[Red State]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg219970#msg219970 date=1514746670]
We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example,

Possibly true. I am not really sure how often people think we run on first down. You will, I think, grant that we run on first down quite frequently, probably more than most teams but not as much as Army.

and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.

And that is probably one reason we run as often as we do.  :) With Hogan and even more with Luck, we could do real damage on first down when we passed. The last two years, not as much. Hopefully, Costello changes this.

We're starting to see the same thinking on red zone fades.  By any measure in football, the play has been very effective.  Our heavy use of it, however, seems to be convincing some fans that defenses see the throw coming and that only miracle catches by AW rescue the play from certain failure.  But it's a bitch wicked play to defend to begin with,  When you have college football's equivalent of Dennis Rodman going up for the contested ball, it's almost unfair.

As long as a play is working, you should run it. It may not be "sexy", but it wins games. It was interesting that TCU  double covered JJAW as a reply, so we had to flank a slot receiver out on that side to prevent the double coverage. So, it is not like the coaching staff is unaware of the situation on the field. If and when somebody comes up with a good way to defend the play, like a 6'7" safety, we will have to do something else. The whole goal of play calling is to create a situation that puts the defense at a disadvantage that they can't overcome. As long as a certain play does that, changing is stupid.
[/quote]

I've always been a fan of Shawtagonists and Shawpologists.  I'm definitely a Shawpologist because, for me, his results in victories and in production overcome any described "eye tests" I've seen.  Also, simply knowing whether or not a play is a run or pass is not the same as knowing what run is coming.  It is not unusual to hear announcers marveling at the number of different plays Stanford runs out of its base formations.  It can be frustrating to watch when our offense isn't working well.  I hate when our running back gets caught from the backside end rusher like in the Pac 12 Championship.  Also, I felt it was clear that SC was just better than us this year and Shaw did a great job of keeping us in the game until the very end.  I also guess I am conservative because I would have taken the 3 points to tie the game.  Still, I appreciate the aggressive call even if it didn't work. 

One thing I appreciate, and fear, about this board, is that you really need to back up your opinions with facts.  I don't have them, but based on the stats posted by others, I think it is pretty clear that the offense has been very good under Shaw.  I went to the Alamo Bowl and we scored 37 on a team that usually gives up 19.  I wish we would have shown more on the final possession, but sometimes young quarterbacks and lines get flustered at the end of a big game.  It happens to all teams at times.  I think they will learn from it and be better next year. 

I don't care to analyze the line-up of those whose first reaction to a loss or failure is to blame Shaw but at least a few (Hi Teejers) do regularly acknowledge all the great things Shaw does.  There seems to be an underlying idea that we could and should be playing at the Playoff level that doesn't match the reality of our recruiting and of the difficulty in winning consistently.  To my eyes, we are still consistently outplaying our talent level and winning more games than I would expect.  If we can get a higher percentage of top level recruits, my views will probably change, but for now, I am extremely satisfied.  I do go to all the home football games, some road games, a variety of other team's games through the year, and donate a modest amount of money to the Buck Cardinal Club. 

Happy New Year Everybody!

Cheers,
Pete F.

Absolutely +1

[Red State]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg219970#msg219970 date=1514746670]
We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example,

Possibly true. I am not really sure how often people think we run on first down. You will, I think, grant that we run on first down quite frequently, probably more than most teams but not as much as Army.

and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.

And that is probably one reason we run as often as we do.  :) With Hogan and even more with Luck, we could do real damage on first down when we passed. The last two years, not as much. Hopefully, Costello changes this.

We're starting to see the same thinking on red zone fades.  By any measure in football, the play has been very effective.  Our heavy use of it, however, seems to be convincing some fans that defenses see the throw coming and that only miracle catches by AW rescue the play from certain failure.  But it's a bitch wicked play to defend to begin with,  When you have college football's equivalent of Dennis Rodman going up for the contested ball, it's almost unfair.

As long as a play is working, you should run it. It may not be "sexy", but it wins games. It was interesting that TCU  double covered JJAW as a reply, so we had to flank a slot receiver out on that side to prevent the double coverage. So, it is not like the coaching staff is unaware of the situation on the field. If and when somebody comes up with a good way to defend the play, like a 6'7" safety, we will have to do something else. The whole goal of play calling is to create a situation that puts the defense at a disadvantage that they can't overcome. As long as a certain play does that, changing is stupid.
[/quote]

I've always been a fan of Shawtagonists and Shawpologists.  I'm definitely a Shawpologist because, for me, his results in victories and in production overcome any described "eye tests" I've seen.  Also, simply knowing whether or not a play is a run or pass is not the same as knowing what run is coming.  It is not unusual to hear announcers marveling at the number of different plays Stanford runs out of its base formations.  It can be frustrating to watch when our offense isn't working well.  I hate when our running back gets caught from the backside end rusher like in the Pac 12 Championship.  Also, I felt it was clear that SC was just better than us this year and Shaw did a great job of keeping us in the game until the very end.  I also guess I am conservative because I would have taken the 3 points to tie the game.  Still, I appreciate the aggressive call even if it didn't work. 

One thing I appreciate, and fear, about this board, is that you really need to back up your opinions with facts.  I don't have them, but based on the stats posted by others, I think it is pretty clear that the offense has been very good under Shaw.  I went to the Alamo Bowl and we scored 37 on a team that usually gives up 19.  I wish we would have shown more on the final possession, but sometimes young quarterbacks and lines get flustered at the end of a big game.  It happens to all teams at times.  I think they will learn from it and be better next year. 

I don't care to analyze the line-up of those whose first reaction to a loss or failure is to blame Shaw but at least a few (Hi Teejers) do regularly acknowledge all the great things Shaw does.  There seems to be an underlying idea that we could and should be playing at the Playoff level that doesn't match the reality of our recruiting and of the difficulty in winning consistently.  To my eyes, we are still consistently outplaying our talent level and winning more games than I would expect.  If we can get a higher percentage of top level recruits, my views will probably change, but for now, I am extremely satisfied.  I do go to all the home football games, some road games, a variety of other team's games through the year, and donate a modest amount of money to the Buck Cardinal Club. 

Happy New Year Everybody!

Cheers,
Pete F.

Absolutely +1