[SamuelMcF]

Yeah, it’s a fan board. But it is worth noting that when certain posters (Sam, Matt, etc.) criticize the coaching staff (and they do so), I am much more likely to sit up and pay attention because their criticism probably comes for a good, thoughtful reason.  OTOH, when certain posters beclown themselves by using outdated stereotypes of the Stanford offense, and reflexive one-note criticisms of everything the coaching staff does, it is much easier to write off.

To answer the questions: we had 155 rushing attempts on first down and 152 passing attempts.  The offense was not good, but it wasn’t because we reflexively ran on first and second down and passed on third and long.  FWIW, I think we were near the bottom of the pac-12 in terms of proportion of plays that were runs.  Yeah, we were often behind and we were frequently facing second or third and long. Still, the stereotype of “Shawvita” always calling running plays is not just wrong, it’s about a 180 from the truth.

2nd-fewest runs by % in the conference. 14th-fewest in the nation. Go ahead and tell me that's "predictable."

To many critics, "predictable" and "bad" are synonymous. Only one of those two words was true.

I don’t know the answer to the punting question, but I doubt Sam would have asked it without knowing the answer.

I do think that historically, Shaw has been a bit too conservative for my liking on fourth down.  Then again, given how bad our offensive line push in short yardage situations was last year, it’s hard to blame him.

5 punts on 4th down inside the opponent's 40, all from between the 37-40. Not a single one was closer than 4th & 5. (4/5 were on 4th & 8 or worse.) Karty has the leg from the 35, and attempted 5 FGs from 50+.

Our 1.25 4th down conversion attempts per game were the most EVER under Shaw.

[SamuelMcF]

Yeah, it’s a fan board. But it is worth noting that when certain posters (Sam, Matt, etc.) criticize the coaching staff (and they do so), I am much more likely to sit up and pay attention because their criticism probably comes for a good, thoughtful reason.  OTOH, when certain posters beclown themselves by using outdated stereotypes of the Stanford offense, and reflexive one-note criticisms of everything the coaching staff does, it is much easier to write off.

To answer the questions: we had 155 rushing attempts on first down and 152 passing attempts.  The offense was not good, but it wasn’t because we reflexively ran on first and second down and passed on third and long.  FWIW, I think we were near the bottom of the pac-12 in terms of proportion of plays that were runs.  Yeah, we were often behind and we were frequently facing second or third and long. Still, the stereotype of “Shawvita” always calling running plays is not just wrong, it’s about a 180 from the truth.

2nd-fewest runs by % in the conference. 14th-fewest in the nation. Go ahead and tell me that's "predictable."

To many critics, "predictable" and "bad" are synonymous. Only one of those two words was true.

I don’t know the answer to the punting question, but I doubt Sam would have asked it without knowing the answer.

I do think that historically, Shaw has been a bit too conservative for my liking on fourth down.  Then again, given how bad our offensive line push in short yardage situations was last year, it’s hard to blame him.

5 punts on 4th down inside the opponent's 40, all from between the 37-40. Not a single one was closer than 4th & 5. (4/5 were on 4th & 8 or worse.) Karty has the leg from the 35, and attempted 5 FGs from 50+.

Our 1.25 4th down conversion attempts per game were the most EVER under Shaw.