[Austroturf]

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this topic. Not sure about anyone else, but I've never called for breaking patterns merely for the sake of breaking patterns. When your offense has been more effective than it has been all year as a result of trying a new approach, I'm a fan of sticking with that approach until the opposing defense shows it can stop it.

I did see the last possession of the third quarter as reversion in form because those heavy sets have been a staple of the Shaw offense for the past decade. In past years, they've worked great. This year, however, they've stunk. Despite their ineffectiveness, I believe Shaw is still more comfortable calling plays out of those sets than the up-tempo, spread formations we saw on the first seven drives. Call it Shaw being conservative, or turtling or any other label you choose. The bottom line is that for one possession, we got away from the approach that was working and that deviation was enough to cost us a win.

You are not alone in your perception.  I heard other people commenting that Stanford's eighth possession (second of the second half) represented a reversion to past form.  That said, getting eight yards on two runs is rather good.  With two pass plays to open that series, Costello might have had us at midfield already and threatening to go two scores up.  Our defense had just gotten what would be its only stop of the second half; and to go two scores up towards the end of the 3rd quarter would have been big.  Instead, we punted; and the Cougs marched down the field to tie the score.

Whether this series was the momentum shift or not is open to debate.  Going 3-and-out is always bad in a tight game.  On possession 4 we also went 3-and-out and had opened the series with an incomplete pass, followed by a run, then an incomplete pass.  

What is undeniable is that there was a momentum shift in the 3rd quarter, and I believe it was a combination of things, not just one series.  If Shaw had gone for it on 4th and under a yard at the Wazzu 22 on possession #7 (1st of the second half) and we had scored a TD instead of a FG, we keep the two possession differential.  As it would turn out, we would only have 4 possessions in the 2nd half, so maximizing points per possession was key; but Shaw settled for a FG.  Then we got a badly needed stop and immediately went 3-and-out.  During this phase of the game, the momentum was tipping toward the Cougs.  When we turned the ball over on possession 9 with the game tied, the shift was complete, and we were back on our heels.  So I don't think it was one series, but a combination of different factors.  And our defense being unable to defuse the air-raid was the biggest of these factors.

[Austroturf]

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this topic. Not sure about anyone else, but I've never called for breaking patterns merely for the sake of breaking patterns. When your offense has been more effective than it has been all year as a result of trying a new approach, I'm a fan of sticking with that approach until the opposing defense shows it can stop it.

I did see the last possession of the third quarter as reversion in form because those heavy sets have been a staple of the Shaw offense for the past decade. In past years, they've worked great. This year, however, they've stunk. Despite their ineffectiveness, I believe Shaw is still more comfortable calling plays out of those sets than the up-tempo, spread formations we saw on the first seven drives. Call it Shaw being conservative, or turtling or any other label you choose. The bottom line is that for one possession, we got away from the approach that was working and that deviation was enough to cost us a win.

You are not alone in your perception.  I heard other people commenting that Stanford's eighth possession (second of the second half) represented a reversion to past form.  That said, getting eight yards on two runs is rather good.  With two pass plays to open that series, Costello might have had us at midfield already and threatening to go two scores up.  Our defense had just gotten what would be its only stop of the second half; and to go two scores up towards the end of the 3rd quarter would have been big.  Instead, we punted; and the Cougs marched down the field to tie the score.

Whether this series was the momentum shift or not is open to debate.  Going 3-and-out is always bad in a tight game.  On possession 4 we also went 3-and-out and had opened the series with an incomplete pass, followed by a run, then an incomplete pass.  

What is undeniable is that there was a momentum shift in the 3rd quarter, and I believe it was a combination of things, not just one series.  If Shaw had gone for it on 4th and under a yard at the Wazzu 22 on possession #7 (1st of the second half) and we had scored a TD instead of a FG, we keep the two possession differential.  As it would turn out, we would only have 4 possessions in the 2nd half, so maximizing points per possession was key; but Shaw settled for a FG.  Then we got a badly needed stop and immediately went 3-and-out.  During this phase of the game, the momentum was tipping toward the Cougs.  When we turned the ball over on possession 9 with the game tied, the shift was complete, and we were back on our heels.  So I don't think it was one series, but a combination of different factors.  And our defense being unable to defuse the air-raid was the biggest of these factors.