[doug]

Is anyone else concerned about the mounting evidence (in my view) that Shaw is a very conservative decision-maker and that his conservatism may turn SU into the type of retro-Big 10 type team we used to mock?

I welcome the new-found toughness in the program and particularly liked that JH combined a "go-for-the-jugular" approach with traditional power running. The combination worked beautifully with Andrew Luck at the controls. By contrast, I thought  Shaw was conservative over the course of his first year and viewed that as perhaps the biggest (for me) issue in judging his performance this year. The decision-making at the end of the Fiesta Bowl left me with a gnawing and troubling sense of concern, exacerbated by Shaw's unyielding defense of the decision to let the clock run out and play for a FG. FWIW, as soon as it became clear that was DS's plan, I said aloud to my viewing party "I don't like this", before JW had missed and even before the camera showed JW in a distinctly unconfident posture on the sidelines looking like he might throw up.

I won't rehash why I thought that decision was wrong, but it now seems the QB choice was based very heavily on a "don't make mistakes, don't beat yourself" criteria. I have little basis to assess his QB decision other than JN's brief appearance in the 2010 Big Game when JN did not look like a Pac-12 caliber QB to me. Winning is certainly more fun than losing, but the potential cost in the entertainment value of Stanford FB is a concern to me. I am curious whether others share my concern or can offer reassurance that my concern is premature/unfounded.

[doug]

Is anyone else concerned about the mounting evidence (in my view) that Shaw is a very conservative decision-maker and that his conservatism may turn SU into the type of retro-Big 10 type team we used to mock?

I welcome the new-found toughness in the program and particularly liked that JH combined a "go-for-the-jugular" approach with traditional power running. The combination worked beautifully with Andrew Luck at the controls. By contrast, I thought  Shaw was conservative over the course of his first year and viewed that as perhaps the biggest (for me) issue in judging his performance this year. The decision-making at the end of the Fiesta Bowl left me with a gnawing and troubling sense of concern, exacerbated by Shaw's unyielding defense of the decision to let the clock run out and play for a FG. FWIW, as soon as it became clear that was DS's plan, I said aloud to my viewing party "I don't like this", before JW had missed and even before the camera showed JW in a distinctly unconfident posture on the sidelines looking like he might throw up.

I won't rehash why I thought that decision was wrong, but it now seems the QB choice was based very heavily on a "don't make mistakes, don't beat yourself" criteria. I have little basis to assess his QB decision other than JN's brief appearance in the 2010 Big Game when JN did not look like a Pac-12 caliber QB to me. Winning is certainly more fun than losing, but the potential cost in the entertainment value of Stanford FB is a concern to me. I am curious whether others share my concern or can offer reassurance that my concern is premature/unfounded.

[dabigv13]

I agree with this sentiment; at first I was unsure if I was just mistaking Shaw's more understated personality for a more conservative approach than JH, but a year's worth of playcalling, crystallized in the Fiesta Bowl, gives proof to it. I don't think we'll ever see Shaw go for two against USC, which is unfortunate, but as long he wins that's fine. I honestly don't have enough information to judge Nunes vs Nottingham, but its clear he was making a decision with regards to minimize risk rather than maximize benefit, and I think that's a dangerous outlook for a leader.

[dabigv13]

I agree with this sentiment; at first I was unsure if I was just mistaking Shaw's more understated personality for a more conservative approach than JH, but a year's worth of playcalling, crystallized in the Fiesta Bowl, gives proof to it. I don't think we'll ever see Shaw go for two against USC, which is unfortunate, but as long he wins that's fine. I honestly don't have enough information to judge Nunes vs Nottingham, but its clear he was making a decision with regards to minimize risk rather than maximize benefit, and I think that's a dangerous outlook for a leader.

[washingtonismoney]

1) Yeah, a conservative playcaller would never call a play that only had one option for success in the middle of a critical away game, especially if the target were a true freshman in his first big road game. What I'm saying is, there is no way David Shaw would call a play like this: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:7168863

2) While I agree the Fiesta Bowl call was the wrong one, it's one that coaches aggressive and not have made. Please consult Jim Harbaugh (UCLA 2008, SC 2010) or Chip Kelly (SC 2011) on the matter. (EDIT: also forgot Chris Petersen (TCU 2011). Again, concluding Shaw is conservative from the Fiesta Bowl call is like concluding the truth of quantum physics from the existence of a day-old bagel. You might not be wrong, but your evidence used is faulty and without context.)

3) Nunes might be the conservative choice. But we don't really know what the alternative was. If Brett Nottingham were Tommy Rees, the conservative choice is indisputably the best choice. I think it's more than a little lazy to put Nottingham into the "playmaker" box and Nunes into the "game manager" box when we've barely seen either of them play. Nunes could be the better game manager...and be a better playmaker too. We don't know. Like, for instance, how do we know Nottingham has the better upside? And how do we know he's likely to reach it?

4) So, no. I reject the premise. As I said in the thread, I look forward to forming an opinion in two or three months. We just don't know.

[washingtonismoney]

1) Yeah, a conservative playcaller would never call a play that only had one option for success in the middle of a critical away game, especially if the target were a true freshman in his first big road game. What I'm saying is, there is no way David Shaw would call a play like this: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:7168863

2) While I agree the Fiesta Bowl call was the wrong one, it's one that coaches aggressive and not have made. Please consult Jim Harbaugh (UCLA 2008, SC 2010) or Chip Kelly (SC 2011) on the matter. (EDIT: also forgot Chris Petersen (TCU 2011). Again, concluding Shaw is conservative from the Fiesta Bowl call is like concluding the truth of quantum physics from the existence of a day-old bagel. You might not be wrong, but your evidence used is faulty and without context.)

3) Nunes might be the conservative choice. But we don't really know what the alternative was. If Brett Nottingham were Tommy Rees, the conservative choice is indisputably the best choice. I think it's more than a little lazy to put Nottingham into the "playmaker" box and Nunes into the "game manager" box when we've barely seen either of them play. Nunes could be the better game manager...and be a better playmaker too. We don't know. Like, for instance, how do we know Nottingham has the better upside? And how do we know he's likely to reach it?

4) So, no. I reject the premise. As I said in the thread, I look forward to forming an opinion in two or three months. We just don't know.

[oman]

Naming Dallas Lloyd as starter is the only thing that would have made me happy.

And assuaged what ails me.

[oman]

Naming Dallas Lloyd as starter is the only thing that would have made me happy.

And assuaged what ails me.

[CowboyIndian]

;D

[CowboyIndian]

;D

[Farm93]

So now the concern is that Coach Shaw somehow is flawed because of a very common coaching decision.  That call even happened with the Steelers and the Colts in preseason on Sunday.  And that very, very short FG was partially blocked.

Even though Nunes has not started in a game, there is a belief that the choice is questionable enough to be concerned?  Stanford probably will be 4-1 or 3-2 going to Notre Dame with any QB as the starter.  No real cause for alarm IMHO.  Nunes will be fine.

Remember EUTM himself, JH, redshirted Luck.  If you want to talk about being too conservative that has got to top this Nunes thing.  Everyone that even came games a few minutes before kickoffs in 2008 knew that Luck was the best QB on the field.  And yet that conservative, traditional decision turned out just fine over the longer haul.

I suspect part of the Nunes deal includes things that we just can't see from the sidelines.  Until Coach Shaw fails to get Stanford to a BCS bowl, fails to get Stanford in the top 10 at year-end and/or fails to win Big Game, etc.  I just cannot see any reason to be too concerned. 

[Farm93]

So now the concern is that Coach Shaw somehow is flawed because of a very common coaching decision.  That call even happened with the Steelers and the Colts in preseason on Sunday.  And that very, very short FG was partially blocked.

Even though Nunes has not started in a game, there is a belief that the choice is questionable enough to be concerned?  Stanford probably will be 4-1 or 3-2 going to Notre Dame with any QB as the starter.  No real cause for alarm IMHO.  Nunes will be fine.

Remember EUTM himself, JH, redshirted Luck.  If you want to talk about being too conservative that has got to top this Nunes thing.  Everyone that even came games a few minutes before kickoffs in 2008 knew that Luck was the best QB on the field.  And yet that conservative, traditional decision turned out just fine over the longer haul.

I suspect part of the Nunes deal includes things that we just can't see from the sidelines.  Until Coach Shaw fails to get Stanford to a BCS bowl, fails to get Stanford in the top 10 at year-end and/or fails to win Big Game, etc.  I just cannot see any reason to be too concerned. 

[OutsiderFan]

It seems to me it would be prudent to see a few games play out with his new QB before judging Shaw with blanket conclusions.

[OutsiderFan]

It seems to me it would be prudent to see a few games play out with his new QB before judging Shaw with blanket conclusions.

[dabigv13]

WIM, the play you linked was actually a pretty low risk play...if Ty is covered, the best player in the country simply throws the ball away. Still a nice play though.

[dabigv13]

WIM, the play you linked was actually a pretty low risk play...if Ty is covered, the best player in the country simply throws the ball away. Still a nice play though.

[doug]

There is an implication in some of the responses that I was suggesting that Shaw had made a conservative and questionable choice in selecting JN, which is not the question I intended to pose. I probably invited that interpretation by including my reaction to JN's play in the 2010 Big Game. I suspect most readers of this board have heard what appears to be a persistent opinion (if not a consensus) that BN has a higher upside in the passing game, and my question would have been interpreted in that context. But to be clear, I intended really to ask whether others share my concern that the metric DS used to decide on the QB might be unduly conservative (as I thought the decision-making at the end of the Fiesta Bowl was) and whether that conservatism may change the experience of Stanford FB. One of the things I particularly liked about JH is the sense that he believed in all his players and was willing to give them the chance to make plays to win -- and I think his players recognized his belief in them and performed well as a result. I hope DS can do the same with his players, but that ultimately is the question I am posing.

FWIW, I think JH's decision to kick the FG vs. UCLA in 2008 is not comparable to the Fiesta Bowl decision - almost every coach in America would have kicked vs. UCLA on 4th down. I didn't object to trying to win the Fiesta Bowl with a FG, I objected to not even trying to make the FG shorter and easier by trying to advance the ball in the last 52 seconds when Luck was running our offense and JW had not been remotely the same kicker after returning from his injury.

Luck's INT in the 2009 Big Game probably is a good example of JH's questionable risk-taking that might have cost us the win, a decision I don't see DS likely to make. It was a painful loss, but I still like the "go for it" attitude. I would probably be willing to accept some losses like that if the alternative is a buttoned-down "always play it safe-don't beat yourself" approach.

[doug]

There is an implication in some of the responses that I was suggesting that Shaw had made a conservative and questionable choice in selecting JN, which is not the question I intended to pose. I probably invited that interpretation by including my reaction to JN's play in the 2010 Big Game. I suspect most readers of this board have heard what appears to be a persistent opinion (if not a consensus) that BN has a higher upside in the passing game, and my question would have been interpreted in that context. But to be clear, I intended really to ask whether others share my concern that the metric DS used to decide on the QB might be unduly conservative (as I thought the decision-making at the end of the Fiesta Bowl was) and whether that conservatism may change the experience of Stanford FB. One of the things I particularly liked about JH is the sense that he believed in all his players and was willing to give them the chance to make plays to win -- and I think his players recognized his belief in them and performed well as a result. I hope DS can do the same with his players, but that ultimately is the question I am posing.

FWIW, I think JH's decision to kick the FG vs. UCLA in 2008 is not comparable to the Fiesta Bowl decision - almost every coach in America would have kicked vs. UCLA on 4th down. I didn't object to trying to win the Fiesta Bowl with a FG, I objected to not even trying to make the FG shorter and easier by trying to advance the ball in the last 52 seconds when Luck was running our offense and JW had not been remotely the same kicker after returning from his injury.

Luck's INT in the 2009 Big Game probably is a good example of JH's questionable risk-taking that might have cost us the win, a decision I don't see DS likely to make. It was a painful loss, but I still like the "go for it" attitude. I would probably be willing to accept some losses like that if the alternative is a buttoned-down "always play it safe-don't beat yourself" approach.

[needle]

Go with the QB who gives you the best chance to win right now.

IMO, the only concern with this decision anyone should have is whether Nunes can deliver the ball accurately on deep routes as Nottingham has proven(?) he can do.

Upside is not the way I want players selected to be tops on the depth chart. I can believe Nunes is better than Nottingham at executing 90 percent of the plays Shaw would call; I have no evidence, but it's plausible. That would be enought for me to name him starter.

I like the idea of giving Nottingham a chance to shine against SJState.

Look at video of Nunes and there's plenty to like. Color me unconcerned at the moment.

[needle]

Go with the QB who gives you the best chance to win right now.

IMO, the only concern with this decision anyone should have is whether Nunes can deliver the ball accurately on deep routes as Nottingham has proven(?) he can do.

Upside is not the way I want players selected to be tops on the depth chart. I can believe Nunes is better than Nottingham at executing 90 percent of the plays Shaw would call; I have no evidence, but it's plausible. That would be enought for me to name him starter.

I like the idea of giving Nottingham a chance to shine against SJState.

Look at video of Nunes and there's plenty to like. Color me unconcerned at the moment.

[Griffins78]

To me, watching Nottingham practice and from comments of others, it seemed as though he "looked" the best. But for the QB competition to last as long as it did and for Hogan to be able to enter the race, made me think Nottingham must be missing something that keeps him from distinguishing himself to the coaches. Ideally, the decision would have been a slam dunk, that one of them, particularly Nottingham would blow everyone away and grab the position. That didn't happen - for whatever reason - mostly not visible to me. So when there isn't ONE, clearly out shining above and beyond, it makes sense to go with the one that is the most consistent at executing. (maybe the "safe" decision) We have talent and depth across the board and in many positions we have a lot of experience too. That can take us very far and the polls to some extent reflect that - no matter which QB we go with. The QB position is the one position that can screw it up at this stage. He has to get us into the right plays, formations, schemes, etc. Then he has to put the ball where the rest of the team has a chance to do their thing. Then we can talk about extra heroics and special plays (including long passes or scrambles) that carry us to the next level.

[Griffins78]

To me, watching Nottingham practice and from comments of others, it seemed as though he "looked" the best. But for the QB competition to last as long as it did and for Hogan to be able to enter the race, made me think Nottingham must be missing something that keeps him from distinguishing himself to the coaches. Ideally, the decision would have been a slam dunk, that one of them, particularly Nottingham would blow everyone away and grab the position. That didn't happen - for whatever reason - mostly not visible to me. So when there isn't ONE, clearly out shining above and beyond, it makes sense to go with the one that is the most consistent at executing. (maybe the "safe" decision) We have talent and depth across the board and in many positions we have a lot of experience too. That can take us very far and the polls to some extent reflect that - no matter which QB we go with. The QB position is the one position that can screw it up at this stage. He has to get us into the right plays, formations, schemes, etc. Then he has to put the ball where the rest of the team has a chance to do their thing. Then we can talk about extra heroics and special plays (including long passes or scrambles) that carry us to the next level.

[readarmy1976]

Yes, I am very concerned. Nottingham was much better than Nunes in everything the public got to see. Brett has tremendous direction and energy on the football field. He's like Matty B, but a little more gifted. I wonder if an aging Shaw felt threatened by a zesty Nottingham powering the team. Nunes is a much more submissive player. Very disappointed by this decision.

[readarmy1976]

Yes, I am very concerned. Nottingham was much better than Nunes in everything the public got to see. Brett has tremendous direction and energy on the football field. He's like Matty B, but a little more gifted. I wonder if an aging Shaw felt threatened by a zesty Nottingham powering the team. Nunes is a much more submissive player. Very disappointed by this decision.

[LuckE2Bhere]

IMO, the only concern with this decision anyone should have is whether Nunes can deliver the ball accurately on deep routes as Nottingham has proven(?) he can do.

I agree with several of your points, needle, but when did deep-route-delivery become a priority on this year's "what we need from our QB list"?  As thrilled as I am with the O-line we recruited this year, when your LT is likely to be a true freshman and you only have one receiver who has proven that he can create separation, you don't typically load the playbook with bombs (no matter how fun it was to watch Andrew complete them)!  "Throwing ability" is (I think understandably) 3rd on Shaw's "pecking order for selecting a quarterback" in Gemmell's article.  I'm more with Griffin.  Remember... even with the best college QB ever  ;D  we ran the ball something like 55% of the time last year.  There's a lot more to managing an offense than throwing the ball through tires at the fair, no matter how far away they may be placed.  I just hope that, as good as The Sheriff looked, Nunes was even better at "that other stuff" (as opposed to Nottingham handling it poorly).

[LuckE2Bhere]

IMO, the only concern with this decision anyone should have is whether Nunes can deliver the ball accurately on deep routes as Nottingham has proven(?) he can do.

I agree with several of your points, needle, but when did deep-route-delivery become a priority on this year's "what we need from our QB list"?  As thrilled as I am with the O-line we recruited this year, when your LT is likely to be a true freshman and you only have one receiver who has proven that he can create separation, you don't typically load the playbook with bombs (no matter how fun it was to watch Andrew complete them)!  "Throwing ability" is (I think understandably) 3rd on Shaw's "pecking order for selecting a quarterback" in Gemmell's article.  I'm more with Griffin.  Remember... even with the best college QB ever  ;D  we ran the ball something like 55% of the time last year.  There's a lot more to managing an offense than throwing the ball through tires at the fair, no matter how far away they may be placed.  I just hope that, as good as The Sheriff looked, Nunes was even better at "that other stuff" (as opposed to Nottingham handling it poorly).

[Roberton3]

I'm not going to second-guess the Nunes/Nottingham decision.  The coaches have seen both of them in practice much more than any outside observer has.  And the coaches know the playbook, so they can tell whether the QB is making the right calls.  The rest of us can't.

I also don't care very much about how exciting Stanford's style of play is.  I care much more about winning.  If being boring is the best way to win, then I'm firmly in favor of being boring.

With all of that said, however, I do agree that Shaw's playcalling has been too conservative.  And that played some role in both losses last year.  Going for it on fourth down more often in the Oregon game would probably have helped (mathematical analysis shows that most coaches don't go for it on fourth down often enough, and that's even more true when you have two strong offenses in the game, as was the case in the Oregon game).  Would it have made the difference between a loss and a win?  Probably not, but it probably would have made the game closer.  And as plenty of others have pointed out in this thread (and plenty of other threads), being more aggressive could well have won the game against OSU.  Shaw's a great coach, but he'd be even better if he weren't so cautious with his play calling.

[Roberton3]

I'm not going to second-guess the Nunes/Nottingham decision.  The coaches have seen both of them in practice much more than any outside observer has.  And the coaches know the playbook, so they can tell whether the QB is making the right calls.  The rest of us can't.

I also don't care very much about how exciting Stanford's style of play is.  I care much more about winning.  If being boring is the best way to win, then I'm firmly in favor of being boring.

With all of that said, however, I do agree that Shaw's playcalling has been too conservative.  And that played some role in both losses last year.  Going for it on fourth down more often in the Oregon game would probably have helped (mathematical analysis shows that most coaches don't go for it on fourth down often enough, and that's even more true when you have two strong offenses in the game, as was the case in the Oregon game).  Would it have made the difference between a loss and a win?  Probably not, but it probably would have made the game closer.  And as plenty of others have pointed out in this thread (and plenty of other threads), being more aggressive could well have won the game against OSU.  Shaw's a great coach, but he'd be even better if he weren't so cautious with his play calling.

[readarmy1976]

Managers regularly make decisions with their personality needs.Nottingham has the energy of a winner. Nunes does not. But, Nunes is less threatening to Shaw's ego.

[readarmy1976]

Managers regularly make decisions with their personality needs.Nottingham has the energy of a winner. Nunes does not. But, Nunes is less threatening to Shaw's ego.

[oman]

Excitement is always more important than winning.  Fortunately, college football has a wide berth in terms of what exciting is.  Four yards and a cloud of dust is exciting when our guys are pounding people.

After having Luck as his quarterback for a few years, I doubt Shaw is threatened by anyone.

[oman]

Excitement is always more important than winning.  Fortunately, college football has a wide berth in terms of what exciting is.  Four yards and a cloud of dust is exciting when our guys are pounding people.

After having Luck as his quarterback for a few years, I doubt Shaw is threatened by anyone.

[jacketree]

Is anyone else concerned about the mounting evidence (in my view) that Shaw is a very conservative decision-maker and that his conservatism may turn SU into the type of retro-Big 10 type team we used to mock?

Will that be a retro-Big 10 type team that won titles like Michigan, Ohio State, and Wisconsin; or a shitty retro-Big 10 type team like Indiana?

I'll just pop into this thread long enough to say that if you knew that setting up an easy field goal to win the game with 0:00 on the clock was stupid while you watched it happen, you should be in a different line of work.

And long enough to say I haven't a clue whether Nunes is better than Nottingham, but there is more to running an offense than having an arm and upside.  I'd bet Shaw believes Nunes has better command of everything he has to do (picking up coverages, audibling, etc, etc) than Nottingham, so he thinks he has a better chance of winning with Nunes. Until he doesn't.

Besides, when is the last time we've had an actual quarterback controversy around here?  I mean if you don't count the decision to redshirt Luck?

I'm not sure how to respond to our Soviet friend here other than ???????  Right, new coach David Shaw says goodbye to superstar Luck and is threatened by Nottingham's "winning energy"?  He'll be threatened with the loss of his job eventually if he doesn't win, so I don't get Red Army's line of thinking at all, unless Red Army is really Nottingham's mother.

"Excitement is always more important than winning."  Vince Lombardi is trying to escape his grave to slap you upside the head, Oman. 

[jacketree]

Is anyone else concerned about the mounting evidence (in my view) that Shaw is a very conservative decision-maker and that his conservatism may turn SU into the type of retro-Big 10 type team we used to mock?

Will that be a retro-Big 10 type team that won titles like Michigan, Ohio State, and Wisconsin; or a shitty retro-Big 10 type team like Indiana?

I'll just pop into this thread long enough to say that if you knew that setting up an easy field goal to win the game with 0:00 on the clock was stupid while you watched it happen, you should be in a different line of work.

And long enough to say I haven't a clue whether Nunes is better than Nottingham, but there is more to running an offense than having an arm and upside.  I'd bet Shaw believes Nunes has better command of everything he has to do (picking up coverages, audibling, etc, etc) than Nottingham, so he thinks he has a better chance of winning with Nunes. Until he doesn't.

Besides, when is the last time we've had an actual quarterback controversy around here?  I mean if you don't count the decision to redshirt Luck?

I'm not sure how to respond to our Soviet friend here other than ???????  Right, new coach David Shaw says goodbye to superstar Luck and is threatened by Nottingham's "winning energy"?  He'll be threatened with the loss of his job eventually if he doesn't win, so I don't get Red Army's line of thinking at all, unless Red Army is really Nottingham's mother.

"Excitement is always more important than winning."  Vince Lombardi is trying to escape his grave to slap you upside the head, Oman. 

[Scooter_Stepford]

What jacketree said...

[Scooter_Stepford]

What jacketree said...

[CrazedZooChimp]

I am not concerned.  But I also love watching football that involves our O-line beating the crud out of the opposing teams D-line and making them think "please please please stop running the football into my face."  I also don't think kicking an easy field goal to win a football game rather than calling a time-out (in a situation where your opponent would love to call one if he had any left) is a bad call, so maybe I'm just more "conservative" when it comes to football.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I am not concerned.  But I also love watching football that involves our O-line beating the crud out of the opposing teams D-line and making them think "please please please stop running the football into my face."  I also don't think kicking an easy field goal to win a football game rather than calling a time-out (in a situation where your opponent would love to call one if he had any left) is a bad call, so maybe I'm just more "conservative" when it comes to football.

[doug]

I will take on your comment, CZC. I would be quite surprised if Gundy and the OSU brain trust were not very pleased to see  -- with 3(?) timeouts left, 52 seconds on the clock, 1st down for SU on around OSU's 19 and an offense run by best-QB-in-a-decade Luck (27 of 31 for around 350 yards on the night) that had racked up close to 600 yards of total offense and that OSU had not come close to stopping all night -- that Stanford was going to stop itself and not even try to advance any further and instead was going to turn the game over to a shaky freshman kicker. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Gundy viewed it as manna from heaven. I would venture to guess the Brits felt very much the same way at Dunkirk when Hitler/Goering stopped the panzers and gave a trapped British army the opportunity to escape.

[doug]

I will take on your comment, CZC. I would be quite surprised if Gundy and the OSU brain trust were not very pleased to see  -- with 3(?) timeouts left, 52 seconds on the clock, 1st down for SU on around OSU's 19 and an offense run by best-QB-in-a-decade Luck (27 of 31 for around 350 yards on the night) that had racked up close to 600 yards of total offense and that OSU had not come close to stopping all night -- that Stanford was going to stop itself and not even try to advance any further and instead was going to turn the game over to a shaky freshman kicker. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Gundy viewed it as manna from heaven. I would venture to guess the Brits felt very much the same way at Dunkirk when Hitler/Goering stopped the panzers and gave a trapped British army the opportunity to escape.