[Farm93]

"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.

[Farm93]

"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.

[Farm93]

"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.

[Farm93]

"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.

[Farm93]

"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.

[Farm93]

"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.

[Farm93]

"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.

[Farm93]

"With 3 minutes to go, I would have been thrilled with the idea of the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left.
With 2:35 left to go, I also would have been thrilled to know that Williamson only needed to punch a short FG from an indoor venue with 3 seconds."

Those are red herrings, and you surely must know that.

The question is this:  with 45 seconds left and Stanford with the ball at OSU's 17 yard line and 3 TOs, would you be "thrilled" with the opportunity that was available with 3 seconds left?  (i.e., Stanford no closer to the end zone or a GW FG try)?  That is the question.  And what is inexcusable, imo, is the complete forfeiture of even trying to improve the situation.

I happen to think play action would have worked.  But forget that.  Why not run the ball again?  Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again.  Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.  But to not even try?  That is just flat idiotic.  And it really put a damper on what otherwise was a terrific game by Stanford and an admirable job by the coaching staff preparing the team for the game.

I mean sure, I wanted them to push it a little more.  With 3 timeouts a TD was definitely a possibility with 2 or 3 run plays.  And run plays were an option.  But a few things to remember.  The RBs were already getting tugged and pulled with every drive.  IF, and I realize it is an IF, but if Taylor or Stewart was stripped everyone on this board would be screaming that Shaw should have kicked a FG.  And if Luck passed, incompletions could have stopped the clock and there is always a chance for a sack-fumble or an INT.

If in 2012, Stanford has a chance to win every game in regulation with a ~35 FG or go to OT with a miss, I think I would take that season.  I am not sure I would survive, but I suspect that Stanford wins 10 of the 12 in regulation (at least) and then should split the OT contests.  Of course, that situation will not arise, but just to say that banking on ~35 FGs is pretty standard in coaching.

Just look at NFL OTs.  Many coaches elect to kick that 35 FG on first or second down rather than run more plays.  Holding, false starts, sacks, fumbles and INTs all can happen too.

[NYC Poke]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

[NYC Poke]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

[NYC Poke]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

[NYC Poke]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

[NYC Poke]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

[NYC Poke]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

[NYC Poke]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

[NYC Poke]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

[jacketree]

I would have run up the middle on third down and see what happens.  No way am I calling timeouts. No way am I running play action. One blindside hit and.....OSU stopped Stanford for two yards on second down, so a touchdown was not inevitable.  And a field goal wins!  I don't see what is so unreasonable about thinking you can make a field goal from inside the twenty.  Interesting how Gundy threw it when all he needed was a few runs and a kick.  Too bad we couldn't get the pick.

Oh well, an argument for all time.

[jacketree]

I would have run up the middle on third down and see what happens.  No way am I calling timeouts. No way am I running play action. One blindside hit and.....OSU stopped Stanford for two yards on second down, so a touchdown was not inevitable.  And a field goal wins!  I don't see what is so unreasonable about thinking you can make a field goal from inside the twenty.  Interesting how Gundy threw it when all he needed was a few runs and a kick.  Too bad we couldn't get the pick.

Oh well, an argument for all time.

[jacketree]

I would have run up the middle on third down and see what happens.  No way am I calling timeouts. No way am I running play action. One blindside hit and.....OSU stopped Stanford for two yards on second down, so a touchdown was not inevitable.  And a field goal wins!  I don't see what is so unreasonable about thinking you can make a field goal from inside the twenty.  Interesting how Gundy threw it when all he needed was a few runs and a kick.  Too bad we couldn't get the pick.

Oh well, an argument for all time.

[jacketree]

I would have run up the middle on third down and see what happens.  No way am I calling timeouts. No way am I running play action. One blindside hit and.....OSU stopped Stanford for two yards on second down, so a touchdown was not inevitable.  And a field goal wins!  I don't see what is so unreasonable about thinking you can make a field goal from inside the twenty.  Interesting how Gundy threw it when all he needed was a few runs and a kick.  Too bad we couldn't get the pick.

Oh well, an argument for all time.

[jacketree]

I would have run up the middle on third down and see what happens.  No way am I calling timeouts. No way am I running play action. One blindside hit and.....OSU stopped Stanford for two yards on second down, so a touchdown was not inevitable.  And a field goal wins!  I don't see what is so unreasonable about thinking you can make a field goal from inside the twenty.  Interesting how Gundy threw it when all he needed was a few runs and a kick.  Too bad we couldn't get the pick.

Oh well, an argument for all time.

[jacketree]

I would have run up the middle on third down and see what happens.  No way am I calling timeouts. No way am I running play action. One blindside hit and.....OSU stopped Stanford for two yards on second down, so a touchdown was not inevitable.  And a field goal wins!  I don't see what is so unreasonable about thinking you can make a field goal from inside the twenty.  Interesting how Gundy threw it when all he needed was a few runs and a kick.  Too bad we couldn't get the pick.

Oh well, an argument for all time.

[jacketree]

I would have run up the middle on third down and see what happens.  No way am I calling timeouts. No way am I running play action. One blindside hit and.....OSU stopped Stanford for two yards on second down, so a touchdown was not inevitable.  And a field goal wins!  I don't see what is so unreasonable about thinking you can make a field goal from inside the twenty.  Interesting how Gundy threw it when all he needed was a few runs and a kick.  Too bad we couldn't get the pick.

Oh well, an argument for all time.

[jacketree]

I would have run up the middle on third down and see what happens.  No way am I calling timeouts. No way am I running play action. One blindside hit and.....OSU stopped Stanford for two yards on second down, so a touchdown was not inevitable.  And a field goal wins!  I don't see what is so unreasonable about thinking you can make a field goal from inside the twenty.  Interesting how Gundy threw it when all he needed was a few runs and a kick.  Too bad we couldn't get the pick.

Oh well, an argument for all time.

[Farm93]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

NYC Poke - I like your quote about poker.  That feels about right to me.  Shaw had a really strong full house going to the river card.  Then by some miracle the opponent got the only card that would get them a win.  No shame in going "all-in" on a 35 yd FG to win a bowl game.  I know I was mentally there ready to document the glory or "collect the chips".  I even have shots of the ball on the field ready for play with the scoreboard in the background.  I was ready to contrast those jpgs with jpgs of the score I thought was almost certain to appear a minute or two later.  Oh well.

[Farm93]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

NYC Poke - I like your quote about poker.  That feels about right to me.  Shaw had a really strong full house going to the river card.  Then by some miracle the opponent got the only card that would get them a win.  No shame in going "all-in" on a 35 yd FG to win a bowl game.  I know I was mentally there ready to document the glory or "collect the chips".  I even have shots of the ball on the field ready for play with the scoreboard in the background.  I was ready to contrast those jpgs with jpgs of the score I thought was almost certain to appear a minute or two later.  Oh well.

[Farm93]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

NYC Poke - I like your quote about poker.  That feels about right to me.  Shaw had a really strong full house going to the river card.  Then by some miracle the opponent got the only card that would get them a win.  No shame in going "all-in" on a 35 yd FG to win a bowl game.  I know I was mentally there ready to document the glory or "collect the chips".  I even have shots of the ball on the field ready for play with the scoreboard in the background.  I was ready to contrast those jpgs with jpgs of the score I thought was almost certain to appear a minute or two later.  Oh well.

[Farm93]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

NYC Poke - I like your quote about poker.  That feels about right to me.  Shaw had a really strong full house going to the river card.  Then by some miracle the opponent got the only card that would get them a win.  No shame in going "all-in" on a 35 yd FG to win a bowl game.  I know I was mentally there ready to document the glory or "collect the chips".  I even have shots of the ball on the field ready for play with the scoreboard in the background.  I was ready to contrast those jpgs with jpgs of the score I thought was almost certain to appear a minute or two later.  Oh well.

[Farm93]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

NYC Poke - I like your quote about poker.  That feels about right to me.  Shaw had a really strong full house going to the river card.  Then by some miracle the opponent got the only card that would get them a win.  No shame in going "all-in" on a 35 yd FG to win a bowl game.  I know I was mentally there ready to document the glory or "collect the chips".  I even have shots of the ball on the field ready for play with the scoreboard in the background.  I was ready to contrast those jpgs with jpgs of the score I thought was almost certain to appear a minute or two later.  Oh well.

[Farm93]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

NYC Poke - I like your quote about poker.  That feels about right to me.  Shaw had a really strong full house going to the river card.  Then by some miracle the opponent got the only card that would get them a win.  No shame in going "all-in" on a 35 yd FG to win a bowl game.  I know I was mentally there ready to document the glory or "collect the chips".  I even have shots of the ball on the field ready for play with the scoreboard in the background.  I was ready to contrast those jpgs with jpgs of the score I thought was almost certain to appear a minute or two later.  Oh well.

[Farm93]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

NYC Poke - I like your quote about poker.  That feels about right to me.  Shaw had a really strong full house going to the river card.  Then by some miracle the opponent got the only card that would get them a win.  No shame in going "all-in" on a 35 yd FG to win a bowl game.  I know I was mentally there ready to document the glory or "collect the chips".  I even have shots of the ball on the field ready for play with the scoreboard in the background.  I was ready to contrast those jpgs with jpgs of the score I thought was almost certain to appear a minute or two later.  Oh well.

[Farm93]

I kind of question the play-calling on the final drive, a question mark on what otherwise was a flawlessly coached game by Shaw.  Frankly, I'm not sure we would have been able to stop a touchdown I y'all had played that way. But Shaw played for some pretty good averages, it just didn't work out in this particular instance.  Just like in poker, sometimes you make the right play on the wrong hand.

NYC Poke - I like your quote about poker.  That feels about right to me.  Shaw had a really strong full house going to the river card.  Then by some miracle the opponent got the only card that would get them a win.  No shame in going "all-in" on a 35 yd FG to win a bowl game.  I know I was mentally there ready to document the glory or "collect the chips".  I even have shots of the ball on the field ready for play with the scoreboard in the background.  I was ready to contrast those jpgs with jpgs of the score I thought was almost certain to appear a minute or two later.  Oh well.

[DC]

I like the poker analogy too.  Shaw's conservative play was the right one with an average kicker, as Luck could have been sacked out of FG range, the ball could have been tipped for an interception (it has happened to us), etc.

However, there is the possibility that our kicker wasn't average and Shaw may not have calculated the odds correctly as a result. 

--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.

--- He is a redshirt freshman.

--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.

--- He had kicked a kickoff out of bounds and nearly kicked another one out of bounds as well.

--- I don't know how he looked in practice.

Strangely, after the OSU timeout to ice the kicker, our kicker took a practice kicking motion which looked straight, true and decisive.  I felt at that point we would win.  Unfortunately, practice motions and the actual kick aren't the same thing.

This has got to be the most disappointing loss I have experienced as a fan in any Stanford sport.  Although a 41-38 OT loss vs. a 41-38 regulation win isn't that intellectually different in the scheme of things, it feels like a mountain of difference now.

:(

[DC]

I like the poker analogy too.  Shaw's conservative play was the right one with an average kicker, as Luck could have been sacked out of FG range, the ball could have been tipped for an interception (it has happened to us), etc.

However, there is the possibility that our kicker wasn't average and Shaw may not have calculated the odds correctly as a result. 

--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.

--- He is a redshirt freshman.

--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.

--- He had kicked a kickoff out of bounds and nearly kicked another one out of bounds as well.

--- I don't know how he looked in practice.

Strangely, after the OSU timeout to ice the kicker, our kicker took a practice kicking motion which looked straight, true and decisive.  I felt at that point we would win.  Unfortunately, practice motions and the actual kick aren't the same thing.

This has got to be the most disappointing loss I have experienced as a fan in any Stanford sport.  Although a 41-38 OT loss vs. a 41-38 regulation win isn't that intellectually different in the scheme of things, it feels like a mountain of difference now.

:(

[DC]

I like the poker analogy too.  Shaw's conservative play was the right one with an average kicker, as Luck could have been sacked out of FG range, the ball could have been tipped for an interception (it has happened to us), etc.

However, there is the possibility that our kicker wasn't average and Shaw may not have calculated the odds correctly as a result. 

--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.

--- He is a redshirt freshman.

--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.

--- He had kicked a kickoff out of bounds and nearly kicked another one out of bounds as well.

--- I don't know how he looked in practice.

Strangely, after the OSU timeout to ice the kicker, our kicker took a practice kicking motion which looked straight, true and decisive.  I felt at that point we would win.  Unfortunately, practice motions and the actual kick aren't the same thing.

This has got to be the most disappointing loss I have experienced as a fan in any Stanford sport.  Although a 41-38 OT loss vs. a 41-38 regulation win isn't that intellectually different in the scheme of things, it feels like a mountain of difference now.

:(

[DC]

I like the poker analogy too.  Shaw's conservative play was the right one with an average kicker, as Luck could have been sacked out of FG range, the ball could have been tipped for an interception (it has happened to us), etc.

However, there is the possibility that our kicker wasn't average and Shaw may not have calculated the odds correctly as a result. 

--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.

--- He is a redshirt freshman.

--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.

--- He had kicked a kickoff out of bounds and nearly kicked another one out of bounds as well.

--- I don't know how he looked in practice.

Strangely, after the OSU timeout to ice the kicker, our kicker took a practice kicking motion which looked straight, true and decisive.  I felt at that point we would win.  Unfortunately, practice motions and the actual kick aren't the same thing.

This has got to be the most disappointing loss I have experienced as a fan in any Stanford sport.  Although a 41-38 OT loss vs. a 41-38 regulation win isn't that intellectually different in the scheme of things, it feels like a mountain of difference now.

:(

[DC]

I like the poker analogy too.  Shaw's conservative play was the right one with an average kicker, as Luck could have been sacked out of FG range, the ball could have been tipped for an interception (it has happened to us), etc.

However, there is the possibility that our kicker wasn't average and Shaw may not have calculated the odds correctly as a result. 

--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.

--- He is a redshirt freshman.

--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.

--- He had kicked a kickoff out of bounds and nearly kicked another one out of bounds as well.

--- I don't know how he looked in practice.

Strangely, after the OSU timeout to ice the kicker, our kicker took a practice kicking motion which looked straight, true and decisive.  I felt at that point we would win.  Unfortunately, practice motions and the actual kick aren't the same thing.

This has got to be the most disappointing loss I have experienced as a fan in any Stanford sport.  Although a 41-38 OT loss vs. a 41-38 regulation win isn't that intellectually different in the scheme of things, it feels like a mountain of difference now.

:(

[DC]

I like the poker analogy too.  Shaw's conservative play was the right one with an average kicker, as Luck could have been sacked out of FG range, the ball could have been tipped for an interception (it has happened to us), etc.

However, there is the possibility that our kicker wasn't average and Shaw may not have calculated the odds correctly as a result. 

--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.

--- He is a redshirt freshman.

--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.

--- He had kicked a kickoff out of bounds and nearly kicked another one out of bounds as well.

--- I don't know how he looked in practice.

Strangely, after the OSU timeout to ice the kicker, our kicker took a practice kicking motion which looked straight, true and decisive.  I felt at that point we would win.  Unfortunately, practice motions and the actual kick aren't the same thing.

This has got to be the most disappointing loss I have experienced as a fan in any Stanford sport.  Although a 41-38 OT loss vs. a 41-38 regulation win isn't that intellectually different in the scheme of things, it feels like a mountain of difference now.

:(

[DC]

I like the poker analogy too.  Shaw's conservative play was the right one with an average kicker, as Luck could have been sacked out of FG range, the ball could have been tipped for an interception (it has happened to us), etc.

However, there is the possibility that our kicker wasn't average and Shaw may not have calculated the odds correctly as a result. 

--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.

--- He is a redshirt freshman.

--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.

--- He had kicked a kickoff out of bounds and nearly kicked another one out of bounds as well.

--- I don't know how he looked in practice.

Strangely, after the OSU timeout to ice the kicker, our kicker took a practice kicking motion which looked straight, true and decisive.  I felt at that point we would win.  Unfortunately, practice motions and the actual kick aren't the same thing.

This has got to be the most disappointing loss I have experienced as a fan in any Stanford sport.  Although a 41-38 OT loss vs. a 41-38 regulation win isn't that intellectually different in the scheme of things, it feels like a mountain of difference now.

:(

[DC]

I like the poker analogy too.  Shaw's conservative play was the right one with an average kicker, as Luck could have been sacked out of FG range, the ball could have been tipped for an interception (it has happened to us), etc.

However, there is the possibility that our kicker wasn't average and Shaw may not have calculated the odds correctly as a result. 

--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.

--- He is a redshirt freshman.

--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.

--- He had kicked a kickoff out of bounds and nearly kicked another one out of bounds as well.

--- I don't know how he looked in practice.

Strangely, after the OSU timeout to ice the kicker, our kicker took a practice kicking motion which looked straight, true and decisive.  I felt at that point we would win.  Unfortunately, practice motions and the actual kick aren't the same thing.

This has got to be the most disappointing loss I have experienced as a fan in any Stanford sport.  Although a 41-38 OT loss vs. a 41-38 regulation win isn't that intellectually different in the scheme of things, it feels like a mountain of difference now.

:(