[BostonCard]

P.S.  Watched the ASU game.  Stanford was handled, but it wasn't as dominating a W by ASU as I was expecting after reading the game threads and box.  The biggest difference was that Stanford seemed to struggle for everything it got (tough throws into well-covered receivers that somehow were caught versus more easy/open chunk yards for ASU). But Stanford made numerous plays at or behind the LOS.  And ASU's biggest running play was the QB scramble for the first TD, which is off-script.  

As for Stanford's punting in ASU territory, only one of those was on the "pretty obviously bad decision" side of the ledger.  [The holding penalty was brutal (and took 3 points off the board)].  More generally, I think the offensive brain trust needs to include as a factor avoiding fourth and longs, once you get across midfield.  Thus, second and 8 or third and 5 don't have to be passing downs.  It's a tough balance, of course, because the #1 goal should be to move the sticks; plus, any decisions need to be informed by how the team is doing on the ground in the game (and for Stanford on Friday night, it was not well).  But my main takeaway is that Stanford is an average (at best) team that lost to a better team.  I'm not sure if ASU is all that (Daniels was up and down), but they certainly were enough to handle Stanford.

I think I was the one who pointed this out in an earlier thread as you were debating whether to watch the game.  ASU played a better game than Stanford and deserved to win.  We moved the ball some, getting into ASU territory on, I think, 10/11 drives.  If you are driven mad by three-and-outs, then what we saw was not too bad.  But it was maddening not to be able to go further.  While I wasn’t surprised that Shaw didn’t go for it (I have come to accept that), especially after I think it was last week that he went for it on fourth and short, perhaps stung by previous criticism, and didn’t convert.  We were in a particularly tough bind after our starting kicker was out of this game, and his back-up suffered maybe the most bizarre injury I’ve ever seen, leaving our punter as the guy kicking field goals.  I can understand Shaw’s thinking: the defense is giving up beaucoup yards to ASU, so you want yo give them as long a field as possible to try to stop then.  The unfortunate flip side is that the offense is not putting points on the board, and the chance to get something is worth more than the risk of not converting and giving ASU more of a chance.

If you are definitely going for it, it surely makes sense to try to minimize your risk on fourth down by getting some of the yards on third down instead of going for an all or nothing approach.  But I don’t think that was shaw’s thinking until late, when he ran a draw on third down to make it fourth and about six, a play that drew contemporaneous criticism by some, but which didn’t bother me for the reasons you noted.

BC

[BostonCard]

P.S.  Watched the ASU game.  Stanford was handled, but it wasn't as dominating a W by ASU as I was expecting after reading the game threads and box.  The biggest difference was that Stanford seemed to struggle for everything it got (tough throws into well-covered receivers that somehow were caught versus more easy/open chunk yards for ASU). But Stanford made numerous plays at or behind the LOS.  And ASU's biggest running play was the QB scramble for the first TD, which is off-script.  

As for Stanford's punting in ASU territory, only one of those was on the "pretty obviously bad decision" side of the ledger.  [The holding penalty was brutal (and took 3 points off the board)].  More generally, I think the offensive brain trust needs to include as a factor avoiding fourth and longs, once you get across midfield.  Thus, second and 8 or third and 5 don't have to be passing downs.  It's a tough balance, of course, because the #1 goal should be to move the sticks; plus, any decisions need to be informed by how the team is doing on the ground in the game (and for Stanford on Friday night, it was not well).  But my main takeaway is that Stanford is an average (at best) team that lost to a better team.  I'm not sure if ASU is all that (Daniels was up and down), but they certainly were enough to handle Stanford.

I think I was the one who pointed this out in an earlier thread as you were debating whether to watch the game.  ASU played a better game than Stanford and deserved to win.  We moved the ball some, getting into ASU territory on, I think, 10/11 drives.  If you are driven mad by three-and-outs, then what we saw was not too bad.  But it was maddening not to be able to go further.  While I wasn’t surprised that Shaw didn’t go for it (I have come to accept that), especially after I think it was last week that he went for it on fourth and short, perhaps stung by previous criticism, and didn’t convert.  We were in a particularly tough bind after our starting kicker was out of this game, and his back-up suffered maybe the most bizarre injury I’ve ever seen, leaving our punter as the guy kicking field goals.  I can understand Shaw’s thinking: the defense is giving up beaucoup yards to ASU, so you want yo give them as long a field as possible to try to stop then.  The unfortunate flip side is that the offense is not putting points on the board, and the chance to get something is worth more than the risk of not converting and giving ASU more of a chance.

If you are definitely going for it, it surely makes sense to try to minimize your risk on fourth down by getting some of the yards on third down instead of going for an all or nothing approach.  But I don’t think that was shaw’s thinking until late, when he ran a draw on third down to make it fourth and about six, a play that drew contemporaneous criticism by some, but which didn’t bother me for the reasons you noted.

BC