[Austroturf]

I haven't checked lately, but I think it is still true that Stanford has never lost a game due to going into turtle mode [though it is possible some precise definition of turtling is necessary for that to be true - I don't quite remember]. More importantly, most of the time there is, at the least, a strong argument that Shaw's approach gave the best chance to win - even if it gave the worst chance to have compelling football to watch. 

Agree that the turtling in this ASU game was scarcely defensible, even though it worked.  In the broadest sense, this is how I define the Shaw "turtle-mode": whenever you have something you believe is safe, you forego what might be risky.  So in this game, turtling meant NOT taking any undue risks to get a first down and keeping the ball safely on the ground.  In concrete terms, a three-yard loss by Trevor Speights was preferable to a K.J. Costello pick-six (i.e., Utah).  With this definition of turtling, I can offer an instance in which Shaw lost a game this way.  It was the Fiesta Bowl after the 2011 season vs. Oklahoma State.  With the score tied at 38-38, Stanford was driving late in the 4th quarter.  With 45 seconds left, Stanford had 1st and 10 at the OK State 25.  Any score wins the game.  You have all-world QB Andrew Luck under center and 45 seconds left with three full downs to attack the end-zone.  But Shaw saw the risk: a sack, a fumble, an interception.  Rather than take that risk, he turtled and sent Stepfan Taylor up the middle for a six-yard gain.  Then he hammered him back into the middle for a two-yard gain at the middle of the field.  Then he let the clock run down to three seconds, called a time-out and sent his freshman FG-kicker Jordan Williamson onto the field to hit the game-winner.  From 17 yards out, surely Williamson wouldn't miss.  This was safer (more turtlesque) than asking your Voldemort runner-up to get you a TD (or at least get even closer to the goal-line).  Well, we all know how that turned out.  Turtling doesn't always work out, and there have been other examples.  Shaw mostly gets away with it.  But not always.

While I agree that Shaw was excessively conservative there, I don't think that would be considered turtling.  I think most of us consider turtling using the run game not just to minimize the risk of a turnover but also to burn clock.  The idea is you will forgo further scoring or even further possession (even though getting a first down will give you three fresh chances to burn clock) in order to not stop the clock with an incompletion and not turn the ball over.  And I think that's why even many relatively moderate posters felt that Shaw "turtled" to early in this game.  By going three and out, we not only gave up any chance of extending the lead and getting a safer three possession lead, but we also didn't burn all that much clock in the fourth quarter.  Our last four drives took 3:49, 2:13, 2:22, and 2:03, and we got an average of 4 plays off before punting in each.  We left ASU 2:20 for that last drive, which allowed them to drive to the 20 yard line.  Had we been able to get two more first downs in any of those four drives we would have likely been able to take a knee on our last drive without ASU getting the ball back, and it would have saved us all a lot of stress (in my case, constantly checking my watch at a restaurant).

BC

OK, with that definition of turtling, my example fails.  I have been around Shaw and the program long enough to have observed his penchant for never giving up the bird in the hand for the two that inhabit the bush.  The loss to OK State in the Fiesta Bowl pursuant to the 2011 season was emblematic of Shaw's conservative style.  He thought he had his first post-season bowl game under wraps and didn't want Andrew Luck risking it with last minute dramatics.  He played the odds, trusted Williamson and lost.  This was not classic turtling, but it was the same spirit.

[Austroturf]

I haven't checked lately, but I think it is still true that Stanford has never lost a game due to going into turtle mode [though it is possible some precise definition of turtling is necessary for that to be true - I don't quite remember]. More importantly, most of the time there is, at the least, a strong argument that Shaw's approach gave the best chance to win - even if it gave the worst chance to have compelling football to watch. 

Agree that the turtling in this ASU game was scarcely defensible, even though it worked.  In the broadest sense, this is how I define the Shaw "turtle-mode": whenever you have something you believe is safe, you forego what might be risky.  So in this game, turtling meant NOT taking any undue risks to get a first down and keeping the ball safely on the ground.  In concrete terms, a three-yard loss by Trevor Speights was preferable to a K.J. Costello pick-six (i.e., Utah).  With this definition of turtling, I can offer an instance in which Shaw lost a game this way.  It was the Fiesta Bowl after the 2011 season vs. Oklahoma State.  With the score tied at 38-38, Stanford was driving late in the 4th quarter.  With 45 seconds left, Stanford had 1st and 10 at the OK State 25.  Any score wins the game.  You have all-world QB Andrew Luck under center and 45 seconds left with three full downs to attack the end-zone.  But Shaw saw the risk: a sack, a fumble, an interception.  Rather than take that risk, he turtled and sent Stepfan Taylor up the middle for a six-yard gain.  Then he hammered him back into the middle for a two-yard gain at the middle of the field.  Then he let the clock run down to three seconds, called a time-out and sent his freshman FG-kicker Jordan Williamson onto the field to hit the game-winner.  From 17 yards out, surely Williamson wouldn't miss.  This was safer (more turtlesque) than asking your Voldemort runner-up to get you a TD (or at least get even closer to the goal-line).  Well, we all know how that turned out.  Turtling doesn't always work out, and there have been other examples.  Shaw mostly gets away with it.  But not always.

While I agree that Shaw was excessively conservative there, I don't think that would be considered turtling.  I think most of us consider turtling using the run game not just to minimize the risk of a turnover but also to burn clock.  The idea is you will forgo further scoring or even further possession (even though getting a first down will give you three fresh chances to burn clock) in order to not stop the clock with an incompletion and not turn the ball over.  And I think that's why even many relatively moderate posters felt that Shaw "turtled" to early in this game.  By going three and out, we not only gave up any chance of extending the lead and getting a safer three possession lead, but we also didn't burn all that much clock in the fourth quarter.  Our last four drives took 3:49, 2:13, 2:22, and 2:03, and we got an average of 4 plays off before punting in each.  We left ASU 2:20 for that last drive, which allowed them to drive to the 20 yard line.  Had we been able to get two more first downs in any of those four drives we would have likely been able to take a knee on our last drive without ASU getting the ball back, and it would have saved us all a lot of stress (in my case, constantly checking my watch at a restaurant).

BC

OK, with that definition of turtling, my example fails.  I have been around Shaw and the program long enough to have observed his penchant for never giving up the bird in the hand for the two that inhabit the bush.  The loss to OK State in the Fiesta Bowl pursuant to the 2011 season was emblematic of Shaw's conservative style.  He thought he had his first post-season bowl game under wraps and didn't want Andrew Luck risking it with last minute dramatics.  He played the odds, trusted Williamson and lost.  This was not classic turtling, but it was the same spirit.