[csfoster]

I see the light at the end of the tunnel. Stanford will rebound winning many games in a row starting with UCLA. Get ready!

Rise Up Stanford!!!

[csfoster]

I see the light at the end of the tunnel. Stanford will rebound winning many games in a row starting with UCLA. Get ready!

Rise Up Stanford!!!

[stupac2]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=17393.msg201144#msg201144 date=1505665075]
What is going on with David Shaw?  I've never seen him show so much emotion in all of his years coaching at Stanford.  We've been in worst game situations and he remained calm and stoic.  Last night he nearly got into a fight at the halftime break.  He was markedly more animated on the sideline.  And, in one TV shot during the game he was off away from the team standing by himself.

I suspect that this team is not performing up to Shaw's expectations and he is getting frustrated.  Perhaps this is the most under achieving group he has coached at Stanford.  Or, perhaps Coach Shaw has other things going on in his life that has affected his demeanor.

Having lived through the various coaching iterations at Stanford since the late seventies, I am thankful that Stanford has David Shaw as head football coach.  I have confidence that he will right this ship.  I hope this time isn't the beginning of his end at Stanford.

Was struck that he seemed almost morose on the sideline, as you were.

Certainly the coaching gameplan was uncharacteristic. For better or worse, Shaw's history has not been one of "bold" (or, to look at it from another perspective, "hasty") decisions. He makes his plan and gives it a chance to work. In a world where people panic at the first sign of failure, that can be a helpful quality and I think it's served Stanford pretty well.

Which is what made this game so puzzling. Obviously the game against Rice was not exactly top-tier opposition but the offense looked good. And while the SC performance won't go into the hall of fame, it wasn't a disgraceful performance by any means. A B- or B, we'll say. So why did Shaw decide to blow it up and overhaul the offensive line? It's really weird.

And when that didn't seem to work, the coaches seemed to be mashing the buttons to see what worked. I think there were nine offensive linemen out there at various points (Hall, Little, Burkett, Herbig, Bright, Chaffin, Wilson, Sarell, Hamilton). That's a lot. That's to say nothing of the other various odd decisions. In a situation in which "steady goes the ship of state" wouldn't've been a crazy policy -- and would've stayed true to character -- the coaches opted for desperation. I don't get it, at all.
[/quote]

I have to believe there's something else going on here, because like you said, over the first couple games the offense was fine. It wasn't amazing against USC, but if we just repeat that level of competence against SDSU then we win handily. Instead we throw everything we have at them and none of it sticks (except, you know, handing the ball to your best player...). It's bizarre.

[stupac2]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=17393.msg201144#msg201144 date=1505665075]
What is going on with David Shaw?  I've never seen him show so much emotion in all of his years coaching at Stanford.  We've been in worst game situations and he remained calm and stoic.  Last night he nearly got into a fight at the halftime break.  He was markedly more animated on the sideline.  And, in one TV shot during the game he was off away from the team standing by himself.

I suspect that this team is not performing up to Shaw's expectations and he is getting frustrated.  Perhaps this is the most under achieving group he has coached at Stanford.  Or, perhaps Coach Shaw has other things going on in his life that has affected his demeanor.

Having lived through the various coaching iterations at Stanford since the late seventies, I am thankful that Stanford has David Shaw as head football coach.  I have confidence that he will right this ship.  I hope this time isn't the beginning of his end at Stanford.

Was struck that he seemed almost morose on the sideline, as you were.

Certainly the coaching gameplan was uncharacteristic. For better or worse, Shaw's history has not been one of "bold" (or, to look at it from another perspective, "hasty") decisions. He makes his plan and gives it a chance to work. In a world where people panic at the first sign of failure, that can be a helpful quality and I think it's served Stanford pretty well.

Which is what made this game so puzzling. Obviously the game against Rice was not exactly top-tier opposition but the offense looked good. And while the SC performance won't go into the hall of fame, it wasn't a disgraceful performance by any means. A B- or B, we'll say. So why did Shaw decide to blow it up and overhaul the offensive line? It's really weird.

And when that didn't seem to work, the coaches seemed to be mashing the buttons to see what worked. I think there were nine offensive linemen out there at various points (Hall, Little, Burkett, Herbig, Bright, Chaffin, Wilson, Sarell, Hamilton). That's a lot. That's to say nothing of the other various odd decisions. In a situation in which "steady goes the ship of state" wouldn't've been a crazy policy -- and would've stayed true to character -- the coaches opted for desperation. I don't get it, at all.
[/quote]

I have to believe there's something else going on here, because like you said, over the first couple games the offense was fine. It wasn't amazing against USC, but if we just repeat that level of competence against SDSU then we win handily. Instead we throw everything we have at them and none of it sticks (except, you know, handing the ball to your best player...). It's bizarre.

[washingtonismoney]

One other weird thing about the Rice game. Again, not top tier-opposition, but here's the tape of Chryst:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fFujE1DwHA

You can see some of Chryst's habits even in the context of highlights. (See, for example, the second play of the tape where he just locks onto Trent Irwin but converts the 3rd and 10 anyway.) So in that sense there's some continuity.

But look at the play at the 1:00 mark. I won't call it an amazing play or anything -- it's the type of play you expect an above average quarterback to make routinely -- but his navigation of the pocket is literally the exact quality Chryst lacked against SC and SDSU. Or take the play at 1:36, where Chryst senses that the rush is about to get home and gets rid of the ball to Parkinson. Again, another "feel" play that Chryst hasn't had in the past two games.

It's so weird. It's a mysterious collapse.

[washingtonismoney]

One other weird thing about the Rice game. Again, not top tier-opposition, but here's the tape of Chryst:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fFujE1DwHA

You can see some of Chryst's habits even in the context of highlights. (See, for example, the second play of the tape where he just locks onto Trent Irwin but converts the 3rd and 10 anyway.) So in that sense there's some continuity.

But look at the play at the 1:00 mark. I won't call it an amazing play or anything -- it's the type of play you expect an above average quarterback to make routinely -- but his navigation of the pocket is literally the exact quality Chryst lacked against SC and SDSU. Or take the play at 1:36, where Chryst senses that the rush is about to get home and gets rid of the ball to Parkinson. Again, another "feel" play that Chryst hasn't had in the past two games.

It's so weird. It's a mysterious collapse.

[stupac2]

It's so weird. It's a mysterious collapse.

The same thing happened to Burns last year. He was amazing against KSU, okay against USC, and then terrible. We blamed it on the line falling apart, but maybe it's something more systematic? This is all so bizarre I don't know what to think.

[stupac2]

It's so weird. It's a mysterious collapse.

The same thing happened to Burns last year. He was amazing against KSU, okay against USC, and then terrible. We blamed it on the line falling apart, but maybe it's something more systematic? This is all so bizarre I don't know what to think.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

One other weird thing about the Rice game. Again, not top tier-opposition, but here's the tape of Chryst:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fFujE1DwHA

You can see some of Chryst's habits even in the context of highlights. (See, for example, the second play of the tape where he just locks onto Trent Irwin but converts the 3rd and 10 anyway.) So in that sense there's some continuity.

But look at the play at the 1:00 mark. I won't call it an amazing play or anything -- it's the type of play you expect an above average quarterback to make routinely -- but his navigation of the pocket is literally the exact quality Chryst lacked against SC and SDSU. Or take the play at 1:36, where Chryst senses that the rush is about to get home and gets rid of the ball to Parkinson. Again, another "feel" play that Chryst hasn't had in the past two games.

It's so weird. It's a mysterious collapse.

Strength of opponent is relevant.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

One other weird thing about the Rice game. Again, not top tier-opposition, but here's the tape of Chryst:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fFujE1DwHA

You can see some of Chryst's habits even in the context of highlights. (See, for example, the second play of the tape where he just locks onto Trent Irwin but converts the 3rd and 10 anyway.) So in that sense there's some continuity.

But look at the play at the 1:00 mark. I won't call it an amazing play or anything -- it's the type of play you expect an above average quarterback to make routinely -- but his navigation of the pocket is literally the exact quality Chryst lacked against SC and SDSU. Or take the play at 1:36, where Chryst senses that the rush is about to get home and gets rid of the ball to Parkinson. Again, another "feel" play that Chryst hasn't had in the past two games.

It's so weird. It's a mysterious collapse.

Strength of opponent is relevant.

[UltimateCard]

David Shaw strikes me as the type of leader who puts a lot of trust in his staff yet, in the end, accepts full responsibility for all decisions under his management. Based on what's been shared on this and related threads (I didn't watch the game; tracked it online stomach-turning play after stomach-turning play), perhaps after the SC game Bloomgren/Pritchard proposed to shake things up and Shaw allowed himself to be talked into making these changes against his better judgment? Maybe he was mad with himself and hence his anger at half-time and humility post-game? Idle speculation based on second- and third-hand observations so take with big lump of salt...

[UltimateCard]

David Shaw strikes me as the type of leader who puts a lot of trust in his staff yet, in the end, accepts full responsibility for all decisions under his management. Based on what's been shared on this and related threads (I didn't watch the game; tracked it online stomach-turning play after stomach-turning play), perhaps after the SC game Bloomgren/Pritchard proposed to shake things up and Shaw allowed himself to be talked into making these changes against his better judgment? Maybe he was mad with himself and hence his anger at half-time and humility post-game? Idle speculation based on second- and third-hand observations so take with big lump of salt...

[81alum]

Has anyone heard an explanation as to why the TEs were so infrequently targeted?  It seemed after Rice that our TEs were once again going to be a strength of the team.  I half expected a whole series of short and intermediary passes to the TEs whenever the opposition stacked the box.  But then....very little of that.  I presume that Shaw knows something we don't which ruled that out...but I don't know what it is.

[81alum]

Has anyone heard an explanation as to why the TEs were so infrequently targeted?  It seemed after Rice that our TEs were once again going to be a strength of the team.  I half expected a whole series of short and intermediary passes to the TEs whenever the opposition stacked the box.  But then....very little of that.  I presume that Shaw knows something we don't which ruled that out...but I don't know what it is.

[washingtonismoney]

Strength of opponent is relevant.

Relevant, sure, but these are skills that are reasonably applicable across opposition levels. Stuff like the stare-down on 3rd and ten, that's the kind of stuff where strength of opponent is relevant. (Or, for that matter, Costello's 25-yard-gallop at the end of the game. That's not happening against a Pac-12 opponent.)

But navigating a pocket and sensing the rush are stuff where, if you can do it against one team, you should be able to do it -- at least a little bit! -- against any team.

[washingtonismoney]

Strength of opponent is relevant.

Relevant, sure, but these are skills that are reasonably applicable across opposition levels. Stuff like the stare-down on 3rd and ten, that's the kind of stuff where strength of opponent is relevant. (Or, for that matter, Costello's 25-yard-gallop at the end of the game. That's not happening against a Pac-12 opponent.)

But navigating a pocket and sensing the rush are stuff where, if you can do it against one team, you should be able to do it -- at least a little bit! -- against any team.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17393.msg201154#msg201154 date=1505667837]
One other weird thing about the Rice game. Again, not top tier-opposition, but here's the tape of Chryst:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fFujE1DwHA

You can see some of Chryst's habits even in the context of highlights. (See, for example, the second play of the tape where he just locks onto Trent Irwin but converts the 3rd and 10 anyway.) So in that sense there's some continuity.

But look at the play at the 1:00 mark. I won't call it an amazing play or anything -- it's the type of play you expect an above average quarterback to make routinely -- but his navigation of the pocket is literally the exact quality Chryst lacked against SC and SDSU. Or take the play at 1:36, where Chryst senses that the rush is about to get home and gets rid of the ball to Parkinson. Again, another "feel" play that Chryst hasn't had in the past two games.

It's so weird. It's a mysterious collapse.

Strength of opponent is relevant.
[/quote]

Only to an extent; WIM tried to isolate individual plays that Chryst made that showed that he had some pocket awareness.  WHile you would expect Rice to break the pocket down much less often than USC, it is what he did against Rice with the pocket collapsing and he didn't do against USC and, especially against San Diego State that is the difference.

Maybe it is a lot easier to sense the pocket falling apart when it is an infrequent occurrence.  Also, easier to find open receivers when several of them are open than when your first and second options are covered.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17393.msg201154#msg201154 date=1505667837]
One other weird thing about the Rice game. Again, not top tier-opposition, but here's the tape of Chryst:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fFujE1DwHA

You can see some of Chryst's habits even in the context of highlights. (See, for example, the second play of the tape where he just locks onto Trent Irwin but converts the 3rd and 10 anyway.) So in that sense there's some continuity.

But look at the play at the 1:00 mark. I won't call it an amazing play or anything -- it's the type of play you expect an above average quarterback to make routinely -- but his navigation of the pocket is literally the exact quality Chryst lacked against SC and SDSU. Or take the play at 1:36, where Chryst senses that the rush is about to get home and gets rid of the ball to Parkinson. Again, another "feel" play that Chryst hasn't had in the past two games.

It's so weird. It's a mysterious collapse.

Strength of opponent is relevant.
[/quote]

Only to an extent; WIM tried to isolate individual plays that Chryst made that showed that he had some pocket awareness.  WHile you would expect Rice to break the pocket down much less often than USC, it is what he did against Rice with the pocket collapsing and he didn't do against USC and, especially against San Diego State that is the difference.

Maybe it is a lot easier to sense the pocket falling apart when it is an infrequent occurrence.  Also, easier to find open receivers when several of them are open than when your first and second options are covered.

BC

[North Woods]

Also this could be largely mental: if he feels confident and calm based on level of competition, flow of the game or otherwise the game will feel slower and he will make better decisions. But just a bit of panic and hurry changes a lot.

Yesterday it seemed Chryst never got in a rhythm which reflected in our offense: big runs or nothing.

[North Woods]

Also this could be largely mental: if he feels confident and calm based on level of competition, flow of the game or otherwise the game will feel slower and he will make better decisions. But just a bit of panic and hurry changes a lot.

Yesterday it seemed Chryst never got in a rhythm which reflected in our offense: big runs or nothing.

[RuralFan]

It seemed as if Chryst had been told not to run with the ball. 

[RuralFan]

It seemed as if Chryst had been told not to run with the ball. 

[cardcrimson]

Also this could be largely mental: if he feels confident and calm based on level of competition, flow of the game or otherwise the game will feel slower and he will make better decisions. But just a bit of panic and hurry changes a lot.

Yesterday it seemed Chryst never got in a rhythm which reflected in our offense: big runs or nothing.

First three series. All three and out. Nine plays, two completions for 8 yards, five incompletions, one sack, two Love runs for 3 yards. Not a lot of rhythm there at all.

[cardcrimson]

Also this could be largely mental: if he feels confident and calm based on level of competition, flow of the game or otherwise the game will feel slower and he will make better decisions. But just a bit of panic and hurry changes a lot.

Yesterday it seemed Chryst never got in a rhythm which reflected in our offense: big runs or nothing.

First three series. All three and out. Nine plays, two completions for 8 yards, five incompletions, one sack, two Love runs for 3 yards. Not a lot of rhythm there at all.

[winflop]

Which is what made this game so puzzling. Obviously the game against Rice was not exactly top-tier opposition but the offense looked good. And while the SC performance won't go into the hall of fame, it wasn't a disgraceful performance by any means. A B- or B, we'll say. So why did Shaw decide to blow it up and overhaul the offensive line? It's really weird.

And when that didn't seem to work, the coaches seemed to be mashing the buttons to see what worked. I think there were nine offensive linemen out there at various points (Hall, Little, Burkett, Herbig, Bright, Chaffin, Wilson, Sarell, Hamilton). That's a lot. That's to say nothing of the other various odd decisions. In a situation in which "steady goes the ship of state" wouldn't've been a crazy policy -- and would've stayed true to character -- the coaches opted for desperation. I don't get it, at all.

Sorry WIM but I gotta disagree with you on multiple points here. The offense was a C at best against U$C. The OL couldn't block ANYONE run or pass, and the right side was an absolute disaster all night. It was better last night, but still not good.

As for rotating nine guys in, I don't think that's unusually high. Keep in mind they ran more Heavy Jumbo than I'd see recently, especially in the second half when Burns was in as the "pitch & block" QB.

Not sure where you saw signs of desperation in the coaching. The misguided and ultimately very costly decision to kick a FG in the third quarter was vintage overly conservative Shawgren.

[winflop]

Which is what made this game so puzzling. Obviously the game against Rice was not exactly top-tier opposition but the offense looked good. And while the SC performance won't go into the hall of fame, it wasn't a disgraceful performance by any means. A B- or B, we'll say. So why did Shaw decide to blow it up and overhaul the offensive line? It's really weird.

And when that didn't seem to work, the coaches seemed to be mashing the buttons to see what worked. I think there were nine offensive linemen out there at various points (Hall, Little, Burkett, Herbig, Bright, Chaffin, Wilson, Sarell, Hamilton). That's a lot. That's to say nothing of the other various odd decisions. In a situation in which "steady goes the ship of state" wouldn't've been a crazy policy -- and would've stayed true to character -- the coaches opted for desperation. I don't get it, at all.

Sorry WIM but I gotta disagree with you on multiple points here. The offense was a C at best against U$C. The OL couldn't block ANYONE run or pass, and the right side was an absolute disaster all night. It was better last night, but still not good.

As for rotating nine guys in, I don't think that's unusually high. Keep in mind they ran more Heavy Jumbo than I'd see recently, especially in the second half when Burns was in as the "pitch & block" QB.

Not sure where you saw signs of desperation in the coaching. The misguided and ultimately very costly decision to kick a FG in the third quarter was vintage overly conservative Shawgren.

[washingtonismoney]

Not sure where you saw signs of desperation in the coaching. The misguided and ultimately very costly decision to kick a FG in the third quarter was vintage overly conservative Shawgren.

You don't think completely overhauling the offensive line was a sign of desperation? Subbing in a QB specifically to block the backside of a play was a sign of desperation? Getting your lead runner 13 touches -- when, if anything, Shaw's tendency is to give your lead player *too many* touches -- that wasn't a sign of desperation?

I guess reasonable minds can disagree but I see your take as exactly wrong. Obviously you can be desperate at times and conservative at others. But it's hard for me to see so many acts out of the ordinary and conclude that this was the same old same old.

[washingtonismoney]

Not sure where you saw signs of desperation in the coaching. The misguided and ultimately very costly decision to kick a FG in the third quarter was vintage overly conservative Shawgren.

You don't think completely overhauling the offensive line was a sign of desperation? Subbing in a QB specifically to block the backside of a play was a sign of desperation? Getting your lead runner 13 touches -- when, if anything, Shaw's tendency is to give your lead player *too many* touches -- that wasn't a sign of desperation?

I guess reasonable minds can disagree but I see your take as exactly wrong. Obviously you can be desperate at times and conservative at others. But it's hard for me to see so many acts out of the ordinary and conclude that this was the same old same old.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=17393.msg201207#msg201207 date=1505679871]

Not sure where you saw signs of desperation in the coaching. The misguided and ultimately very costly decision to kick a FG in the third quarter was vintage overly conservative Shawgren.

You don't think completely overhauling the offensive line was a sign of desperation? Subbing in a QB specifically to block the backside of a play was a sign of desperation? Getting your lead runner 13 touches -- when, if anything, Shaw's tendency is to give your lead player *too many* touches -- that wasn't a sign of desperation?

[/quote]

+1 I don't think I've ever seen a play where the QB is expected to be the backside blocker. And to see it several times. . . .

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=17393.msg201207#msg201207 date=1505679871]

Not sure where you saw signs of desperation in the coaching. The misguided and ultimately very costly decision to kick a FG in the third quarter was vintage overly conservative Shawgren.

You don't think completely overhauling the offensive line was a sign of desperation? Subbing in a QB specifically to block the backside of a play was a sign of desperation? Getting your lead runner 13 touches -- when, if anything, Shaw's tendency is to give your lead player *too many* touches -- that wasn't a sign of desperation?

[/quote]

+1 I don't think I've ever seen a play where the QB is expected to be the backside blocker. And to see it several times. . . .

[Goose]

The misguided and ultimately very costly decision to kick a FG in the third quarter was vintage overly conservative Shawgren.

No, It was the conservative and correct decision, IMHO. If we had gone for it and got stuffed, which, given how we were playing, was all too probable, things are a lot worse. As it was, we could have and should have won the game by 4 points. If Chryst can hit an open receiver on 3 and 12, we aren't having this discussion. There was lots of time left. The down side was too large to justify the risk, considering that we were having real trouble running for positive yards reliably.

[Goose]

The misguided and ultimately very costly decision to kick a FG in the third quarter was vintage overly conservative Shawgren.

No, It was the conservative and correct decision, IMHO. If we had gone for it and got stuffed, which, given how we were playing, was all too probable, things are a lot worse. As it was, we could have and should have won the game by 4 points. If Chryst can hit an open receiver on 3 and 12, we aren't having this discussion. There was lots of time left. The down side was too large to justify the risk, considering that we were having real trouble running for positive yards reliably.

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=17393.msg201207#msg201207 date=1505679871]

Not sure where you saw signs of desperation in the coaching. The misguided and ultimately very costly decision to kick a FG in the third quarter was vintage overly conservative Shawgren.

You don't think completely overhauling the offensive line was a sign of desperation? Subbing in a QB specifically to block the backside of a play was a sign of desperation? Getting your lead runner 13 touches -- when, if anything, Shaw's tendency is to give your lead player *too many* touches -- that wasn't a sign of desperation?

I guess reasonable minds can disagree but I see your take as exactly wrong. Obviously you can be desperate at times and conservative at others. But it's hard for me to see so many acts out of the ordinary and conclude that this was the same old same old.
[/quote]

After the way the OL played last week I think an overhaul was perfectly rational, especially on the right side. I think the "pitch & block" was not only part of the gameplan dating back to fall camp but it was quite effective, arguably more effective than when Chryst was in (other than 4 or 5 Love runs). I think Love getting only 13 touches was a terrible coaching/playcalling mistake but not a sign of desperation just stupidity. Did he even go out for a pass? How can you NOT get that guy into space and find ways to get him the ball the way they did with McCaffrey for two years?

Stupid/bad yes, but not desperate.

[winflop]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=17393.msg201207#msg201207 date=1505679871]

Not sure where you saw signs of desperation in the coaching. The misguided and ultimately very costly decision to kick a FG in the third quarter was vintage overly conservative Shawgren.

You don't think completely overhauling the offensive line was a sign of desperation? Subbing in a QB specifically to block the backside of a play was a sign of desperation? Getting your lead runner 13 touches -- when, if anything, Shaw's tendency is to give your lead player *too many* touches -- that wasn't a sign of desperation?

I guess reasonable minds can disagree but I see your take as exactly wrong. Obviously you can be desperate at times and conservative at others. But it's hard for me to see so many acts out of the ordinary and conclude that this was the same old same old.
[/quote]

After the way the OL played last week I think an overhaul was perfectly rational, especially on the right side. I think the "pitch & block" was not only part of the gameplan dating back to fall camp but it was quite effective, arguably more effective than when Chryst was in (other than 4 or 5 Love runs). I think Love getting only 13 touches was a terrible coaching/playcalling mistake but not a sign of desperation just stupidity. Did he even go out for a pass? How can you NOT get that guy into space and find ways to get him the ball the way they did with McCaffrey for two years?

Stupid/bad yes, but not desperate.

[Spiny_Norman]

I think Love getting only 13 touches was a terrible coaching/playcalling mistake but not a sign of desperation just stupidity. Did he even go out for a pass? How can you NOT get that guy into space and find ways to get him the ball the way they did with McCaffrey for two years?

Stupid/bad yes, but not desperate.

The first time Chryst was sacked, he was looking for Love on a wheel route. But SDSU had Love well covered. Before Chryst could find another receiver, he went down.

And Stanford's first play of the 2nd half was supposed to be a quick pass to Love.  Chryst threw a one-hopper.

[Spiny_Norman]

I think Love getting only 13 touches was a terrible coaching/playcalling mistake but not a sign of desperation just stupidity. Did he even go out for a pass? How can you NOT get that guy into space and find ways to get him the ball the way they did with McCaffrey for two years?

Stupid/bad yes, but not desperate.

The first time Chryst was sacked, he was looking for Love on a wheel route. But SDSU had Love well covered. Before Chryst could find another receiver, he went down.

And Stanford's first play of the 2nd half was supposed to be a quick pass to Love.  Chryst threw a one-hopper.

[winflop]

A wheel route is very different from getting out in the flat where he can be found quickly, nor is it lining him up in the slot where he can more easily get free from a covering LB/DB. My point is that the offense isn't finding ways to get the ball in his hands other than handoffs & pitches, and instead has him in the backfield trying to pass block which he clearly isn't very good at seeing as his guy sacked Chryst three times last night.

[winflop]

A wheel route is very different from getting out in the flat where he can be found quickly, nor is it lining him up in the slot where he can more easily get free from a covering LB/DB. My point is that the offense isn't finding ways to get the ball in his hands other than handoffs & pitches, and instead has him in the backfield trying to pass block which he clearly isn't very good at seeing as his guy sacked Chryst three times last night.

[Sea Loon]

My uneducated guess is that Shaw is OK giving a reasonably long leash to any QB that he chooses (Nunes, Burns) and can tolerate being outplayed by a team that's playing very well (e.g., USC last week), and even somewhat deal with a QB being inaccurate or nervous and who needs more game time and experience to get better.

But, what seems to really make him grumpy are poor decisions that give away easy possessions and points. Throwing an INT deep in your territory with time running out, leading to an opponent TD. Fumbling near the red zone in a close game. Or, for that matter, running into the punter to extend an opponent drive that becomes a score... and keeps your tired defense on the field for 7-8 more plays. Wipe away those mistakes and you're still in the game. And probably winning it.

I think poor decision making, even more than poor execution, is the quickest path to Shaw's doghouse.

[Sea Loon]

My uneducated guess is that Shaw is OK giving a reasonably long leash to any QB that he chooses (Nunes, Burns) and can tolerate being outplayed by a team that's playing very well (e.g., USC last week), and even somewhat deal with a QB being inaccurate or nervous and who needs more game time and experience to get better.

But, what seems to really make him grumpy are poor decisions that give away easy possessions and points. Throwing an INT deep in your territory with time running out, leading to an opponent TD. Fumbling near the red zone in a close game. Or, for that matter, running into the punter to extend an opponent drive that becomes a score... and keeps your tired defense on the field for 7-8 more plays. Wipe away those mistakes and you're still in the game. And probably winning it.

I think poor decision making, even more than poor execution, is the quickest path to Shaw's doghouse.