[doug]

There is an implication in some of the responses that I was suggesting that Shaw had made a conservative and questionable choice in selecting JN, which is not the question I intended to pose. I probably invited that interpretation by including my reaction to JN's play in the 2010 Big Game. I suspect most readers of this board have heard what appears to be a persistent opinion (if not a consensus) that BN has a higher upside in the passing game, and my question would have been interpreted in that context. But to be clear, I intended really to ask whether others share my concern that the metric DS used to decide on the QB might be unduly conservative (as I thought the decision-making at the end of the Fiesta Bowl was) and whether that conservatism may change the experience of Stanford FB. One of the things I particularly liked about JH is the sense that he believed in all his players and was willing to give them the chance to make plays to win -- and I think his players recognized his belief in them and performed well as a result. I hope DS can do the same with his players, but that ultimately is the question I am posing.

FWIW, I think JH's decision to kick the FG vs. UCLA in 2008 is not comparable to the Fiesta Bowl decision - almost every coach in America would have kicked vs. UCLA on 4th down. I didn't object to trying to win the Fiesta Bowl with a FG, I objected to not even trying to make the FG shorter and easier by trying to advance the ball in the last 52 seconds when Luck was running our offense and JW had not been remotely the same kicker after returning from his injury.

Luck's INT in the 2009 Big Game probably is a good example of JH's questionable risk-taking that might have cost us the win, a decision I don't see DS likely to make. It was a painful loss, but I still like the "go for it" attitude. I would probably be willing to accept some losses like that if the alternative is a buttoned-down "always play it safe-don't beat yourself" approach.

[doug]

There is an implication in some of the responses that I was suggesting that Shaw had made a conservative and questionable choice in selecting JN, which is not the question I intended to pose. I probably invited that interpretation by including my reaction to JN's play in the 2010 Big Game. I suspect most readers of this board have heard what appears to be a persistent opinion (if not a consensus) that BN has a higher upside in the passing game, and my question would have been interpreted in that context. But to be clear, I intended really to ask whether others share my concern that the metric DS used to decide on the QB might be unduly conservative (as I thought the decision-making at the end of the Fiesta Bowl was) and whether that conservatism may change the experience of Stanford FB. One of the things I particularly liked about JH is the sense that he believed in all his players and was willing to give them the chance to make plays to win -- and I think his players recognized his belief in them and performed well as a result. I hope DS can do the same with his players, but that ultimately is the question I am posing.

FWIW, I think JH's decision to kick the FG vs. UCLA in 2008 is not comparable to the Fiesta Bowl decision - almost every coach in America would have kicked vs. UCLA on 4th down. I didn't object to trying to win the Fiesta Bowl with a FG, I objected to not even trying to make the FG shorter and easier by trying to advance the ball in the last 52 seconds when Luck was running our offense and JW had not been remotely the same kicker after returning from his injury.

Luck's INT in the 2009 Big Game probably is a good example of JH's questionable risk-taking that might have cost us the win, a decision I don't see DS likely to make. It was a painful loss, but I still like the "go for it" attitude. I would probably be willing to accept some losses like that if the alternative is a buttoned-down "always play it safe-don't beat yourself" approach.