[qwerty49]

So in addition to the games that people felt we lost (or were way too close) because of uncreative coaching, do people feel we won games because of good (in game) coaching?

Teejers pointed out a couple of examples above.  Part of the issue is highlighted by your choice of wording -- consciously or not, you juxtaposed "uncreative" with "good."  You didn't use the word "creative" or "unpredictable."  The problem is that under Shaw, "good" coaching means that grinding and turtling was successful.  From Shaw's perspective, all that counts is the W. 

A lot of us fans have a slightly different perspective.  We remember how Ralston and Vermeil took advantage of Plunkett's talents and built a great passing game and an offense that was finally able to beat $C.  We remember how Walsh installed a complex playbook that somehow did not require a QB to sit on the bench for 2-3 years to learn it, and that those QBs were not necessarily as talented as Plunkett or Luck.  So there's always the temptation to compare our current offensive scheme with what we might have seen in the past.  And yes, in those days we never had as many wins, but even in this "winning era" our current offensive scheme is tarred by visions of the Fiesta Bowl, or of Mich St, or of Cam Scarlett getting brought down behind the LOS by the weakside defender.

This part of the discussion is really apples and oranges.  The hallmark of Shaw's offense is its predictability.  "We are who we are" is as much a confirmation of that as one can ask for.  I suggest it's inherently impossible for this scheme to be considered "creative" in the same sense as what we have seen at points in the past.  Everyone knows what's coming and either they stop it or they don't.

Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Personally I only have two wishes for the offense to think about over the off-season:  1) Widen the splits on "Power" ever so slightly to keep the backside defender half a step further away from the ballcarrier; and 2) Figure out a drill to keep the offense running down the field after a big gain while getting the next play in quickly to avoid those stupid DOG penalties.  If Shaw and Tavita can get those two things right then I don't care how many times I yawn in the stands and laugh to myself that I correctly predicted the play call.
 

[qwerty49]

So in addition to the games that people felt we lost (or were way too close) because of uncreative coaching, do people feel we won games because of good (in game) coaching?

Teejers pointed out a couple of examples above.  Part of the issue is highlighted by your choice of wording -- consciously or not, you juxtaposed "uncreative" with "good."  You didn't use the word "creative" or "unpredictable."  The problem is that under Shaw, "good" coaching means that grinding and turtling was successful.  From Shaw's perspective, all that counts is the W. 

A lot of us fans have a slightly different perspective.  We remember how Ralston and Vermeil took advantage of Plunkett's talents and built a great passing game and an offense that was finally able to beat $C.  We remember how Walsh installed a complex playbook that somehow did not require a QB to sit on the bench for 2-3 years to learn it, and that those QBs were not necessarily as talented as Plunkett or Luck.  So there's always the temptation to compare our current offensive scheme with what we might have seen in the past.  And yes, in those days we never had as many wins, but even in this "winning era" our current offensive scheme is tarred by visions of the Fiesta Bowl, or of Mich St, or of Cam Scarlett getting brought down behind the LOS by the weakside defender.

This part of the discussion is really apples and oranges.  The hallmark of Shaw's offense is its predictability.  "We are who we are" is as much a confirmation of that as one can ask for.  I suggest it's inherently impossible for this scheme to be considered "creative" in the same sense as what we have seen at points in the past.  Everyone knows what's coming and either they stop it or they don't.

Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Personally I only have two wishes for the offense to think about over the off-season:  1) Widen the splits on "Power" ever so slightly to keep the backside defender half a step further away from the ballcarrier; and 2) Figure out a drill to keep the offense running down the field after a big gain while getting the next play in quickly to avoid those stupid DOG penalties.  If Shaw and Tavita can get those two things right then I don't care how many times I yawn in the stands and laugh to myself that I correctly predicted the play call.