dramatic third-game shift -- is an example both of: a) a non-stubborn adjustment that worked and b) playing a true freshman. In other words, Shaw failed to live up to stereotype and no one really adjusted their mental models of him.

So I basically think Shaw, like all coaches, is constantly changing things and adjusting them. (I haven't counted, but would bet lunch that Stanford plays much more in shotgun than it did in 2011.)  I don't think he's changed quite as much as the average coach, but then again he also wins more than the average coach. Fewer losses are the result of fewer problems, and fewer problems means fewer changes.

I think the "stubborn" thing is one of those epithets that generally means "consistently does things I don't like". There's not much evidence that Shaw is stubborn about everything, he changes stuff all the time. It's been noted a number of times that we switched from man to zone run blocking to great effect in 2015, and against ORST the announcers had a segment queued up about how the quick pitch with the QB blocking the backside has become one of our primary running plays this year, and I don't believe we ever ran it before. Also of note: have we seen the wildcat at all this year?

Perhaps there are areas where Shaw has consistently refused to change despite evidence that his approach is suboptimal (I earlier mentioned 4th down decision-making as a potential candidate there, but honestly I think we might go for it more frequently now than we used to), but I don't think that they're particularly important in the grand scheme of things.

[washingtonismoney]

Also of note: have we seen the wildcat at all this year?

At least once or twice but the frequency seems greatly reduced. Which is, I think, a bit of a shame. Love would be a great motion guy in the wildcat; Scarlett just isn't well-suited to be the main guy.

[washingtonismoney]

Also of note: have we seen the wildcat at all this year?

At least once or twice but the frequency seems greatly reduced. Which is, I think, a bit of a shame. Love would be a great motion guy in the wildcat; Scarlett just isn't well-suited to be the main guy.