[Renaissance Man]

I am firmly in the camp that hopes that David Shaw is our coach for 30 more years.  I also shared the same frustrations as everyone on the board during the OSU game.  However, I only saw one coaching decision that was a clear, objective mistake--the extra point play call with 20 seconds left. Throwing the fade 3 consecutive times was more than stubborn, especially the third time when the heavy package would have almost guaranteed success.  The problem was this--with everyone in the stadium knowing that we were going to throw the fade, OSU could have sold out for a pick, knowing that a two-point defensive extra point was there only real chance to win at that point.  Maybe not likely, but we chose the riskiest possible play call for the situation.  Not what I would expect from a conservative play-caller.

[Renaissance Man]

I am firmly in the camp that hopes that David Shaw is our coach for 30 more years.  I also shared the same frustrations as everyone on the board during the OSU game.  However, I only saw one coaching decision that was a clear, objective mistake--the extra point play call with 20 seconds left. Throwing the fade 3 consecutive times was more than stubborn, especially the third time when the heavy package would have almost guaranteed success.  The problem was this--with everyone in the stadium knowing that we were going to throw the fade, OSU could have sold out for a pick, knowing that a two-point defensive extra point was there only real chance to win at that point.  Maybe not likely, but we chose the riskiest possible play call for the situation.  Not what I would expect from a conservative play-caller.

[martyup]

Good point.  What a nightmare that would have been if they had picked off the fourth consecutive ally-oop to the right corner of the end zone and run it back for a 2 point score.  We would have lost 16-15.  That would have gone down in the annuls of worst losses in history.  They would have been using the verb "Cardinaling" when describing a team that Cougs it.  :-[

[martyup]

Good point.  What a nightmare that would have been if they had picked off the fourth consecutive ally-oop to the right corner of the end zone and run it back for a 2 point score.  We would have lost 16-15.  That would have gone down in the annuls of worst losses in history.  They would have been using the verb "Cardinaling" when describing a team that Cougs it.  :-[

[CTcard]

The problem was this--with everyone in the stadium knowing that we were going to throw the fade, OSU could have sold out for a pick, knowing that a two-point defensive extra point was there only real chance to win at that point. 

Not sure I liked the call, but disagree with the details here.

First of all, OSU never adjusted their coverage. Stanford liked the big receiver one-on-one with the tiny db matchup so they kept going at it. To some extent it worked - OSU never defended the play properly.

One problem with the play, as has been pointed out on this board, is that under the circumstances and NCAA rules, there is not a significant penalty for PI at that point. The clear strategy for OSU was to tackle the receiver repeatedly until they got a bad throw from Chryst - which finally happened on attempt #4.

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap (which generally ends with the players falling to the ground, or at least standing and wrestling the ball), the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

While we weren't completely crushing them at the line, it does seem that getting 0.75 yards on a power run would have been a good bet - less certain about 3 yds (i.e. had we tried that on the first go-round).

[CTcard]

The problem was this--with everyone in the stadium knowing that we were going to throw the fade, OSU could have sold out for a pick, knowing that a two-point defensive extra point was there only real chance to win at that point. 

Not sure I liked the call, but disagree with the details here.

First of all, OSU never adjusted their coverage. Stanford liked the big receiver one-on-one with the tiny db matchup so they kept going at it. To some extent it worked - OSU never defended the play properly.

One problem with the play, as has been pointed out on this board, is that under the circumstances and NCAA rules, there is not a significant penalty for PI at that point. The clear strategy for OSU was to tackle the receiver repeatedly until they got a bad throw from Chryst - which finally happened on attempt #4.

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap (which generally ends with the players falling to the ground, or at least standing and wrestling the ball), the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

While we weren't completely crushing them at the line, it does seem that getting 0.75 yards on a power run would have been a good bet - less certain about 3 yds (i.e. had we tried that on the first go-round).

[Goose]

While we weren't completely crushing them at the line, it does seem that getting 0.75 yards on a power run would have been a good bet - less certain about 3 yds (i.e. had we tried that on the first go-round).

Yes, I think we should have run. However, I would not have gone "power". If we kept the same formation and same personnel, they would never expect the run after the same play three times in a row. A run anywhere on the left side to get 0.75 yards would be very high probability under those circumstances. We only need to move one guy.

[Goose]

While we weren't completely crushing them at the line, it does seem that getting 0.75 yards on a power run would have been a good bet - less certain about 3 yds (i.e. had we tried that on the first go-round).

Yes, I think we should have run. However, I would not have gone "power". If we kept the same formation and same personnel, they would never expect the run after the same play three times in a row. A run anywhere on the left side to get 0.75 yards would be very high probability under those circumstances. We only need to move one guy.

[teejers1]

CTC, you're assuming the same throw every time into 1 on 1 coverage.  Pretty big assumption.

Was the risk great?  Probably not - but there was some risk there (and I think far more than someone scooping up a fumble on a plunge from the 1/2 yard line and running it back).  As a buddy from Boston texted me at the time:  "Stanford's attempts to get the 2 point conversion tells you all you need to know."  [He is displeased with (i) lack of thinking things out in advance, and (ii) absence of variety in the O]. 

In the big picture?  Pretty minor quibble as a one-off. 

[teejers1]

CTC, you're assuming the same throw every time into 1 on 1 coverage.  Pretty big assumption.

Was the risk great?  Probably not - but there was some risk there (and I think far more than someone scooping up a fumble on a plunge from the 1/2 yard line and running it back).  As a buddy from Boston texted me at the time:  "Stanford's attempts to get the 2 point conversion tells you all you need to know."  [He is displeased with (i) lack of thinking things out in advance, and (ii) absence of variety in the O]. 

In the big picture?  Pretty minor quibble as a one-off. 

[cardcrimson]

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap, the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

Come on. How likely is a fumble when the offense is in a position to put the game out of reach?

[cardcrimson]

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap, the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

Come on. How likely is a fumble when the offense is in a position to put the game out of reach?

[Beeg_Dawg]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17855.msg209507#msg209507 date=1509469924]

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap, the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

Come on. How likely is a fumble when the offense is in a position to put the game out of reach?
[/quote]

I don't know.  Maybe you should post that question on the Oregon State board.

[Beeg_Dawg]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17855.msg209507#msg209507 date=1509469924]

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap, the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

Come on. How likely is a fumble when the offense is in a position to put the game out of reach?
[/quote]

I don't know.  Maybe you should post that question on the Oregon State board.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17855.msg209517#msg209517 date=1509471542]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17855.msg209507#msg209507 date=1509469924]

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap, the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

Come on. How likely is a fumble when the offense is in a position to put the game out of reach?
[/quote]

I don't know.  Maybe you should post that question on the Oregon State board.
[/quote]

Or to Dabo Sweeney...  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0...85364.html

The way that game was going, a 99-yard fumble return would certainly have fit the mold.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17855.msg209517#msg209517 date=1509471542]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17855.msg209507#msg209507 date=1509469924]

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap, the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

Come on. How likely is a fumble when the offense is in a position to put the game out of reach?
[/quote]

I don't know.  Maybe you should post that question on the Oregon State board.
[/quote]

Or to Dabo Sweeney...  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0...85364.html

The way that game was going, a 99-yard fumble return would certainly have fit the mold.

[Phogge]

When Tedford was going strong on the few occasions when he went for two he would often go four wide and run a draw. Seemed to work every time. Why not go over the top with Scarlett on Try #3.

[Phogge]

When Tedford was going strong on the few occasions when he went for two he would often go four wide and run a draw. Seemed to work every time. Why not go over the top with Scarlett on Try #3.

[Goose]

When Tedford was going strong on the few occasions when he went for two he would often go four wide and run a draw. Seemed to work every time. Why not go over the top with Scarlett on Try #3.

That could also work. However, with only 0.75 yards to go, I think a "dive" to the left side of the line works more reliably. If you actually need 2 or 3 yards, maybe not, but that short it should pretty much always work if you have already got them thinking pass.

[Goose]

When Tedford was going strong on the few occasions when he went for two he would often go four wide and run a draw. Seemed to work every time. Why not go over the top with Scarlett on Try #3.

That could also work. However, with only 0.75 yards to go, I think a "dive" to the left side of the line works more reliably. If you actually need 2 or 3 yards, maybe not, but that short it should pretty much always work if you have already got them thinking pass.

[Langdude]

Given that Chryst was, shall we say, inconsistent in the game and had already barely missed throwing INTs several times, I'd say the chance of his throwing a pick one one of those XP fades (say, by underthrowing) was significantly non-zero. Had it been picked, I'd guess there was also a significant chance it would be returned all the way given that it was out on the edge and that our personnel at the time was not speedy. I'm getting anxious thinking that this could have happened. But perhaps Shaw was also significantly concerned that OSU would drive down for a FG in the little time left. I dunno.

-m.

[Langdude]

Given that Chryst was, shall we say, inconsistent in the game and had already barely missed throwing INTs several times, I'd say the chance of his throwing a pick one one of those XP fades (say, by underthrowing) was significantly non-zero. Had it been picked, I'd guess there was also a significant chance it would be returned all the way given that it was out on the edge and that our personnel at the time was not speedy. I'm getting anxious thinking that this could have happened. But perhaps Shaw was also significantly concerned that OSU would drive down for a FG in the little time left. I dunno.

-m.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17855.msg209507#msg209507 date=1509469924]

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap, the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

Come on. How likely is a fumble when the offense is in a position to put the game out of reach?
[/quote]

I see what you did there.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17855.msg209507#msg209507 date=1509469924]

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap, the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

Come on. How likely is a fumble when the offense is in a position to put the game out of reach?
[/quote]

I see what you did there.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Renaissance Man link=topic=17855.msg209500#msg209500 date=1509468995]
The problem was this--with everyone in the stadium knowing that we were going to throw the fade, OSU could have sold out for a pick, knowing that a two-point defensive extra point was there only real chance to win at that point. 

Not sure I liked the call, but disagree with the details here.

First of all, OSU never adjusted their coverage. Stanford liked the big receiver one-on-one with the tiny db matchup so they kept going at it. To some extent it worked - OSU never defended the play properly.

One problem with the play, as has been pointed out on this board, is that under the circumstances and NCAA rules, there is not a significant penalty for PI at that point. The clear strategy for OSU was to tackle the receiver repeatedly until they got a bad throw from Chryst - which finally happened on attempt #4.

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap, the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

While we weren't completely crushing them at the line, it does seem that getting 0.75 yards on a power run would have been a good bet - less certain about 3 yds (i.e. had we tried that on the first go-round).
[/quote]

Perhaps a better way to look at this is from OSU's perspective.  If you tell your DB who is in one-on-one coverage "Make sure you do everything possible not to let him catch the ball unless it is uncatchable" then you like your chances outside.  If Stanford goes to the fade, you hope to a) sack the quarterback b) hope its an errant throw and c) if all else fails, pass interfere.  That frees your defense to focus on defending the run and stacking 8 or 9 in the box in the hope of getting penetration.

My guess is that Shaw/Chryst saw the one-on-one match-up on the outside, liked it, and kept going to the fade.  Normally (in non-try situations) that makes sense because if the defensive back interferes, you get first and goal on the one, and have four chances to push it in.  But in a try situation, the defense does not really get penalized much for interfering and that changes the calculus.

The NCAA probably ought to change the rule here so that a penalty in the end zone (defensive holding, pass interference, etc.) on a try is an automatic 2 pt conversion, in the same way that an offensive penalty in the defensive end zone (holding, intentional grounding) is an automatic safety, not placement of the ball at the 1 yard line.  Also, in the same way that the NCAA is allowed to award a touchdown when there is intentional sideline interference to prevent a touchdown (for example, someone tripping the offensive player running down the sideline), you can make an argument that "intentional" interference ought to be ruled an automatic touchdown (or try conversion).  In that case, the first 2 point conversion try would have been ruled a conversion, but not the second.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Renaissance Man link=topic=17855.msg209500#msg209500 date=1509468995]
The problem was this--with everyone in the stadium knowing that we were going to throw the fade, OSU could have sold out for a pick, knowing that a two-point defensive extra point was there only real chance to win at that point. 

Not sure I liked the call, but disagree with the details here.

First of all, OSU never adjusted their coverage. Stanford liked the big receiver one-on-one with the tiny db matchup so they kept going at it. To some extent it worked - OSU never defended the play properly.

One problem with the play, as has been pointed out on this board, is that under the circumstances and NCAA rules, there is not a significant penalty for PI at that point. The clear strategy for OSU was to tackle the receiver repeatedly until they got a bad throw from Chryst - which finally happened on attempt #4.

Given that actually intercepting the ball would require a post-up/leap, the chances for returning the PAT try for two points the other way don't seem any higher than picking up a fumble.

While we weren't completely crushing them at the line, it does seem that getting 0.75 yards on a power run would have been a good bet - less certain about 3 yds (i.e. had we tried that on the first go-round).
[/quote]

Perhaps a better way to look at this is from OSU's perspective.  If you tell your DB who is in one-on-one coverage "Make sure you do everything possible not to let him catch the ball unless it is uncatchable" then you like your chances outside.  If Stanford goes to the fade, you hope to a) sack the quarterback b) hope its an errant throw and c) if all else fails, pass interfere.  That frees your defense to focus on defending the run and stacking 8 or 9 in the box in the hope of getting penetration.

My guess is that Shaw/Chryst saw the one-on-one match-up on the outside, liked it, and kept going to the fade.  Normally (in non-try situations) that makes sense because if the defensive back interferes, you get first and goal on the one, and have four chances to push it in.  But in a try situation, the defense does not really get penalized much for interfering and that changes the calculus.

The NCAA probably ought to change the rule here so that a penalty in the end zone (defensive holding, pass interference, etc.) on a try is an automatic 2 pt conversion, in the same way that an offensive penalty in the defensive end zone (holding, intentional grounding) is an automatic safety, not placement of the ball at the 1 yard line.  Also, in the same way that the NCAA is allowed to award a touchdown when there is intentional sideline interference to prevent a touchdown (for example, someone tripping the offensive player running down the sideline), you can make an argument that "intentional" interference ought to be ruled an automatic touchdown (or try conversion).  In that case, the first 2 point conversion try would have been ruled a conversion, but not the second.

BC

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17855.msg209507#msg209507 date=1509469924]
One problem with the play, as has been pointed out on this board, is that under the circumstances and NCAA rules, there is not a significant penalty for PI at that point. The clear strategy for OSU was to tackle the receiver repeatedly until they got a bad throw from Chryst - which finally happened on attempt #4.

Perhaps a better way to look at this is from OSU's perspective.  If you tell your DB who is in one-on-one coverage "Make sure you do everything possible not to let him catch the ball unless it is uncatchable" then you like your chances outside.  If Stanford goes to the fade, you hope to a) sack the quarterback b) hope its an errant throw and c) if all else fails, pass interfere.  That frees your defense to focus on defending the run and stacking 8 or 9 in the box in the hope of getting penetration.
[/quote]
Isn't that the same thing I wrote?

My guess is that Shaw/Chryst saw the one-on-one match-up on the outside, liked it, and kept going to the fade. 

No need to guess, that is what Bloomgren said in an interview.
Paraphrasing - 'We had the match up we liked with a big receiver one on one with a small db. OSU never changed that look, so we kept taking it. '

The NCAA probably ought to change the rule here so that a penalty in the end zone (defensive holding, pass interference, etc.) on a try is an automatic 2 pt conversion, in the same way that an offensive penalty in the defensive end zone (holding, intentional grounding) is an automatic safety, not placement of the ball at the 1 yard line.  Also, in the same way that the NCAA is allowed to award a touchdown when there is intentional sideline interference to prevent a touchdown (for example, someone tripping the offensive player running down the sideline), you can make an argument that "intentional" interference ought to be ruled an automatic touchdown (or try conversion).  In that case, the first 2 point conversion try would have been ruled a conversion, but not the second.

BC

About right, but the ball gets placed on the two yard line for PI in the end zone, half the distance to the goal if the two yard line is further out than that. 
[It's actually even more complicated than that. On PATs, it's half the distance. On regular plays the ball is placed on the two if it was snapped anywhere outside the two, half the distance if at or inside the two.]

Wasn't PI on a two-point conversion try once an automtaic two points in the NFL? Hazy memory acting up again.

Anyway, why wouldn't the PI call on the second PAT attempt have resulted in a made try under your proposed rule? I believe the calls were identical.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17855.msg209507#msg209507 date=1509469924]
One problem with the play, as has been pointed out on this board, is that under the circumstances and NCAA rules, there is not a significant penalty for PI at that point. The clear strategy for OSU was to tackle the receiver repeatedly until they got a bad throw from Chryst - which finally happened on attempt #4.

Perhaps a better way to look at this is from OSU's perspective.  If you tell your DB who is in one-on-one coverage "Make sure you do everything possible not to let him catch the ball unless it is uncatchable" then you like your chances outside.  If Stanford goes to the fade, you hope to a) sack the quarterback b) hope its an errant throw and c) if all else fails, pass interfere.  That frees your defense to focus on defending the run and stacking 8 or 9 in the box in the hope of getting penetration.
[/quote]
Isn't that the same thing I wrote?

My guess is that Shaw/Chryst saw the one-on-one match-up on the outside, liked it, and kept going to the fade. 

No need to guess, that is what Bloomgren said in an interview.
Paraphrasing - 'We had the match up we liked with a big receiver one on one with a small db. OSU never changed that look, so we kept taking it. '

The NCAA probably ought to change the rule here so that a penalty in the end zone (defensive holding, pass interference, etc.) on a try is an automatic 2 pt conversion, in the same way that an offensive penalty in the defensive end zone (holding, intentional grounding) is an automatic safety, not placement of the ball at the 1 yard line.  Also, in the same way that the NCAA is allowed to award a touchdown when there is intentional sideline interference to prevent a touchdown (for example, someone tripping the offensive player running down the sideline), you can make an argument that "intentional" interference ought to be ruled an automatic touchdown (or try conversion).  In that case, the first 2 point conversion try would have been ruled a conversion, but not the second.

BC

About right, but the ball gets placed on the two yard line for PI in the end zone, half the distance to the goal if the two yard line is further out than that. 
[It's actually even more complicated than that. On PATs, it's half the distance. On regular plays the ball is placed on the two if it was snapped anywhere outside the two, half the distance if at or inside the two.]

Wasn't PI on a two-point conversion try once an automtaic two points in the NFL? Hazy memory acting up again.

Anyway, why wouldn't the PI call on the second PAT attempt have resulted in a made try under your proposed rule? I believe the calls were identical.

[81alum]

I was very unhappy with Costello not playing, and I have often criticized Shaw for conservative play calls.  This particular one, though, did not seem egregious to me.  The OSU DC had to believe that at some point we were going to fake the fade and run it--so the 3rd and 4th times were almost "surprise" calls given how unlikely it must have seemed that a play would be repeated yet again.  And it seemed to be the case that Oregon State did not have any defensive backs tall enough to stop that play if it were executed well.

Personally I do think that the 4th time we should have run it from the 1/2 yard line and thought so at the time, since we had been successful with short yardage out of the jumbo formation earlier in the game.  But I smiled a bit when we threw it for the fourth time and thought "wow, Shaw is doing something out of character for him."

[81alum]

I was very unhappy with Costello not playing, and I have often criticized Shaw for conservative play calls.  This particular one, though, did not seem egregious to me.  The OSU DC had to believe that at some point we were going to fake the fade and run it--so the 3rd and 4th times were almost "surprise" calls given how unlikely it must have seemed that a play would be repeated yet again.  And it seemed to be the case that Oregon State did not have any defensive backs tall enough to stop that play if it were executed well.

Personally I do think that the 4th time we should have run it from the 1/2 yard line and thought so at the time, since we had been successful with short yardage out of the jumbo formation earlier in the game.  But I smiled a bit when we threw it for the fourth time and thought "wow, Shaw is doing something out of character for him."

[oman]

I didn't like it, and I don't really like the whole "intellectual brutality" shtick, and it exhibited a stubborness that drives me a bit crazy. 

But sometimes you have a game that just drives you crazy, and I hope that this was the last of this season. 

I think we are going to need to be very open minded on Saturday, especially if Bryce can't play.

Put this game in the archives.

[oman]

I didn't like it, and I don't really like the whole "intellectual brutality" shtick, and it exhibited a stubborness that drives me a bit crazy. 

But sometimes you have a game that just drives you crazy, and I hope that this was the last of this season. 

I think we are going to need to be very open minded on Saturday, especially if Bryce can't play.

Put this game in the archives.

[Hurlburt88]

When I look at this game as well as the Northwestern game two years ago, I wonder if sometimes when we travel we lose emotional preparedness?  More diversity on the coaching staff needed in terms of EUTM?  Akina has it . . . anyone on the offensive coaching side? 

NW also had a time zone issue that we did not adequately prepare for, of course. 

[Hurlburt88]

When I look at this game as well as the Northwestern game two years ago, I wonder if sometimes when we travel we lose emotional preparedness?  More diversity on the coaching staff needed in terms of EUTM?  Akina has it . . . anyone on the offensive coaching side? 

NW also had a time zone issue that we did not adequately prepare for, of course. 

[Papa John]

Agree with much of what BC says.

Also, I can't believe how long it's taking me to get over Stanford's win over OSU  ???

[Papa John]

Agree with much of what BC says.

Also, I can't believe how long it's taking me to get over Stanford's win over OSU  ???