[76lsjumb]

76LSJUMB, please answer this one question in your defense of Shaw:

If kicking the FG from 34 yards out was "the right call," then why did Stanford even bother to run a "real play" on second and 6 (Taylor ran for 2 yards IIRC)?  Is there some magical dividing line between 36 yards (too far) and 34 yards (good enough)?  Stated differently, if Shaw was so worried about the risk of fumble, or a false start, or whatever on third down, then why didn't he have have AL take the second down snap and just center the ball, and then let the clock tick tick tick for the 36 yarder?

Teejers, my friend, even though I swore to myself I would move on [especially after mentally composing, but deciding not to send, a lengthy response to Scott Ostler's "Knucklehead of the Week" award to Shaw based on his bogus Barry Bonds analogy], I'm happy to respond!  :)      After all, arguing is what I do for a living ...  ;)

The point I've tried to make, perhaps inartfully, is that it just isn't possible, at least in my mind, to say that what Shaw did here was clearly "wrong,"...or, for that matter, clearly "right."  If he had stopped a few plays earlier, and 10 yards further out, and sent Williamson out to attempt a 44 yard field goal, I probably would have beaten you back to the Board to post how doing so made no sense whatsoever and was indefensible, since it would have forced Williamson to kick a field goal that was outside his safe range [and I still believe being 6-7 from 30-39, even given the added pressure here, qualified a 34-yarder as WITHIN his safe range].  On the other hand, having Taylor run for an additional 2 more yards on second and 6 also seems defensible to me -- since the possibility of the line busting a hole through the middle allowing Taylor to gain 10 yards, instead of just 2 [thereby making it an even shorter field goal] seems a reasonable, worth-the-risk decision.  Indeed, had he run it on THIRD down as well, I would still have thought it a reasonable, defensible decision, whether or not it put us in a better field-goal position.  So, I guess the answer to your specific question is that there's nothing magical about 34 yards vs. 36 yards. 

However, in this "what-if" mindgame we're now playing, I also have to ask myself [and think, to be fair, you also need to consider] what if the following VERY REAL possible scenarios had played out:  (1) Somebody moves on the line [five yard penalty];  (2) Somebody is called for holding [ten yard penalty]; (3) the hand-off is fumbled [loss of ?? yards and, potentially, loss of the ball]; or even, (4) what I think of as the "doomsday scenario" or, alternatively, the "Dabo Sweeney/Clemson nightmare," -- a fumble returned 80 yards for an OSU touchdown.  In other words, every addiitonal play that is run carries a risk of something bad happening.  I may be [probably am] more risk-averse than you, but if any one of those things had happened -- and, to be fair, you have to admit that none of them are so outlandish as to not be worthy of consideration [given that every one of them actually occurred either in our game or the Orange Bowl] -- I don't think I would be the only one wondering why we didn't just kick the ball when we had a chance.  Again, I view this as a scale of risk situation, and I simply think that the difference in risk between what you [and others] are saying Shaw should have done and what he actually did is not sufficiently great to say one approach was right and the other wrong.  Both are reasonable and defensible, in my view.  Thus, Shaw's approach does not strike me at all as "inexplicable."  Nor do I think he was a "knucklehead." 

Now, Les Miles not giving Jarrett Lee a chance in the NCG ???  THAT, in my view, is a pretty good example of inexplicable knuckleheadedness.

Probably didn't convince you, but I tried. 

And, a few other observations:  I actually would have been fine with a bootleg by Luck on third down, and even think that might have been a "better" call [not right vs. wrong, but "better"], but, like I said in an earlier post, I'm pretty sure my view of that is affected not a little by the fact that the kick was missed, not made.  If the kick had been made, I just don't think I'd be having this discussion right now.  And, like I said before, if the #1 turnover team in the country had caused one on the bootleg, well...

Second, I'll concede that there is likely emotion behind my defense, but I don't think it's unreasoned emotion.  I would still prefer a coach who doesn't change his approach simply because people criticized him for what he did.  If he's comfortable with his decision-making, and, in my view, he has every right to be, I'd prefer a coach with the courage of his convictions.  [Of course, if he begins punting on third down with regularity, that's another matter...  ::) ]  All of which is not to say [as I think someone else construed me as saying] that he shouldn't "grow" as a coach and that such "growth" [whatever that may mean] should not lead him to make a different decision more to your liking in a future, similar situation.  Again, because my view is that the correct assessment is reasonable/defensible vs. unreasonable/indefensible -- not right v. wrong -- I think I'm being consistent here.

Finally, I have no problem whatosever with people criticizing him.  I do think, to be fair, that criticism ought to be reasoned -- as yours and most of the analysis on this Board has been, ought to allow for the possibility that a bad outcome does not automatically mean it was a "wrong" decision [as well as conceding that the hypothetical "right" alternative might have had an equally bad or even worse outcome as well], and should strive to stay above the level of calling him a "knucklehead."

One last thing [which makes this "post-Finally," I guess], in thinking through what happened and what might have happened, there are two good things that come out of this for me, as a fan.  First, if we had kept running plays and Luck had fumbled or thrown an interception or even failed to get us into the end zone [assuming no field goal attempt] -- i.e., had a moment of "failure" to rival that of Jordan Williamson, I don't think I would be remembering his otherworldly 27-31 performance right now; instead, I'm afraid I would have this [admittedly wholly unfair, but nevertheless nagging] feeling that he couldn't quite get the job done.  As it was, that didn't happen, and I'm left with the solid conviction that Luck, for all intents and purposes, played the best game of his Stanford career and did everything he could to win and probably would have done so, if given that chance.  Second, maybe it's that emotion [rather than logic] thing again, but I'm seriously looking forward to the game sometime in the future when Jordan Williamson, like Steve Horowitz [or even Rod Garcia] before him, has that shot at redemption,...and nails it.

Teejers, that's my argument.  Time to get back to writing briefs for people who pay...  :)

[76lsjumb]

76LSJUMB, please answer this one question in your defense of Shaw:

If kicking the FG from 34 yards out was "the right call," then why did Stanford even bother to run a "real play" on second and 6 (Taylor ran for 2 yards IIRC)?  Is there some magical dividing line between 36 yards (too far) and 34 yards (good enough)?  Stated differently, if Shaw was so worried about the risk of fumble, or a false start, or whatever on third down, then why didn't he have have AL take the second down snap and just center the ball, and then let the clock tick tick tick for the 36 yarder?

Teejers, my friend, even though I swore to myself I would move on [especially after mentally composing, but deciding not to send, a lengthy response to Scott Ostler's "Knucklehead of the Week" award to Shaw based on his bogus Barry Bonds analogy], I'm happy to respond!  :)      After all, arguing is what I do for a living ...  ;)

The point I've tried to make, perhaps inartfully, is that it just isn't possible, at least in my mind, to say that what Shaw did here was clearly "wrong,"...or, for that matter, clearly "right."  If he had stopped a few plays earlier, and 10 yards further out, and sent Williamson out to attempt a 44 yard field goal, I probably would have beaten you back to the Board to post how doing so made no sense whatsoever and was indefensible, since it would have forced Williamson to kick a field goal that was outside his safe range [and I still believe being 6-7 from 30-39, even given the added pressure here, qualified a 34-yarder as WITHIN his safe range].  On the other hand, having Taylor run for an additional 2 more yards on second and 6 also seems defensible to me -- since the possibility of the line busting a hole through the middle allowing Taylor to gain 10 yards, instead of just 2 [thereby making it an even shorter field goal] seems a reasonable, worth-the-risk decision.  Indeed, had he run it on THIRD down as well, I would still have thought it a reasonable, defensible decision, whether or not it put us in a better field-goal position.  So, I guess the answer to your specific question is that there's nothing magical about 34 yards vs. 36 yards. 

However, in this "what-if" mindgame we're now playing, I also have to ask myself [and think, to be fair, you also need to consider] what if the following VERY REAL possible scenarios had played out:  (1) Somebody moves on the line [five yard penalty];  (2) Somebody is called for holding [ten yard penalty]; (3) the hand-off is fumbled [loss of ?? yards and, potentially, loss of the ball]; or even, (4) what I think of as the "doomsday scenario" or, alternatively, the "Dabo Sweeney/Clemson nightmare," -- a fumble returned 80 yards for an OSU touchdown.  In other words, every addiitonal play that is run carries a risk of something bad happening.  I may be [probably am] more risk-averse than you, but if any one of those things had happened -- and, to be fair, you have to admit that none of them are so outlandish as to not be worthy of consideration [given that every one of them actually occurred either in our game or the Orange Bowl] -- I don't think I would be the only one wondering why we didn't just kick the ball when we had a chance.  Again, I view this as a scale of risk situation, and I simply think that the difference in risk between what you [and others] are saying Shaw should have done and what he actually did is not sufficiently great to say one approach was right and the other wrong.  Both are reasonable and defensible, in my view.  Thus, Shaw's approach does not strike me at all as "inexplicable."  Nor do I think he was a "knucklehead." 

Now, Les Miles not giving Jarrett Lee a chance in the NCG ???  THAT, in my view, is a pretty good example of inexplicable knuckleheadedness.

Probably didn't convince you, but I tried. 

And, a few other observations:  I actually would have been fine with a bootleg by Luck on third down, and even think that might have been a "better" call [not right vs. wrong, but "better"], but, like I said in an earlier post, I'm pretty sure my view of that is affected not a little by the fact that the kick was missed, not made.  If the kick had been made, I just don't think I'd be having this discussion right now.  And, like I said before, if the #1 turnover team in the country had caused one on the bootleg, well...

Second, I'll concede that there is likely emotion behind my defense, but I don't think it's unreasoned emotion.  I would still prefer a coach who doesn't change his approach simply because people criticized him for what he did.  If he's comfortable with his decision-making, and, in my view, he has every right to be, I'd prefer a coach with the courage of his convictions.  [Of course, if he begins punting on third down with regularity, that's another matter...  ::) ]  All of which is not to say [as I think someone else construed me as saying] that he shouldn't "grow" as a coach and that such "growth" [whatever that may mean] should not lead him to make a different decision more to your liking in a future, similar situation.  Again, because my view is that the correct assessment is reasonable/defensible vs. unreasonable/indefensible -- not right v. wrong -- I think I'm being consistent here.

Finally, I have no problem whatosever with people criticizing him.  I do think, to be fair, that criticism ought to be reasoned -- as yours and most of the analysis on this Board has been, ought to allow for the possibility that a bad outcome does not automatically mean it was a "wrong" decision [as well as conceding that the hypothetical "right" alternative might have had an equally bad or even worse outcome as well], and should strive to stay above the level of calling him a "knucklehead."

One last thing [which makes this "post-Finally," I guess], in thinking through what happened and what might have happened, there are two good things that come out of this for me, as a fan.  First, if we had kept running plays and Luck had fumbled or thrown an interception or even failed to get us into the end zone [assuming no field goal attempt] -- i.e., had a moment of "failure" to rival that of Jordan Williamson, I don't think I would be remembering his otherworldly 27-31 performance right now; instead, I'm afraid I would have this [admittedly wholly unfair, but nevertheless nagging] feeling that he couldn't quite get the job done.  As it was, that didn't happen, and I'm left with the solid conviction that Luck, for all intents and purposes, played the best game of his Stanford career and did everything he could to win and probably would have done so, if given that chance.  Second, maybe it's that emotion [rather than logic] thing again, but I'm seriously looking forward to the game sometime in the future when Jordan Williamson, like Steve Horowitz [or even Rod Garcia] before him, has that shot at redemption,...and nails it.

Teejers, that's my argument.  Time to get back to writing briefs for people who pay...  :)