[MustardtheBallCarrier]

According to the AP recap of the Oregon St. game, Stanford ran the ball 29 straight times to end the game.  I wasn't counting while watching the game, but that's about what I remember as well.

If the objective is merely to win one game, this was absolutely the right thing to do.  McCaffrey and Love looked explosive and healthy, the line was opening holes and it kept the clock was running.  Chryst inspired no confidence that he could make accurate throws and avoid bad decisions.  If Stanford could execute center-QB exchanges (itself a tall task in that game) and avoid penalties, there was nothing Oregon St. could do.  Stacking the box wasn't slowing down the run game.

While it won the game, this to me was a brobdingnagian opportunity lost and very short-sighted.  Stanford is not going to win games that matter throwing for 60 yards.  A 58/17 run to pass ratio will win the battle against weak teams, but lose the war in the sense of trying to improve to win out this season and build some offensive momentum and confidence moving into next season.

I don't expect that Chryst or Burns will suddenly become effective passers, but if Shaw doesn't trust them to throw the ball at home, against one of the worst teams in the conference that is completely selling out to stop the run, then there is no chance for development.  As it is, Chryst comes out of that game with nothing positive to build on and must realize that by running the ball 29 straight times (several times with Chryst lined up at WR), Shaw is effectively saying "we have a better chance of winning when the role of our QB is minimized (as a passer, at least)."  That's right against Oregon St., but an opportunity to get better lost against a non-threatening (outside of two plays all game) opponent. 

I also think it is profoundly irresponsible to run McCaffrey 32 times in a game that is largely meaningless, and put that pounding on his body when he has a career after Stanford.  That's another topic though.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

According to the AP recap of the Oregon St. game, Stanford ran the ball 29 straight times to end the game.  I wasn't counting while watching the game, but that's about what I remember as well.

If the objective is merely to win one game, this was absolutely the right thing to do.  McCaffrey and Love looked explosive and healthy, the line was opening holes and it kept the clock was running.  Chryst inspired no confidence that he could make accurate throws and avoid bad decisions.  If Stanford could execute center-QB exchanges (itself a tall task in that game) and avoid penalties, there was nothing Oregon St. could do.  Stacking the box wasn't slowing down the run game.

While it won the game, this to me was a brobdingnagian opportunity lost and very short-sighted.  Stanford is not going to win games that matter throwing for 60 yards.  A 58/17 run to pass ratio will win the battle against weak teams, but lose the war in the sense of trying to improve to win out this season and build some offensive momentum and confidence moving into next season.

I don't expect that Chryst or Burns will suddenly become effective passers, but if Shaw doesn't trust them to throw the ball at home, against one of the worst teams in the conference that is completely selling out to stop the run, then there is no chance for development.  As it is, Chryst comes out of that game with nothing positive to build on and must realize that by running the ball 29 straight times (several times with Chryst lined up at WR), Shaw is effectively saying "we have a better chance of winning when the role of our QB is minimized (as a passer, at least)."  That's right against Oregon St., but an opportunity to get better lost against a non-threatening (outside of two plays all game) opponent. 

I also think it is profoundly irresponsible to run McCaffrey 32 times in a game that is largely meaningless, and put that pounding on his body when he has a career after Stanford.  That's another topic though.

[Hulk01]

What made this a meaningless game?

And if it was, why did you bother to care about it one way or another?

[Hulk01]

What made this a meaningless game?

And if it was, why did you bother to care about it one way or another?

[Hulk01]

We kept running the ball because we averaged 6.3 yards per carry over that strethch.  Why would you risk a sack, and incompletion for no yards, or an interception, when what you're averaging a first down with yards to spare on consecutive running plays--particularly if you have the lead?

[Hulk01]

We kept running the ball because we averaged 6.3 yards per carry over that strethch.  Why would you risk a sack, and incompletion for no yards, or an interception, when what you're averaging a first down with yards to spare on consecutive running plays--particularly if you have the lead?

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

What made this a meaningless game?

And if it was, why did you bother to care about it one way or another?

It is one of the bottom three games on our schedule this year and the stakes are whether we play in a third or fourth tier bowl game.  I should have said "much less important on a relative basis" in hopes of preempting that comment, but was looking for emphasis over precision .  I wouldn't particularly care about the outcome of this game, except for what it means longer term (i.e., for the team's improvement, for McCaffrey's future, Shaw avoiding a Les Miles-ian trajectory, etc.).  That was my point, essentially.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

What made this a meaningless game?

And if it was, why did you bother to care about it one way or another?

It is one of the bottom three games on our schedule this year and the stakes are whether we play in a third or fourth tier bowl game.  I should have said "much less important on a relative basis" in hopes of preempting that comment, but was looking for emphasis over precision .  I wouldn't particularly care about the outcome of this game, except for what it means longer term (i.e., for the team's improvement, for McCaffrey's future, Shaw avoiding a Les Miles-ian trajectory, etc.).  That was my point, essentially.

[stupac2]

Oregon State was (IIRC) the best of the remaining run defenses we face. If we can put up 6 ypc against the other 3, then why pass at all? Navy and Georgia Tech do fine almost never throwing the ball.

[stupac2]

Oregon State was (IIRC) the best of the remaining run defenses we face. If we can put up 6 ypc against the other 3, then why pass at all? Navy and Georgia Tech do fine almost never throwing the ball.

[fullmetal]

That descriptor of "meaningless game" would apply to all of our remaining games, I suppose then, right?  These games aren't meaningless...

The upside of running 29 times is that you get a lot of game reps for your OL, who have been struggling for most of the season.  Nice for them to get some live fire action, and that might pay dividends later this season and next.

Downside of running 29 times is that Chryst doesn't get a chance to hone his decision-making skills, which seems to be the common denominator of lack between Burns and him.  But maybe Shaw is telegraphing that he would rather have the improvement from the OL than from the QB.  Sure would fit the bill.

CMac plays a position inherently full of wear-and-tear risks.  The only good thing about it is that he tends to break into space and get dragged down rather than clobbered by his center of mass, and that saves him from some of the blunt force trauma we usually associate with between-the-tackles running.

[fullmetal]

That descriptor of "meaningless game" would apply to all of our remaining games, I suppose then, right?  These games aren't meaningless...

The upside of running 29 times is that you get a lot of game reps for your OL, who have been struggling for most of the season.  Nice for them to get some live fire action, and that might pay dividends later this season and next.

Downside of running 29 times is that Chryst doesn't get a chance to hone his decision-making skills, which seems to be the common denominator of lack between Burns and him.  But maybe Shaw is telegraphing that he would rather have the improvement from the OL than from the QB.  Sure would fit the bill.

CMac plays a position inherently full of wear-and-tear risks.  The only good thing about it is that he tends to break into space and get dragged down rather than clobbered by his center of mass, and that saves him from some of the blunt force trauma we usually associate with between-the-tackles running.

[Hank 91]

Another thing to consider -- and we don't really have a way to measure this unless Shaw or Chryst chooses to reveal it -- is that Chryst might have been doing more than just turning around and handing the ball off. You'll remember that after his team ran for a record 446 yards against Washington five years ago, Andrew Luck said he felt it was the best game he had played up until that point. He spoke about how he had to check to the right running play at the line of scrimmage, and he felt he had gotten it right almost every time. I don't know how much freedom Chryst has in that regard right now, but there's always an opportunity to learn, and I'm sure he was still learning in that fourth quarter.

[Hank 91]

Another thing to consider -- and we don't really have a way to measure this unless Shaw or Chryst chooses to reveal it -- is that Chryst might have been doing more than just turning around and handing the ball off. You'll remember that after his team ran for a record 446 yards against Washington five years ago, Andrew Luck said he felt it was the best game he had played up until that point. He spoke about how he had to check to the right running play at the line of scrimmage, and he felt he had gotten it right almost every time. I don't know how much freedom Chryst has in that regard right now, but there's always an opportunity to learn, and I'm sure he was still learning in that fourth quarter.

[Sea Loon]

The players I feel bad for are the WRs, who I'm sure would love the chance to be targeted more often. I'd like to see Irwin get a TD, for one.

Of course everyone would rather be 9-0, but even though we aren't, especially when gameday rolls around, I think the team wants to win the game pretty badly. When the big packages get called, those extra O-linemen sure look happy to get in there.

[Sea Loon]

The players I feel bad for are the WRs, who I'm sure would love the chance to be targeted more often. I'd like to see Irwin get a TD, for one.

Of course everyone would rather be 9-0, but even though we aren't, especially when gameday rolls around, I think the team wants to win the game pretty badly. When the big packages get called, those extra O-linemen sure look happy to get in there.

[81alum]

I am not sure if this is related to the OP or not....

I noticed that Chryst was operating out of the shotgun nearly all the time.  It seemed to me that most running plays were out of shotgun.  First, is that odd?  If we are going to run it 29 times in a row why wouldn't we use running formations more?  What is it about the shotgun that works for CMac?  Second, I thought one of the advantages Chryst had over Burns was his experience taking snaps under center.  But he muffed two snaps in shotgun and one under center.  Was this a problem with the center?  A muffed snap also probably cost us the game against Colorado, no?  And that was a different QB--so maybe we have a center problem?

[81alum]

I am not sure if this is related to the OP or not....

I noticed that Chryst was operating out of the shotgun nearly all the time.  It seemed to me that most running plays were out of shotgun.  First, is that odd?  If we are going to run it 29 times in a row why wouldn't we use running formations more?  What is it about the shotgun that works for CMac?  Second, I thought one of the advantages Chryst had over Burns was his experience taking snaps under center.  But he muffed two snaps in shotgun and one under center.  Was this a problem with the center?  A muffed snap also probably cost us the game against Colorado, no?  And that was a different QB--so maybe we have a center problem?

[fullmetal]

The WRs seem to be hamstrung by the ability of the QB to throw the ball to them.  I hope this improves as quickly as it can.

[fullmetal]

The WRs seem to be hamstrung by the ability of the QB to throw the ball to them.  I hope this improves as quickly as it can.

[BostonCard]

*cough* Tight Ends *cough*

I think we had one target to a tight end in Saturdays game.

BC

[BostonCard]

*cough* Tight Ends *cough*

I think we had one target to a tight end in Saturdays game.

BC

[Farm93]

The OL needs to get better blocking for the power game.  Working on that will pay dividends for the OL in 2017.
The QB position needs to get better passing the ball, but perhaps working on that now will not help our 2017 QB. 

[Farm93]

The OL needs to get better blocking for the power game.  Working on that will pay dividends for the OL in 2017.
The QB position needs to get better passing the ball, but perhaps working on that now will not help our 2017 QB. 

[CrazedZooChimp]

As long as Chryst is starting we probably shouldn't pass the ball at all, especially with the run defenses we face the rest of the season. His YPA was barely over half of the teams YPC, and that includes sacks and kneel downs in the YPC. The QB play is atrocious against bad defenses, while Burns' QB play was merely bad against good defenses. I really hope Burns gets the starting job back, he's getting shafted.

[CrazedZooChimp]

As long as Chryst is starting we probably shouldn't pass the ball at all, especially with the run defenses we face the rest of the season. His YPA was barely over half of the teams YPC, and that includes sacks and kneel downs in the YPC. The QB play is atrocious against bad defenses, while Burns' QB play was merely bad against good defenses. I really hope Burns gets the starting job back, he's getting shafted.

[Red State]

The OL needs to get better blocking for the power game.  Working on that will pay dividends for the OL in 2017.
The QB position needs to get better passing the ball, but perhaps working on that now will not help our 2017 QB. 

+1  The OL seems to be getting a little better with their chemistry and timing on running plays. I'll be very happy with the same kind of run/pass ratio vs Oregon. The key to beating UO will be dominating TOP and scoring TDs, not FGs. 28 points should win it.

[Red State]

The OL needs to get better blocking for the power game.  Working on that will pay dividends for the OL in 2017.
The QB position needs to get better passing the ball, but perhaps working on that now will not help our 2017 QB. 

+1  The OL seems to be getting a little better with their chemistry and timing on running plays. I'll be very happy with the same kind of run/pass ratio vs Oregon. The key to beating UO will be dominating TOP and scoring TDs, not FGs. 28 points should win it.

[fullmetal]

I assume that UO has more defensive speed than OSU, and I wonder what that means for MacLovin breaking off big plays.  I hope Shaw is dialing up plays that will catch the defense out of position.

[fullmetal]

I assume that UO has more defensive speed than OSU, and I wonder what that means for MacLovin breaking off big plays.  I hope Shaw is dialing up plays that will catch the defense out of position.

[CowboyIndian]

His YPA was barley over half of the teams YPC, and that includes sacks...

Sacks, bushels, tons, whatever...I think you're getting too granular.

[CowboyIndian]

His YPA was barley over half of the teams YPC, and that includes sacks...

Sacks, bushels, tons, whatever...I think you're getting too granular.

[winflop]

While it won the game, this to me was a of exceedingly large proportions opportunity lost and very short-sighted.  Stanford is not going to win games that matter throwing for 60 yards.

At this point every game matters - quite a bit.  I can't recall precisely what Wisconsin's run/pass ratio was in the 2000 Rose Bowl, but 3:1 wouldn't surprise me one bit.  And that game definitely mattered.

If we can average 6+ ypc I see no reason to do any different.  The problem in the first half of the season was that we were averaging one-third of that.

[winflop]

While it won the game, this to me was a of exceedingly large proportions opportunity lost and very short-sighted.  Stanford is not going to win games that matter throwing for 60 yards.

At this point every game matters - quite a bit.  I can't recall precisely what Wisconsin's run/pass ratio was in the 2000 Rose Bowl, but 3:1 wouldn't surprise me one bit.  And that game definitely mattered.

If we can average 6+ ypc I see no reason to do any different.  The problem in the first half of the season was that we were averaging one-third of that.

[Row80Critic]

Philosophers might argue that nothing is inherently important.  We each choose for ourselves what to consider important or meaningless.  This is my 47th season watching Stanford football, and I can't remember a game that felt meaningless to me.  Beating Washington in 2006 with nothing but pride on the line; losing to Purdue in 1970; the GUE; any play where Darrin Nelson touched the ball; they're all important.  A team needs the support of its fans the most when it is struggling. The best fans are those that come back and root harder than ever after losing to UC Davis.  We can question coaching decisions -- and I was the first to think we sure could have used the practice in the red zone at the end of the game -- but the bottom line is that Shawn has won more games, and has a higher winning percentage, than anyone since WWII.  He's got this.

[Row80Critic]

Philosophers might argue that nothing is inherently important.  We each choose for ourselves what to consider important or meaningless.  This is my 47th season watching Stanford football, and I can't remember a game that felt meaningless to me.  Beating Washington in 2006 with nothing but pride on the line; losing to Purdue in 1970; the GUE; any play where Darrin Nelson touched the ball; they're all important.  A team needs the support of its fans the most when it is struggling. The best fans are those that come back and root harder than ever after losing to UC Davis.  We can question coaching decisions -- and I was the first to think we sure could have used the practice in the red zone at the end of the game -- but the bottom line is that Shawn has won more games, and has a higher winning percentage, than anyone since WWII.  He's got this.

[Hulk01]

Chryst runs the zone-read option well, so lining him up in position to run it makes sense. 

And it's effective against teams that key and close hard on yout running back, as teams do against Mac and Love.  That's what the zone-read is designed for: to read the DE and , f he closes down on the run fake, keep and run the area the DE has vacated,

Starting this season, I thought that's what the staff might do: Run the pro set with Burns but give Chryst a zone-read series or two a game, to give defenses more to worry about. 

[Hulk01]

Chryst runs the zone-read option well, so lining him up in position to run it makes sense. 

And it's effective against teams that key and close hard on yout running back, as teams do against Mac and Love.  That's what the zone-read is designed for: to read the DE and , f he closes down on the run fake, keep and run the area the DE has vacated,

Starting this season, I thought that's what the staff might do: Run the pro set with Burns but give Chryst a zone-read series or two a game, to give defenses more to worry about. 

[BostonCard]

Philosophers might argue that nothing is inherently important.  We each choose for ourselves what to consider important or meaningless.  This is my 47th season watching Stanford football, and I can't remember a game that felt meaningless to me.  Beating Washington in 2006 with nothing but pride on the line; losing to Purdue in 1970; the GUE; any play where Darrin Nelson touched the ball; they're all important. A team needs the support of its fans the most when it is struggling. The best fans are those that come back and root harder than ever after losing to UC Davis.  We can question coaching decisions -- and I was the first to think we sure could have used the practice in the red zone at the end of the game -- but the bottom line is that Shawn has won more games, and has a higher winning percentage, than anyone since WWII.  He's got this.

Harbaugh and Shaw's greatest accomplishment is to get us to re-define "struggling" to include a 6-3 season and an eighth straight bowl game.

BC

[BostonCard]

Philosophers might argue that nothing is inherently important.  We each choose for ourselves what to consider important or meaningless.  This is my 47th season watching Stanford football, and I can't remember a game that felt meaningless to me.  Beating Washington in 2006 with nothing but pride on the line; losing to Purdue in 1970; the GUE; any play where Darrin Nelson touched the ball; they're all important. A team needs the support of its fans the most when it is struggling. The best fans are those that come back and root harder than ever after losing to UC Davis.  We can question coaching decisions -- and I was the first to think we sure could have used the practice in the red zone at the end of the game -- but the bottom line is that Shawn has won more games, and has a higher winning percentage, than anyone since WWII.  He's got this.

Harbaugh and Shaw's greatest accomplishment is to get us to re-define "struggling" to include a 6-3 season and an eighth straight bowl game.

BC