[StanfordMatt]

Drive chart for significant drives in second half: FG, Punt, Turnover on Downs (+32), TD. We may not have gotten the points we wanted or needed, but that is not turtling. Turtling is not going for it on 4th and 3 at +32 with Jet Toner as the kicker. Maybe you could argue 4th and 1/2 a yard is a bit conservative, but the idea that we lost the game because we failed to score 42 points instead of 38, as opposed to a defense that literally could not buy a stop in the second half, is a stretch to say the least. 

This game was the repeat of the TCU Alamo Bowl. It wasn't the offense's fault then, or the offensive playcaller's fault, and it certainly isn't now. Was it perfect? No, but how often do we see a perfectly called offensive gameplan? We scored 38 points (most rather effortlessly). I expect the defense to hold even a team like Wazzu to under 38 points.

1) We are in agreement on the defense. It was awful. If we had gotten even an average defensive performance, we wouldn't have needed our offensive play calling to be perfect. But since we didn't, perfection was what we needed.

2) I didn't say we turtled the whole second half. I was pointing to two specific plays during which it appeared. Again, we should've been able to overcome it, but in a game with the margins as close as they were, those two plays cost us.

Those two run plays made 8 yards. I think that isn't a bad result. What I question more is the pass on third down, although it wasn't a "crazy" call. I can in no way think that was "turtling". By running twice in a row, Shaw was breaking tendencies shown in this game. It mostly worked.  He got 8 yards. That isn't chopped liver. Third and 2 is normally a good down and distance situation.

The result was fine. A pass on the first and/or second play of that drive could've just as easily resulted in the same 3rd and 2. My criticism is directed towards the approach. We went back in our shell with the heavy set and it disrupted our offensive rhythm.

[StanfordMatt]

Drive chart for significant drives in second half: FG, Punt, Turnover on Downs (+32), TD. We may not have gotten the points we wanted or needed, but that is not turtling. Turtling is not going for it on 4th and 3 at +32 with Jet Toner as the kicker. Maybe you could argue 4th and 1/2 a yard is a bit conservative, but the idea that we lost the game because we failed to score 42 points instead of 38, as opposed to a defense that literally could not buy a stop in the second half, is a stretch to say the least. 

This game was the repeat of the TCU Alamo Bowl. It wasn't the offense's fault then, or the offensive playcaller's fault, and it certainly isn't now. Was it perfect? No, but how often do we see a perfectly called offensive gameplan? We scored 38 points (most rather effortlessly). I expect the defense to hold even a team like Wazzu to under 38 points.

1) We are in agreement on the defense. It was awful. If we had gotten even an average defensive performance, we wouldn't have needed our offensive play calling to be perfect. But since we didn't, perfection was what we needed.

2) I didn't say we turtled the whole second half. I was pointing to two specific plays during which it appeared. Again, we should've been able to overcome it, but in a game with the margins as close as they were, those two plays cost us.

Those two run plays made 8 yards. I think that isn't a bad result. What I question more is the pass on third down, although it wasn't a "crazy" call. I can in no way think that was "turtling". By running twice in a row, Shaw was breaking tendencies shown in this game. It mostly worked.  He got 8 yards. That isn't chopped liver. Third and 2 is normally a good down and distance situation.

The result was fine. A pass on the first and/or second play of that drive could've just as easily resulted in the same 3rd and 2. My criticism is directed towards the approach. We went back in our shell with the heavy set and it disrupted our offensive rhythm.