[teejers1]

The Oregon home game where Stanford just ground Oregon down - including several fourth and short conversions, IIRC - for 3.7 quarters (when Oregon made a mini-run and was a second onside kick recovery away from having the chance to steal it).  That game was a good one for Coach Shaw (where sticking with the grind) was the best call.  There probably are others - maybe at ASU in CCG - but not a lot stand out (to this fan, anyway).

[teejers1]

The Oregon home game where Stanford just ground Oregon down - including several fourth and short conversions, IIRC - for 3.7 quarters (when Oregon made a mini-run and was a second onside kick recovery away from having the chance to steal it).  That game was a good one for Coach Shaw (where sticking with the grind) was the best call.  There probably are others - maybe at ASU in CCG - but not a lot stand out (to this fan, anyway).

[qwerty49]

So in addition to the games that people felt we lost (or were way too close) because of uncreative coaching, do people feel we won games because of good (in game) coaching?

Teejers pointed out a couple of examples above.  Part of the issue is highlighted by your choice of wording -- consciously or not, you juxtaposed "uncreative" with "good."  You didn't use the word "creative" or "unpredictable."  The problem is that under Shaw, "good" coaching means that grinding and turtling was successful.  From Shaw's perspective, all that counts is the W. 

A lot of us fans have a slightly different perspective.  We remember how Ralston and Vermeil took advantage of Plunkett's talents and built a great passing game and an offense that was finally able to beat $C.  We remember how Walsh installed a complex playbook that somehow did not require a QB to sit on the bench for 2-3 years to learn it, and that those QBs were not necessarily as talented as Plunkett or Luck.  So there's always the temptation to compare our current offensive scheme with what we might have seen in the past.  And yes, in those days we never had as many wins, but even in this "winning era" our current offensive scheme is tarred by visions of the Fiesta Bowl, or of Mich St, or of Cam Scarlett getting brought down behind the LOS by the weakside defender.

This part of the discussion is really apples and oranges.  The hallmark of Shaw's offense is its predictability.  "We are who we are" is as much a confirmation of that as one can ask for.  I suggest it's inherently impossible for this scheme to be considered "creative" in the same sense as what we have seen at points in the past.  Everyone knows what's coming and either they stop it or they don't.

Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Personally I only have two wishes for the offense to think about over the off-season:  1) Widen the splits on "Power" ever so slightly to keep the backside defender half a step further away from the ballcarrier; and 2) Figure out a drill to keep the offense running down the field after a big gain while getting the next play in quickly to avoid those stupid DOG penalties.  If Shaw and Tavita can get those two things right then I don't care how many times I yawn in the stands and laugh to myself that I correctly predicted the play call.
 

[qwerty49]

So in addition to the games that people felt we lost (or were way too close) because of uncreative coaching, do people feel we won games because of good (in game) coaching?

Teejers pointed out a couple of examples above.  Part of the issue is highlighted by your choice of wording -- consciously or not, you juxtaposed "uncreative" with "good."  You didn't use the word "creative" or "unpredictable."  The problem is that under Shaw, "good" coaching means that grinding and turtling was successful.  From Shaw's perspective, all that counts is the W. 

A lot of us fans have a slightly different perspective.  We remember how Ralston and Vermeil took advantage of Plunkett's talents and built a great passing game and an offense that was finally able to beat $C.  We remember how Walsh installed a complex playbook that somehow did not require a QB to sit on the bench for 2-3 years to learn it, and that those QBs were not necessarily as talented as Plunkett or Luck.  So there's always the temptation to compare our current offensive scheme with what we might have seen in the past.  And yes, in those days we never had as many wins, but even in this "winning era" our current offensive scheme is tarred by visions of the Fiesta Bowl, or of Mich St, or of Cam Scarlett getting brought down behind the LOS by the weakside defender.

This part of the discussion is really apples and oranges.  The hallmark of Shaw's offense is its predictability.  "We are who we are" is as much a confirmation of that as one can ask for.  I suggest it's inherently impossible for this scheme to be considered "creative" in the same sense as what we have seen at points in the past.  Everyone knows what's coming and either they stop it or they don't.

Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Personally I only have two wishes for the offense to think about over the off-season:  1) Widen the splits on "Power" ever so slightly to keep the backside defender half a step further away from the ballcarrier; and 2) Figure out a drill to keep the offense running down the field after a big gain while getting the next play in quickly to avoid those stupid DOG penalties.  If Shaw and Tavita can get those two things right then I don't care how many times I yawn in the stands and laugh to myself that I correctly predicted the play call.
 

[qwerty49]

So in addition to the games that people felt we lost (or were way too close) because of uncreative coaching, do people feel we won games because of good (in game) coaching?

Teejers pointed out a couple of examples above.  Part of the issue is highlighted by your choice of wording -- consciously or not, you juxtaposed "uncreative" with "good."  You didn't use the word "creative" or "unpredictable."  The problem is that under Shaw, "good" coaching means that grinding and turtling was successful.  From Shaw's perspective, all that counts is the W. 

A lot of us fans have a slightly different perspective.  We remember how Ralston and Vermeil took advantage of Plunkett's talents and built a great passing game and an offense that was finally able to beat $C.  We remember how Walsh installed a complex playbook that somehow did not require a QB to sit on the bench for 2-3 years to learn it, and that those QBs were not necessarily as talented as Plunkett or Luck.  So there's always the temptation to compare our current offensive scheme with what we might have seen in the past.  And yes, in those days we never had as many wins, but even in this "winning era" our current offensive scheme is tarred by visions of the Fiesta Bowl, or of Mich St, or of Cam Scarlett getting brought down behind the LOS by the weakside defender.

This part of the discussion is really apples and oranges.  The hallmark of Shaw's offense is its predictability.  "We are who we are" is as much a confirmation of that as one can ask for.  I suggest it's inherently impossible for this scheme to be considered "creative" in the same sense as what we have seen at points in the past.  Everyone knows what's coming and either they stop it or they don't.

Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Personally I only have two wishes for the offense to think about over the off-season:  1) Widen the splits on "Power" ever so slightly to keep the backside defender half a step further away from the ballcarrier; and 2) Figure out a drill to keep the offense running down the field after a big gain while getting the next play in quickly to avoid those stupid DOG penalties.  If Shaw and Tavita can get those two things right then I don't care how many times I yawn in the stands and laugh to myself that I correctly predicted the play call.
 

[qwerty49]

So in addition to the games that people felt we lost (or were way too close) because of uncreative coaching, do people feel we won games because of good (in game) coaching?

Teejers pointed out a couple of examples above.  Part of the issue is highlighted by your choice of wording -- consciously or not, you juxtaposed "uncreative" with "good."  You didn't use the word "creative" or "unpredictable."  The problem is that under Shaw, "good" coaching means that grinding and turtling was successful.  From Shaw's perspective, all that counts is the W. 

A lot of us fans have a slightly different perspective.  We remember how Ralston and Vermeil took advantage of Plunkett's talents and built a great passing game and an offense that was finally able to beat $C.  We remember how Walsh installed a complex playbook that somehow did not require a QB to sit on the bench for 2-3 years to learn it, and that those QBs were not necessarily as talented as Plunkett or Luck.  So there's always the temptation to compare our current offensive scheme with what we might have seen in the past.  And yes, in those days we never had as many wins, but even in this "winning era" our current offensive scheme is tarred by visions of the Fiesta Bowl, or of Mich St, or of Cam Scarlett getting brought down behind the LOS by the weakside defender.

This part of the discussion is really apples and oranges.  The hallmark of Shaw's offense is its predictability.  "We are who we are" is as much a confirmation of that as one can ask for.  I suggest it's inherently impossible for this scheme to be considered "creative" in the same sense as what we have seen at points in the past.  Everyone knows what's coming and either they stop it or they don't.

Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Personally I only have two wishes for the offense to think about over the off-season:  1) Widen the splits on "Power" ever so slightly to keep the backside defender half a step further away from the ballcarrier; and 2) Figure out a drill to keep the offense running down the field after a big gain while getting the next play in quickly to avoid those stupid DOG penalties.  If Shaw and Tavita can get those two things right then I don't care how many times I yawn in the stands and laugh to myself that I correctly predicted the play call.
 

[CornFed]

There is something intensely satisfying in Shaw's style of offense on those occasions when we get a chance to see shots of opposing players on the sideline crying.  🤣

In this brand the potential attraction is the demoralizing effect of our OL and TE's.

[CornFed]

There is something intensely satisfying in Shaw's style of offense on those occasions when we get a chance to see shots of opposing players on the sideline crying.  🤣

In this brand the potential attraction is the demoralizing effect of our OL and TE's.

[CornFed]

There is something intensely satisfying in Shaw's style of offense on those occasions when we get a chance to see shots of opposing players on the sideline crying.  🤣

In this brand the potential attraction is the demoralizing effect of our OL and TE's.

[CornFed]

There is something intensely satisfying in Shaw's style of offense on those occasions when we get a chance to see shots of opposing players on the sideline crying.  🤣

In this brand the potential attraction is the demoralizing effect of our OL and TE's.

[stupac2]

Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Either that was the only series you watched or you're casting way too narrow of a net for unpredictability. I don't understand why running on 4th and short counts as predictable but a playfake or bootleg or similar apparently also counts as predictable. (Also, the entire point of those surprise plays is that they're surprises, you can't bring them out all the time.)

At any rate, going from memory in an exercise like this is flawed, especially if you're not defining your terms ahead of time (what counts as predictable, etc). Memory is ridiculously fallible.

[stupac2]

Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Either that was the only series you watched or you're casting way too narrow of a net for unpredictability. I don't understand why running on 4th and short counts as predictable but a playfake or bootleg or similar apparently also counts as predictable. (Also, the entire point of those surprise plays is that they're surprises, you can't bring them out all the time.)

At any rate, going from memory in an exercise like this is flawed, especially if you're not defining your terms ahead of time (what counts as predictable, etc). Memory is ridiculously fallible.

[stupac2]

Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Either that was the only series you watched or you're casting way too narrow of a net for unpredictability. I don't understand why running on 4th and short counts as predictable but a playfake or bootleg or similar apparently also counts as predictable. (Also, the entire point of those surprise plays is that they're surprises, you can't bring them out all the time.)

At any rate, going from memory in an exercise like this is flawed, especially if you're not defining your terms ahead of time (what counts as predictable, etc). Memory is ridiculously fallible.

[stupac2]

Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Either that was the only series you watched or you're casting way too narrow of a net for unpredictability. I don't understand why running on 4th and short counts as predictable but a playfake or bootleg or similar apparently also counts as predictable. (Also, the entire point of those surprise plays is that they're surprises, you can't bring them out all the time.)

At any rate, going from memory in an exercise like this is flawed, especially if you're not defining your terms ahead of time (what counts as predictable, etc). Memory is ridiculously fallible.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18390.msg219158#msg219158 date=1514331342]Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Either that was the only series you watched or you're casting way too narrow of a net for unpredictability. I don't understand why running on 4th and short counts as predictable but a playfake or bootleg or similar apparently also counts as predictable. (Also, the entire point of those surprise plays is that they're surprises, you can't bring them out all the time.)

At any rate, going from memory in an exercise like this is flawed, especially if you're not defining your terms ahead of time (what counts as predictable, etc). Memory is ridiculously fallible.
[/quote]

I'm glad to defer to your superior memory....please tell me when we ran a bootleg or play fake on 4th and 1 with the game on the line this year. 

And to reiterate, what surprised me was that we decided to go for it in the first place.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18390.msg219158#msg219158 date=1514331342]Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Either that was the only series you watched or you're casting way too narrow of a net for unpredictability. I don't understand why running on 4th and short counts as predictable but a playfake or bootleg or similar apparently also counts as predictable. (Also, the entire point of those surprise plays is that they're surprises, you can't bring them out all the time.)

At any rate, going from memory in an exercise like this is flawed, especially if you're not defining your terms ahead of time (what counts as predictable, etc). Memory is ridiculously fallible.
[/quote]

I'm glad to defer to your superior memory....please tell me when we ran a bootleg or play fake on 4th and 1 with the game on the line this year. 

And to reiterate, what surprised me was that we decided to go for it in the first place.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18390.msg219158#msg219158 date=1514331342]Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Either that was the only series you watched or you're casting way too narrow of a net for unpredictability. I don't understand why running on 4th and short counts as predictable but a playfake or bootleg or similar apparently also counts as predictable. (Also, the entire point of those surprise plays is that they're surprises, you can't bring them out all the time.)

At any rate, going from memory in an exercise like this is flawed, especially if you're not defining your terms ahead of time (what counts as predictable, etc). Memory is ridiculously fallible.
[/quote]

I'm glad to defer to your superior memory....please tell me when we ran a bootleg or play fake on 4th and 1 with the game on the line this year. 

And to reiterate, what surprised me was that we decided to go for it in the first place.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18390.msg219158#msg219158 date=1514331342]Having said all this, I confess there was indeed one time this year where an in-game decision surprised me.  And that was when Shaw decided to go for it on 4th down instead of kicking the FG in the CCG.  But after the decision was made, there was no doubt in my mind what the playcall was going to be.

Either that was the only series you watched or you're casting way too narrow of a net for unpredictability. I don't understand why running on 4th and short counts as predictable but a playfake or bootleg or similar apparently also counts as predictable. (Also, the entire point of those surprise plays is that they're surprises, you can't bring them out all the time.)

At any rate, going from memory in an exercise like this is flawed, especially if you're not defining your terms ahead of time (what counts as predictable, etc). Memory is ridiculously fallible.
[/quote]

I'm glad to defer to your superior memory....please tell me when we ran a bootleg or play fake on 4th and 1 with the game on the line this year. 

And to reiterate, what surprised me was that we decided to go for it in the first place.

[lex24]

Yeah there are “probably” others. Like 70 of them. I love the cherry picking. Pick a couple and ignore the rest. It’s a system. It’s worked remarkably well.  I know I know 1999 and Husak. Right

The Oregon home game where Stanford just ground Oregon down - including several fourth and short conversions, IIRC - for 3.7 quarters (when Oregon made a mini-run and was a second onside kick recovery away from having the chance to steal it).  That game was a good one for Coach Shaw (where sticking with the grind) was the best call.  There probably are others - maybe at ASU in CCG - but not a lot stand out (to this fan, anyway).

[lex24]

Yeah there are “probably” others. Like 70 of them. I love the cherry picking. Pick a couple and ignore the rest. It’s a system. It’s worked remarkably well.  I know I know 1999 and Husak. Right

The Oregon home game where Stanford just ground Oregon down - including several fourth and short conversions, IIRC - for 3.7 quarters (when Oregon made a mini-run and was a second onside kick recovery away from having the chance to steal it).  That game was a good one for Coach Shaw (where sticking with the grind) was the best call.  There probably are others - maybe at ASU in CCG - but not a lot stand out (to this fan, anyway).

[lex24]

Yeah there are “probably” others. Like 70 of them. I love the cherry picking. Pick a couple and ignore the rest. It’s a system. It’s worked remarkably well.  I know I know 1999 and Husak. Right

The Oregon home game where Stanford just ground Oregon down - including several fourth and short conversions, IIRC - for 3.7 quarters (when Oregon made a mini-run and was a second onside kick recovery away from having the chance to steal it).  That game was a good one for Coach Shaw (where sticking with the grind) was the best call.  There probably are others - maybe at ASU in CCG - but not a lot stand out (to this fan, anyway).

[lex24]

Yeah there are “probably” others. Like 70 of them. I love the cherry picking. Pick a couple and ignore the rest. It’s a system. It’s worked remarkably well.  I know I know 1999 and Husak. Right

The Oregon home game where Stanford just ground Oregon down - including several fourth and short conversions, IIRC - for 3.7 quarters (when Oregon made a mini-run and was a second onside kick recovery away from having the chance to steal it).  That game was a good one for Coach Shaw (where sticking with the grind) was the best call.  There probably are others - maybe at ASU in CCG - but not a lot stand out (to this fan, anyway).

[washingtonismoney]

I'm glad to defer to your superior memory....please tell me when we ran a bootleg or play fake on 4th and 1 with the game on the line this year. 

We ran a play fake on 3rd and short literally earlier that game. The conversion was wiped out by penalty.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm glad to defer to your superior memory....please tell me when we ran a bootleg or play fake on 4th and 1 with the game on the line this year. 

We ran a play fake on 3rd and short literally earlier that game. The conversion was wiped out by penalty.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm glad to defer to your superior memory....please tell me when we ran a bootleg or play fake on 4th and 1 with the game on the line this year. 

We ran a play fake on 3rd and short literally earlier that game. The conversion was wiped out by penalty.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm glad to defer to your superior memory....please tell me when we ran a bootleg or play fake on 4th and 1 with the game on the line this year. 

We ran a play fake on 3rd and short literally earlier that game. The conversion was wiped out by penalty.

[Spiny_Norman]

Coaching news from the Stanford football season ticketholder newsletter.

Expect assistant coaches hiring news for the Cardinal in the near future. We have two immediate positions to fill -- the offensive line coach and running game coordinator vacated by Mike Bloomgren, now the head coach at Rice, and a 10th assistant coaching position newly created by NCAA rules starting Jan. 9. We are likely to add another offensive coach to the Stanford staff with this spot.

[Spiny_Norman]

Coaching news from the Stanford football season ticketholder newsletter.

Expect assistant coaches hiring news for the Cardinal in the near future. We have two immediate positions to fill -- the offensive line coach and running game coordinator vacated by Mike Bloomgren, now the head coach at Rice, and a 10th assistant coaching position newly created by NCAA rules starting Jan. 9. We are likely to add another offensive coach to the Stanford staff with this spot.

[Spiny_Norman]

Coaching news from the Stanford football season ticketholder newsletter.

Expect assistant coaches hiring news for the Cardinal in the near future. We have two immediate positions to fill -- the offensive line coach and running game coordinator vacated by Mike Bloomgren, now the head coach at Rice, and a 10th assistant coaching position newly created by NCAA rules starting Jan. 9. We are likely to add another offensive coach to the Stanford staff with this spot.

[Spiny_Norman]

Coaching news from the Stanford football season ticketholder newsletter.

Expect assistant coaches hiring news for the Cardinal in the near future. We have two immediate positions to fill -- the offensive line coach and running game coordinator vacated by Mike Bloomgren, now the head coach at Rice, and a 10th assistant coaching position newly created by NCAA rules starting Jan. 9. We are likely to add another offensive coach to the Stanford staff with this spot.

[Goose]

Goose, if you can't allow yourself to criticize the fourth down call against MSU in the Rose Bowl . . .  Hell, I was sitting right next to Terry, the biggest of Shaw supporters, and turned to him and asked "That's the best we can do after calling a timeout?  What game has Shaw been watching?"  And Terry replied "I don't know."  The point is:  even he was in disbelief.

The reason I can't bring myself to criticize the call is that I don't think it was unquestionably a bad call, not that I am a "Shaw supporter". I don't base my opinion about a call based on whose idea it was. There are lots of other calls, like a bootleg run to the right, that I wouldn't have criticized either (even though probably it wouldn't have worked if the right end blocked as poorly as he did on the play we did run). I wouldn't have much liked a "statue of liberty" play at that point, I grant you  :). Ty Montgomery got injured at the beginning of the 4th quarter, so our receivers were even more limited than they were earlier in the game. One could question Hewitt getting the carry, because if things are stuffed at the line, there is no chance he could bounce outside. OTOH, if you need a "push", you get more from him than Gaffney. Our line wasn't winning the battle in the trenches in the second half. Later, without Ty, MSU could pretty much play man with the corners and rush everybody else. A pass play is very high risk because we were certainly not getting open early, and with MSU in all the gaps to stop the run, if there is no run fake they would just keep on coming and get to Hogan pretty quick. If there is a run fake and they bite, Hogan may have had a little time. However, I doubt we would have anybody open. My preferred alternate call is the QB run to the right after a fake handoff, or Hogan straight ahead. If you look at the replay, we got a pretty good block from our center. A QB sneak would have been just about as vanilla as possible, but probably would have worked.

Just to make things interesting, what was your preferred alternative(s), and why do you think they are clearly better than what Shaw did or what I suggested above?

There are FAR TOO MANY of these moments/dud games.  And the derp counter doesn't include games Stanford won (see OSU this past season).  Many of you say "we won the game, so who cares?"  A few of us say "it matters because it reveals that the O is not playing up to snuff."

You said it. the "O" wasn't playing "up to snuff". The play calling wasn't the problem. The execution stank, and OSU's defense was outplaying our offense.

And the problem isn't a bad play call here and there at critical times, or too many DOGs, or too many timeouts called to avoid DOGs (though they are all manifestations of a non-optimal offense).

I have to agree about the DOGs. It shouldn't happen, and is so "un-Shaw" that I have never been able to explain it. That is something that is under our control, and needs to be fixed. Maybe the new Offensive Cordinater can fix it  :).

The problems are (i) a recurring inability to recognize game situation/tenor and adjust plays accordingly (at Utah, MSU, back-to-back SC end games, etc.), and (ii) a game plan that never has the D on its heels.

Our game plan often has the D on their heels. They know exactly what we are going to do, they can't stop it, and they know it. That is the whole TWU, "intellectual brutality", etc. approach. You seem to prefer more finesse. I am fine with that as an addition, but it is not a substitute.
It is also not clear to me that we could get better results by "adjusting our plays accordingly". There are no "magic" plays. You have to be able to execute the plays. I would agree that it often "feels like" we play too conservatively when things are not going well. However, sometimes we manage to right the ship. It may be that going more aggressive would actually make things worse, especially if we don't have the appropriate talent. With Chryst as the QB, I don't think it mattered, he couldn't do it. With Costello, as with Hogan, things may open up. Shaw has stated that he felt that he was too conservative at WSU. The bowl game could be interesting. Frankly, I hope we don't need to find out.

Does anyone think the 'Niners have great separators at the skill positions?  Yet they run an offense where receivers (WRs, TEs, and RBs) are on occasion WIDE open.  That is a result of a game plan that has the D guessing, and missing assignments, often as a result of misdirection plays.  Against Tennessee - a great defense - there were at least 3 such instances of wide open receivers (and on one of them Jimmy GQ missed him).

AYFKM? The Niners 5-10. Yes, they are lots better with Jimmy GQ, but making it sound like they have receivers running wide open all the time is just not so. They aren't (yet) a very good team, and once defenses realize what they are doing with the new, competent, QB, things are going to get lots harder for him. What is fooling defenses right now is that the Niners are actually able to execute the play that was called, so that they work.  It isn't that Shanahan suddenly figured out how to call plays.

We NEVER see that at Stanford.  And the only reason for that is because the coach chooses to run a straightforward (literally and figuratively) run-based offense, where misdirection just isn't in the "really complex playbook" [insert eye-rolling emoji here].

I seem to recall seeing CMac pretty wide open against USC in 2016, and also against Iowa the year before. Seems to me that Rector ran a long way on reverses fairly often. Isn't that misdirection?  I can understand the argument that we are too "vanilla", but using terms like "never" just isn't accurate, IMHO.

P.S.  To whomever posted that the Fiesta Bowl result pretty much didn't matter . . . please.  Andrew Luck & Co. deserved to go out a winner, and I'd bet good money it "mattered" to them.  Hell, it mattered to me, and all I did was spend thousands of dollars so my family could support the team and enjoy the bowl game.

Totally agree that it mattered. Totally agree that not winning sucked. However, Shaw made a choice that he has explained to my satisfaction at least. Most times, we make the FG. That time, we didn't. Does that make it bad strategy? Most times, no. Consider trying to throw the ball against Cal at the end of the game instead of giving it to Toby. What works is brilliant, and what doesn't is stupid.

[Goose]

Goose, if you can't allow yourself to criticize the fourth down call against MSU in the Rose Bowl . . .  Hell, I was sitting right next to Terry, the biggest of Shaw supporters, and turned to him and asked "That's the best we can do after calling a timeout?  What game has Shaw been watching?"  And Terry replied "I don't know."  The point is:  even he was in disbelief.

The reason I can't bring myself to criticize the call is that I don't think it was unquestionably a bad call, not that I am a "Shaw supporter". I don't base my opinion about a call based on whose idea it was. There are lots of other calls, like a bootleg run to the right, that I wouldn't have criticized either (even though probably it wouldn't have worked if the right end blocked as poorly as he did on the play we did run). I wouldn't have much liked a "statue of liberty" play at that point, I grant you  :). Ty Montgomery got injured at the beginning of the 4th quarter, so our receivers were even more limited than they were earlier in the game. One could question Hewitt getting the carry, because if things are stuffed at the line, there is no chance he could bounce outside. OTOH, if you need a "push", you get more from him than Gaffney. Our line wasn't winning the battle in the trenches in the second half. Later, without Ty, MSU could pretty much play man with the corners and rush everybody else. A pass play is very high risk because we were certainly not getting open early, and with MSU in all the gaps to stop the run, if there is no run fake they would just keep on coming and get to Hogan pretty quick. If there is a run fake and they bite, Hogan may have had a little time. However, I doubt we would have anybody open. My preferred alternate call is the QB run to the right after a fake handoff, or Hogan straight ahead. If you look at the replay, we got a pretty good block from our center. A QB sneak would have been just about as vanilla as possible, but probably would have worked.

Just to make things interesting, what was your preferred alternative(s), and why do you think they are clearly better than what Shaw did or what I suggested above?

There are FAR TOO MANY of these moments/dud games.  And the derp counter doesn't include games Stanford won (see OSU this past season).  Many of you say "we won the game, so who cares?"  A few of us say "it matters because it reveals that the O is not playing up to snuff."

You said it. the "O" wasn't playing "up to snuff". The play calling wasn't the problem. The execution stank, and OSU's defense was outplaying our offense.

And the problem isn't a bad play call here and there at critical times, or too many DOGs, or too many timeouts called to avoid DOGs (though they are all manifestations of a non-optimal offense).

I have to agree about the DOGs. It shouldn't happen, and is so "un-Shaw" that I have never been able to explain it. That is something that is under our control, and needs to be fixed. Maybe the new Offensive Cordinater can fix it  :).

The problems are (i) a recurring inability to recognize game situation/tenor and adjust plays accordingly (at Utah, MSU, back-to-back SC end games, etc.), and (ii) a game plan that never has the D on its heels.

Our game plan often has the D on their heels. They know exactly what we are going to do, they can't stop it, and they know it. That is the whole TWU, "intellectual brutality", etc. approach. You seem to prefer more finesse. I am fine with that as an addition, but it is not a substitute.
It is also not clear to me that we could get better results by "adjusting our plays accordingly". There are no "magic" plays. You have to be able to execute the plays. I would agree that it often "feels like" we play too conservatively when things are not going well. However, sometimes we manage to right the ship. It may be that going more aggressive would actually make things worse, especially if we don't have the appropriate talent. With Chryst as the QB, I don't think it mattered, he couldn't do it. With Costello, as with Hogan, things may open up. Shaw has stated that he felt that he was too conservative at WSU. The bowl game could be interesting. Frankly, I hope we don't need to find out.

Does anyone think the 'Niners have great separators at the skill positions?  Yet they run an offense where receivers (WRs, TEs, and RBs) are on occasion WIDE open.  That is a result of a game plan that has the D guessing, and missing assignments, often as a result of misdirection plays.  Against Tennessee - a great defense - there were at least 3 such instances of wide open receivers (and on one of them Jimmy GQ missed him).

AYFKM? The Niners 5-10. Yes, they are lots better with Jimmy GQ, but making it sound like they have receivers running wide open all the time is just not so. They aren't (yet) a very good team, and once defenses realize what they are doing with the new, competent, QB, things are going to get lots harder for him. What is fooling defenses right now is that the Niners are actually able to execute the play that was called, so that they work.  It isn't that Shanahan suddenly figured out how to call plays.

We NEVER see that at Stanford.  And the only reason for that is because the coach chooses to run a straightforward (literally and figuratively) run-based offense, where misdirection just isn't in the "really complex playbook" [insert eye-rolling emoji here].

I seem to recall seeing CMac pretty wide open against USC in 2016, and also against Iowa the year before. Seems to me that Rector ran a long way on reverses fairly often. Isn't that misdirection?  I can understand the argument that we are too "vanilla", but using terms like "never" just isn't accurate, IMHO.

P.S.  To whomever posted that the Fiesta Bowl result pretty much didn't matter . . . please.  Andrew Luck & Co. deserved to go out a winner, and I'd bet good money it "mattered" to them.  Hell, it mattered to me, and all I did was spend thousands of dollars so my family could support the team and enjoy the bowl game.

Totally agree that it mattered. Totally agree that not winning sucked. However, Shaw made a choice that he has explained to my satisfaction at least. Most times, we make the FG. That time, we didn't. Does that make it bad strategy? Most times, no. Consider trying to throw the ball against Cal at the end of the game instead of giving it to Toby. What works is brilliant, and what doesn't is stupid.

[Goose]

Goose, if you can't allow yourself to criticize the fourth down call against MSU in the Rose Bowl . . .  Hell, I was sitting right next to Terry, the biggest of Shaw supporters, and turned to him and asked "That's the best we can do after calling a timeout?  What game has Shaw been watching?"  And Terry replied "I don't know."  The point is:  even he was in disbelief.

The reason I can't bring myself to criticize the call is that I don't think it was unquestionably a bad call, not that I am a "Shaw supporter". I don't base my opinion about a call based on whose idea it was. There are lots of other calls, like a bootleg run to the right, that I wouldn't have criticized either (even though probably it wouldn't have worked if the right end blocked as poorly as he did on the play we did run). I wouldn't have much liked a "statue of liberty" play at that point, I grant you  :). Ty Montgomery got injured at the beginning of the 4th quarter, so our receivers were even more limited than they were earlier in the game. One could question Hewitt getting the carry, because if things are stuffed at the line, there is no chance he could bounce outside. OTOH, if you need a "push", you get more from him than Gaffney. Our line wasn't winning the battle in the trenches in the second half. Later, without Ty, MSU could pretty much play man with the corners and rush everybody else. A pass play is very high risk because we were certainly not getting open early, and with MSU in all the gaps to stop the run, if there is no run fake they would just keep on coming and get to Hogan pretty quick. If there is a run fake and they bite, Hogan may have had a little time. However, I doubt we would have anybody open. My preferred alternate call is the QB run to the right after a fake handoff, or Hogan straight ahead. If you look at the replay, we got a pretty good block from our center. A QB sneak would have been just about as vanilla as possible, but probably would have worked.

Just to make things interesting, what was your preferred alternative(s), and why do you think they are clearly better than what Shaw did or what I suggested above?

There are FAR TOO MANY of these moments/dud games.  And the derp counter doesn't include games Stanford won (see OSU this past season).  Many of you say "we won the game, so who cares?"  A few of us say "it matters because it reveals that the O is not playing up to snuff."

You said it. the "O" wasn't playing "up to snuff". The play calling wasn't the problem. The execution stank, and OSU's defense was outplaying our offense.

And the problem isn't a bad play call here and there at critical times, or too many DOGs, or too many timeouts called to avoid DOGs (though they are all manifestations of a non-optimal offense).

I have to agree about the DOGs. It shouldn't happen, and is so "un-Shaw" that I have never been able to explain it. That is something that is under our control, and needs to be fixed. Maybe the new Offensive Cordinater can fix it  :).

The problems are (i) a recurring inability to recognize game situation/tenor and adjust plays accordingly (at Utah, MSU, back-to-back SC end games, etc.), and (ii) a game plan that never has the D on its heels.

Our game plan often has the D on their heels. They know exactly what we are going to do, they can't stop it, and they know it. That is the whole TWU, "intellectual brutality", etc. approach. You seem to prefer more finesse. I am fine with that as an addition, but it is not a substitute.
It is also not clear to me that we could get better results by "adjusting our plays accordingly". There are no "magic" plays. You have to be able to execute the plays. I would agree that it often "feels like" we play too conservatively when things are not going well. However, sometimes we manage to right the ship. It may be that going more aggressive would actually make things worse, especially if we don't have the appropriate talent. With Chryst as the QB, I don't think it mattered, he couldn't do it. With Costello, as with Hogan, things may open up. Shaw has stated that he felt that he was too conservative at WSU. The bowl game could be interesting. Frankly, I hope we don't need to find out.

Does anyone think the 'Niners have great separators at the skill positions?  Yet they run an offense where receivers (WRs, TEs, and RBs) are on occasion WIDE open.  That is a result of a game plan that has the D guessing, and missing assignments, often as a result of misdirection plays.  Against Tennessee - a great defense - there were at least 3 such instances of wide open receivers (and on one of them Jimmy GQ missed him).

AYFKM? The Niners 5-10. Yes, they are lots better with Jimmy GQ, but making it sound like they have receivers running wide open all the time is just not so. They aren't (yet) a very good team, and once defenses realize what they are doing with the new, competent, QB, things are going to get lots harder for him. What is fooling defenses right now is that the Niners are actually able to execute the play that was called, so that they work.  It isn't that Shanahan suddenly figured out how to call plays.

We NEVER see that at Stanford.  And the only reason for that is because the coach chooses to run a straightforward (literally and figuratively) run-based offense, where misdirection just isn't in the "really complex playbook" [insert eye-rolling emoji here].

I seem to recall seeing CMac pretty wide open against USC in 2016, and also against Iowa the year before. Seems to me that Rector ran a long way on reverses fairly often. Isn't that misdirection?  I can understand the argument that we are too "vanilla", but using terms like "never" just isn't accurate, IMHO.

P.S.  To whomever posted that the Fiesta Bowl result pretty much didn't matter . . . please.  Andrew Luck & Co. deserved to go out a winner, and I'd bet good money it "mattered" to them.  Hell, it mattered to me, and all I did was spend thousands of dollars so my family could support the team and enjoy the bowl game.

Totally agree that it mattered. Totally agree that not winning sucked. However, Shaw made a choice that he has explained to my satisfaction at least. Most times, we make the FG. That time, we didn't. Does that make it bad strategy? Most times, no. Consider trying to throw the ball against Cal at the end of the game instead of giving it to Toby. What works is brilliant, and what doesn't is stupid.

[Goose]

Goose, if you can't allow yourself to criticize the fourth down call against MSU in the Rose Bowl . . .  Hell, I was sitting right next to Terry, the biggest of Shaw supporters, and turned to him and asked "That's the best we can do after calling a timeout?  What game has Shaw been watching?"  And Terry replied "I don't know."  The point is:  even he was in disbelief.

The reason I can't bring myself to criticize the call is that I don't think it was unquestionably a bad call, not that I am a "Shaw supporter". I don't base my opinion about a call based on whose idea it was. There are lots of other calls, like a bootleg run to the right, that I wouldn't have criticized either (even though probably it wouldn't have worked if the right end blocked as poorly as he did on the play we did run). I wouldn't have much liked a "statue of liberty" play at that point, I grant you  :). Ty Montgomery got injured at the beginning of the 4th quarter, so our receivers were even more limited than they were earlier in the game. One could question Hewitt getting the carry, because if things are stuffed at the line, there is no chance he could bounce outside. OTOH, if you need a "push", you get more from him than Gaffney. Our line wasn't winning the battle in the trenches in the second half. Later, without Ty, MSU could pretty much play man with the corners and rush everybody else. A pass play is very high risk because we were certainly not getting open early, and with MSU in all the gaps to stop the run, if there is no run fake they would just keep on coming and get to Hogan pretty quick. If there is a run fake and they bite, Hogan may have had a little time. However, I doubt we would have anybody open. My preferred alternate call is the QB run to the right after a fake handoff, or Hogan straight ahead. If you look at the replay, we got a pretty good block from our center. A QB sneak would have been just about as vanilla as possible, but probably would have worked.

Just to make things interesting, what was your preferred alternative(s), and why do you think they are clearly better than what Shaw did or what I suggested above?

There are FAR TOO MANY of these moments/dud games.  And the derp counter doesn't include games Stanford won (see OSU this past season).  Many of you say "we won the game, so who cares?"  A few of us say "it matters because it reveals that the O is not playing up to snuff."

You said it. the "O" wasn't playing "up to snuff". The play calling wasn't the problem. The execution stank, and OSU's defense was outplaying our offense.

And the problem isn't a bad play call here and there at critical times, or too many DOGs, or too many timeouts called to avoid DOGs (though they are all manifestations of a non-optimal offense).

I have to agree about the DOGs. It shouldn't happen, and is so "un-Shaw" that I have never been able to explain it. That is something that is under our control, and needs to be fixed. Maybe the new Offensive Cordinater can fix it  :).

The problems are (i) a recurring inability to recognize game situation/tenor and adjust plays accordingly (at Utah, MSU, back-to-back SC end games, etc.), and (ii) a game plan that never has the D on its heels.

Our game plan often has the D on their heels. They know exactly what we are going to do, they can't stop it, and they know it. That is the whole TWU, "intellectual brutality", etc. approach. You seem to prefer more finesse. I am fine with that as an addition, but it is not a substitute.
It is also not clear to me that we could get better results by "adjusting our plays accordingly". There are no "magic" plays. You have to be able to execute the plays. I would agree that it often "feels like" we play too conservatively when things are not going well. However, sometimes we manage to right the ship. It may be that going more aggressive would actually make things worse, especially if we don't have the appropriate talent. With Chryst as the QB, I don't think it mattered, he couldn't do it. With Costello, as with Hogan, things may open up. Shaw has stated that he felt that he was too conservative at WSU. The bowl game could be interesting. Frankly, I hope we don't need to find out.

Does anyone think the 'Niners have great separators at the skill positions?  Yet they run an offense where receivers (WRs, TEs, and RBs) are on occasion WIDE open.  That is a result of a game plan that has the D guessing, and missing assignments, often as a result of misdirection plays.  Against Tennessee - a great defense - there were at least 3 such instances of wide open receivers (and on one of them Jimmy GQ missed him).

AYFKM? The Niners 5-10. Yes, they are lots better with Jimmy GQ, but making it sound like they have receivers running wide open all the time is just not so. They aren't (yet) a very good team, and once defenses realize what they are doing with the new, competent, QB, things are going to get lots harder for him. What is fooling defenses right now is that the Niners are actually able to execute the play that was called, so that they work.  It isn't that Shanahan suddenly figured out how to call plays.

We NEVER see that at Stanford.  And the only reason for that is because the coach chooses to run a straightforward (literally and figuratively) run-based offense, where misdirection just isn't in the "really complex playbook" [insert eye-rolling emoji here].

I seem to recall seeing CMac pretty wide open against USC in 2016, and also against Iowa the year before. Seems to me that Rector ran a long way on reverses fairly often. Isn't that misdirection?  I can understand the argument that we are too "vanilla", but using terms like "never" just isn't accurate, IMHO.

P.S.  To whomever posted that the Fiesta Bowl result pretty much didn't matter . . . please.  Andrew Luck & Co. deserved to go out a winner, and I'd bet good money it "mattered" to them.  Hell, it mattered to me, and all I did was spend thousands of dollars so my family could support the team and enjoy the bowl game.

Totally agree that it mattered. Totally agree that not winning sucked. However, Shaw made a choice that he has explained to my satisfaction at least. Most times, we make the FG. That time, we didn't. Does that make it bad strategy? Most times, no. Consider trying to throw the ball against Cal at the end of the game instead of giving it to Toby. What works is brilliant, and what doesn't is stupid.

[stupac2]

What works is brilliant, and what doesn't is stupid.

That's the essential problem with these arguments (besides the fact that no one actually tallies up the scores for the liked/didn't like worked/didn't work punnett squares to see if their post hoc impressions are accurate at all). It's really easy to look at a game where nothing worked and say "The playcalling sucked!" But as you run down with MSU, sometimes nothing is working. You can say that's a problem with coaching, and sure, I suppose, but that 2013 team had some serious flaws. Didn't we complete <10 passes to TEs that year? We had no possession receivers who could work the middle, so the gameplan was "run it a bunch and throw deep/screens". It worked okay, and hell, if it weren't for a few bad breaks (that uncatchable PI on Lyons still pisses me off) it would've won that game too! But we didn't get all the breaks we needed, MSU was a really good team, and we lost. Shit happens.

At any rate, literally any coaching staff will have games like that. What the hell happened to the Patriots against the Dolphins a few weeks ago? You like Shanny and Jimmy GQ in SF? Well good thing Shanny doesn't have a history of farting away big games with dumb playcalls! I sure haven't spent this entire NFL offseason seeing postmortems of that, no siree bob. Good thing Nick Saban has never done anything stupid to lose a big game at the last minute, good thing Urban Meyer has never been blown out, and good thing Dabo Swinny never loses to unranked teams. It's just stubborn old David Shaw sitting there with his winning percentage in the same league as those guys with less talent and (most years) a harder schedule, derping away games because he's a dumb-dumb. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[stupac2]

What works is brilliant, and what doesn't is stupid.

That's the essential problem with these arguments (besides the fact that no one actually tallies up the scores for the liked/didn't like worked/didn't work punnett squares to see if their post hoc impressions are accurate at all). It's really easy to look at a game where nothing worked and say "The playcalling sucked!" But as you run down with MSU, sometimes nothing is working. You can say that's a problem with coaching, and sure, I suppose, but that 2013 team had some serious flaws. Didn't we complete <10 passes to TEs that year? We had no possession receivers who could work the middle, so the gameplan was "run it a bunch and throw deep/screens". It worked okay, and hell, if it weren't for a few bad breaks (that uncatchable PI on Lyons still pisses me off) it would've won that game too! But we didn't get all the breaks we needed, MSU was a really good team, and we lost. Shit happens.

At any rate, literally any coaching staff will have games like that. What the hell happened to the Patriots against the Dolphins a few weeks ago? You like Shanny and Jimmy GQ in SF? Well good thing Shanny doesn't have a history of farting away big games with dumb playcalls! I sure haven't spent this entire NFL offseason seeing postmortems of that, no siree bob. Good thing Nick Saban has never done anything stupid to lose a big game at the last minute, good thing Urban Meyer has never been blown out, and good thing Dabo Swinny never loses to unranked teams. It's just stubborn old David Shaw sitting there with his winning percentage in the same league as those guys with less talent and (most years) a harder schedule, derping away games because he's a dumb-dumb. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[stupac2]

What works is brilliant, and what doesn't is stupid.

That's the essential problem with these arguments (besides the fact that no one actually tallies up the scores for the liked/didn't like worked/didn't work punnett squares to see if their post hoc impressions are accurate at all). It's really easy to look at a game where nothing worked and say "The playcalling sucked!" But as you run down with MSU, sometimes nothing is working. You can say that's a problem with coaching, and sure, I suppose, but that 2013 team had some serious flaws. Didn't we complete <10 passes to TEs that year? We had no possession receivers who could work the middle, so the gameplan was "run it a bunch and throw deep/screens". It worked okay, and hell, if it weren't for a few bad breaks (that uncatchable PI on Lyons still pisses me off) it would've won that game too! But we didn't get all the breaks we needed, MSU was a really good team, and we lost. Shit happens.

At any rate, literally any coaching staff will have games like that. What the hell happened to the Patriots against the Dolphins a few weeks ago? You like Shanny and Jimmy GQ in SF? Well good thing Shanny doesn't have a history of farting away big games with dumb playcalls! I sure haven't spent this entire NFL offseason seeing postmortems of that, no siree bob. Good thing Nick Saban has never done anything stupid to lose a big game at the last minute, good thing Urban Meyer has never been blown out, and good thing Dabo Swinny never loses to unranked teams. It's just stubborn old David Shaw sitting there with his winning percentage in the same league as those guys with less talent and (most years) a harder schedule, derping away games because he's a dumb-dumb. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[stupac2]

What works is brilliant, and what doesn't is stupid.

That's the essential problem with these arguments (besides the fact that no one actually tallies up the scores for the liked/didn't like worked/didn't work punnett squares to see if their post hoc impressions are accurate at all). It's really easy to look at a game where nothing worked and say "The playcalling sucked!" But as you run down with MSU, sometimes nothing is working. You can say that's a problem with coaching, and sure, I suppose, but that 2013 team had some serious flaws. Didn't we complete <10 passes to TEs that year? We had no possession receivers who could work the middle, so the gameplan was "run it a bunch and throw deep/screens". It worked okay, and hell, if it weren't for a few bad breaks (that uncatchable PI on Lyons still pisses me off) it would've won that game too! But we didn't get all the breaks we needed, MSU was a really good team, and we lost. Shit happens.

At any rate, literally any coaching staff will have games like that. What the hell happened to the Patriots against the Dolphins a few weeks ago? You like Shanny and Jimmy GQ in SF? Well good thing Shanny doesn't have a history of farting away big games with dumb playcalls! I sure haven't spent this entire NFL offseason seeing postmortems of that, no siree bob. Good thing Nick Saban has never done anything stupid to lose a big game at the last minute, good thing Urban Meyer has never been blown out, and good thing Dabo Swinny never loses to unranked teams. It's just stubborn old David Shaw sitting there with his winning percentage in the same league as those guys with less talent and (most years) a harder schedule, derping away games because he's a dumb-dumb. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Goose]

We had no possession receivers who could work the middle, so the gameplan was "run it a bunch and throw deep/screens". It worked okay, and hell, if it weren't for a few bad breaks (that uncatchable PI on Lyons still pisses me off) it would've won that game too!

For me, it was the long interception where Rector had it and let the DB take the ball away. In a close game, things like that kill you.

[Goose]

We had no possession receivers who could work the middle, so the gameplan was "run it a bunch and throw deep/screens". It worked okay, and hell, if it weren't for a few bad breaks (that uncatchable PI on Lyons still pisses me off) it would've won that game too!

For me, it was the long interception where Rector had it and let the DB take the ball away. In a close game, things like that kill you.