[qwerty49]

LOL this bun fight is hilarious.

He said time as well as money, so I guess your time on the sidelines counts. As does his half court airball at MBB halftime many moons ago.

McGrath will only vouch for me if I pick the Derby correctly for him. That hasn’t happened for a while.

So Teejers for an opinion to count in your book you have to financially support the program?  Really?  You didn’t actually mean that did you. I’ve gone to a couple hundred games over the years. Although I only hit a couple a year now. So does that count. I mean I don’t financially contribute to a school that I didn’t attend. I don’t travel. So tell me am I entitled to have an opinion that disagrees with you. Oh, McGrath May voucher for me also.  So maybe that counts. 

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18454.msg219938#msg219938 date=1514704116]
CI, I'll refrain from another rant because (i) McGrath vouches for you, and (ii) you support the program with 2 precious resources - your time and money (unlike many folks here who, as far as I can tell, support the program with their mouths/finger strokes only).  I'll only say this:  if you see Stanford's O line up with one player in standard WR spot - and that person is a TE - don't you feel pretty confident/absolutely sure that Stanford is about to run the ball?  I mean, it doesn't take a high school or college football coach to figure this out.  And I don't care who cites which "advanced metrics" - it doesn't change the fact that the kind of play is telegraphed and that it's generally easier to defend a run when you know a run is coming.  I mean . . . c'mon.

But I'm as tired of this debate as everyone else, so I'll move onto something more "positive."  Went to Maples tonight to support the hoops team and what a great game against ןɐɔ. 

Oh, wait . . .

[/quote]

[qwerty49]

LOL this bun fight is hilarious.

He said time as well as money, so I guess your time on the sidelines counts. As does his half court airball at MBB halftime many moons ago.

McGrath will only vouch for me if I pick the Derby correctly for him. That hasn’t happened for a while.

So Teejers for an opinion to count in your book you have to financially support the program?  Really?  You didn’t actually mean that did you. I’ve gone to a couple hundred games over the years. Although I only hit a couple a year now. So does that count. I mean I don’t financially contribute to a school that I didn’t attend. I don’t travel. So tell me am I entitled to have an opinion that disagrees with you. Oh, McGrath May voucher for me also.  So maybe that counts. 

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18454.msg219938#msg219938 date=1514704116]
CI, I'll refrain from another rant because (i) McGrath vouches for you, and (ii) you support the program with 2 precious resources - your time and money (unlike many folks here who, as far as I can tell, support the program with their mouths/finger strokes only).  I'll only say this:  if you see Stanford's O line up with one player in standard WR spot - and that person is a TE - don't you feel pretty confident/absolutely sure that Stanford is about to run the ball?  I mean, it doesn't take a high school or college football coach to figure this out.  And I don't care who cites which "advanced metrics" - it doesn't change the fact that the kind of play is telegraphed and that it's generally easier to defend a run when you know a run is coming.  I mean . . . c'mon.

But I'm as tired of this debate as everyone else, so I'll move onto something more "positive."  Went to Maples tonight to support the hoops team and what a great game against ןɐɔ. 

Oh, wait . . .

[/quote]

[qwerty49]

LOL this bun fight is hilarious.

He said time as well as money, so I guess your time on the sidelines counts. As does his half court airball at MBB halftime many moons ago.

McGrath will only vouch for me if I pick the Derby correctly for him. That hasn’t happened for a while.

So Teejers for an opinion to count in your book you have to financially support the program?  Really?  You didn’t actually mean that did you. I’ve gone to a couple hundred games over the years. Although I only hit a couple a year now. So does that count. I mean I don’t financially contribute to a school that I didn’t attend. I don’t travel. So tell me am I entitled to have an opinion that disagrees with you. Oh, McGrath May voucher for me also.  So maybe that counts. 

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18454.msg219938#msg219938 date=1514704116]
CI, I'll refrain from another rant because (i) McGrath vouches for you, and (ii) you support the program with 2 precious resources - your time and money (unlike many folks here who, as far as I can tell, support the program with their mouths/finger strokes only).  I'll only say this:  if you see Stanford's O line up with one player in standard WR spot - and that person is a TE - don't you feel pretty confident/absolutely sure that Stanford is about to run the ball?  I mean, it doesn't take a high school or college football coach to figure this out.  And I don't care who cites which "advanced metrics" - it doesn't change the fact that the kind of play is telegraphed and that it's generally easier to defend a run when you know a run is coming.  I mean . . . c'mon.

But I'm as tired of this debate as everyone else, so I'll move onto something more "positive."  Went to Maples tonight to support the hoops team and what a great game against ןɐɔ. 

Oh, wait . . .

[/quote]

[qwerty49]

LOL this bun fight is hilarious.

He said time as well as money, so I guess your time on the sidelines counts. As does his half court airball at MBB halftime many moons ago.

McGrath will only vouch for me if I pick the Derby correctly for him. That hasn’t happened for a while.

So Teejers for an opinion to count in your book you have to financially support the program?  Really?  You didn’t actually mean that did you. I’ve gone to a couple hundred games over the years. Although I only hit a couple a year now. So does that count. I mean I don’t financially contribute to a school that I didn’t attend. I don’t travel. So tell me am I entitled to have an opinion that disagrees with you. Oh, McGrath May voucher for me also.  So maybe that counts. 

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18454.msg219938#msg219938 date=1514704116]
CI, I'll refrain from another rant because (i) McGrath vouches for you, and (ii) you support the program with 2 precious resources - your time and money (unlike many folks here who, as far as I can tell, support the program with their mouths/finger strokes only).  I'll only say this:  if you see Stanford's O line up with one player in standard WR spot - and that person is a TE - don't you feel pretty confident/absolutely sure that Stanford is about to run the ball?  I mean, it doesn't take a high school or college football coach to figure this out.  And I don't care who cites which "advanced metrics" - it doesn't change the fact that the kind of play is telegraphed and that it's generally easier to defend a run when you know a run is coming.  I mean . . . c'mon.

But I'm as tired of this debate as everyone else, so I'll move onto something more "positive."  Went to Maples tonight to support the hoops team and what a great game against ןɐɔ. 

Oh, wait . . .

[/quote]

[dabigv13]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.

[dabigv13]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.

[dabigv13]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.

[dabigv13]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.

[Langdude]

[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219898#msg219898 date=1514688019]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.
[/quote]

Shatheists? Shagnostics? Shaman?

-m.

[Langdude]

[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219898#msg219898 date=1514688019]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.
[/quote]

Shatheists? Shagnostics? Shaman?

-m.

[Langdude]

[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219898#msg219898 date=1514688019]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.
[/quote]

Shatheists? Shagnostics? Shaman?

-m.

[Langdude]

[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219898#msg219898 date=1514688019]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.
[/quote]

Shatheists? Shagnostics? Shaman?

-m.

[Hulk01]

I offer this partly for the fans who are more casual, and perhaps unaware of this.

Stanford has an assistant who charts-- by formation, personnel, down and distance, and outcome--every play that it runs in every game.  It does this partly to guard against "playing too much to tendency," the very thing you mention. 

I also am convinced that the "defenses know what is coming" belief that many express here illustrates several cognitive biases to which all of us are prone, in this case creating a bandwagon effect/availability cascade.  One person suspects/believes on thing and voices it, and others who suspect/believe it move from suspicion to certainty. 

We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example, and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.  Similarly, for several years our yards per play were higher running from the wildcat than from our conventional formations.  But a few short gains from the formation convinced a vocal minority that it was a flawed formation which we should abandon--in large part because it appeared to them that "defenses knew what was was coming." 

We're starting to see the same thinking on red zone fades.  By any measure in football, the play has been very effective.  Our heavy use of it, however, seems to be convincing some fans that defenses see the throw coming and that only miracle catches by AW rescue the play from certain failure.  But it's a bitch wicked play to defend to begin with,  When you have college football's equivalent of Dennis Rodman going up for the contested ball, it's almost unfair.

[Hulk01]

I offer this partly for the fans who are more casual, and perhaps unaware of this.

Stanford has an assistant who charts-- by formation, personnel, down and distance, and outcome--every play that it runs in every game.  It does this partly to guard against "playing too much to tendency," the very thing you mention. 

I also am convinced that the "defenses know what is coming" belief that many express here illustrates several cognitive biases to which all of us are prone, in this case creating a bandwagon effect/availability cascade.  One person suspects/believes on thing and voices it, and others who suspect/believe it move from suspicion to certainty. 

We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example, and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.  Similarly, for several years our yards per play were higher running from the wildcat than from our conventional formations.  But a few short gains from the formation convinced a vocal minority that it was a flawed formation which we should abandon--in large part because it appeared to them that "defenses knew what was was coming." 

We're starting to see the same thinking on red zone fades.  By any measure in football, the play has been very effective.  Our heavy use of it, however, seems to be convincing some fans that defenses see the throw coming and that only miracle catches by AW rescue the play from certain failure.  But it's a bitch wicked play to defend to begin with,  When you have college football's equivalent of Dennis Rodman going up for the contested ball, it's almost unfair.

[teejers1]

"count" is your word, not mine, Lex.  I only said I'd refrain from going on a rant (which was only partially true because I went on a mini-rant).

But let me ask you this:  if you are the Athletic Department at Stanford, who should you care more about alienating/disenchanting - (a) long time fans who support your program through thick and thin, or (b) internet fans?  [Unfortunately, we all know the answer is © - the AD only cares about monster donors].  But I think the answer to the rhetorical question is . . . well, never mind, that's what makes it rhetorical.

[teejers1]

"count" is your word, not mine, Lex.  I only said I'd refrain from going on a rant (which was only partially true because I went on a mini-rant).

But let me ask you this:  if you are the Athletic Department at Stanford, who should you care more about alienating/disenchanting - (a) long time fans who support your program through thick and thin, or (b) internet fans?  [Unfortunately, we all know the answer is © - the AD only cares about monster donors].  But I think the answer to the rhetorical question is . . . well, never mind, that's what makes it rhetorical.

[Goose]

We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example,

Possibly true. I am not really sure how often people think we run on first down. You will, I think, grant that we run on first down quite frequently, probably more than most teams but not as much as Army.

and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.

And that is probably one reason we run as often as we do.  :) With Hogan and even more with Luck, we could do real damage on first down when we passed. The last two years, not as much. Hopefully, Costello changes this.

We're starting to see the same thinking on red zone fades.  By any measure in football, the play has been very effective.  Our heavy use of it, however, seems to be convincing some fans that defenses see the throw coming and that only miracle catches by AW rescue the play from certain failure.  But it's a bitch wicked play to defend to begin with,  When you have college football's equivalent of Dennis Rodman going up for the contested ball, it's almost unfair.

As long as a play is working, you should run it. It may not be "sexy", but it wins games. It was interesting that TCU  double covered JJAW as a reply, so we had to flank a slot receiver out on that side to prevent the double coverage. So, it is not like the coaching staff is unaware of the situation on the field. If and when somebody comes up with a good way to defend the play, like a 6'7" safety, we will have to do something else. The whole goal of play calling is to create a situation that puts the defense at a disadvantage that they can't overcome. As long as a certain play does that, changing is stupid.

[Goose]

We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example,

Possibly true. I am not really sure how often people think we run on first down. You will, I think, grant that we run on first down quite frequently, probably more than most teams but not as much as Army.

and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.

And that is probably one reason we run as often as we do.  :) With Hogan and even more with Luck, we could do real damage on first down when we passed. The last two years, not as much. Hopefully, Costello changes this.

We're starting to see the same thinking on red zone fades.  By any measure in football, the play has been very effective.  Our heavy use of it, however, seems to be convincing some fans that defenses see the throw coming and that only miracle catches by AW rescue the play from certain failure.  But it's a bitch wicked play to defend to begin with,  When you have college football's equivalent of Dennis Rodman going up for the contested ball, it's almost unfair.

As long as a play is working, you should run it. It may not be "sexy", but it wins games. It was interesting that TCU  double covered JJAW as a reply, so we had to flank a slot receiver out on that side to prevent the double coverage. So, it is not like the coaching staff is unaware of the situation on the field. If and when somebody comes up with a good way to defend the play, like a 6'7" safety, we will have to do something else. The whole goal of play calling is to create a situation that puts the defense at a disadvantage that they can't overcome. As long as a certain play does that, changing is stupid.

[BostonCard]

I offer this partly for the fans who are more casual, and perhaps unaware of this.

Stanford has an assistant who charts-- by formation, personnel, down and distance, and outcome--every play that it runs in every game.  It does this partly to guard against "playing too much to tendency," the very thing you mention. 

I also am convinced that the "defenses know what is coming" belief that many express here illustrates several cognitive biases to which all of us are prone, in this case creating a bandwagon effect/availability cascade.  One person suspects/believes on thing and voices it, and others who suspect/believe it move from suspicion to certainty. 

We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example, and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.  Similarly, for several years our yards per play were higher running from the wildcat than from our conventional formations.  But a few short gains from the formation convinced a vocal minority that it was a flawed formation which we should abandon--in large part because it appeared to them that "defenses knew what was was coming." 

We're starting to see the same thinking on red zone fades.  By any measure in football, the play has been very effective.  Our heavy use of it, however, seems to be convincing some fans that defenses see the throw coming and that only miracle catches by AW rescue the play from certain failure.  But it's a bitch wicked play to defend to begin with,  When you have college football's equivalent of Dennis Rodman going up for the contested ball, it's almost unfair.

I did the math not long ago.  We run on first down 2/3 of the time and gain an average of 5.8 yards per carry.  Yes, the number is skewed by a bunch of 50+ Yard Bryce Love runs, but at this point it is a feature of the offense.  We pass the football on about 1/3 of first downs and gain about 5 yap.  Note that the run numbers are slightly inflated because dropbacks that result in a sack count as rushing yards, so they take yards away from rushing and inflate the denominator.

BC

[BostonCard]

I offer this partly for the fans who are more casual, and perhaps unaware of this.

Stanford has an assistant who charts-- by formation, personnel, down and distance, and outcome--every play that it runs in every game.  It does this partly to guard against "playing too much to tendency," the very thing you mention. 

I also am convinced that the "defenses know what is coming" belief that many express here illustrates several cognitive biases to which all of us are prone, in this case creating a bandwagon effect/availability cascade.  One person suspects/believes on thing and voices it, and others who suspect/believe it move from suspicion to certainty. 

We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example, and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.  Similarly, for several years our yards per play were higher running from the wildcat than from our conventional formations.  But a few short gains from the formation convinced a vocal minority that it was a flawed formation which we should abandon--in large part because it appeared to them that "defenses knew what was was coming." 

We're starting to see the same thinking on red zone fades.  By any measure in football, the play has been very effective.  Our heavy use of it, however, seems to be convincing some fans that defenses see the throw coming and that only miracle catches by AW rescue the play from certain failure.  But it's a bitch wicked play to defend to begin with,  When you have college football's equivalent of Dennis Rodman going up for the contested ball, it's almost unfair.

I did the math not long ago.  We run on first down 2/3 of the time and gain an average of 5.8 yards per carry.  Yes, the number is skewed by a bunch of 50+ Yard Bryce Love runs, but at this point it is a feature of the offense.  We pass the football on about 1/3 of first downs and gain about 5 yap.  Note that the run numbers are slightly inflated because dropbacks that result in a sack count as rushing yards, so they take yards away from rushing and inflate the denominator.

BC

[oman]

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.

Shawarma?

[oman]

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.

Shawarma?

[dabigv13]

Looks tasty, I think I know what I'm doing for lunch tomorrow.

[dabigv13]

Looks tasty, I think I know what I'm doing for lunch tomorrow.

[Hulk01]

Yes, I'm not sure why Costello was so bad throwing on first down and so good throwing on second.  A puzzle, and the sample seems large enough. 

[Hulk01]

Yes, I'm not sure why Costello was so bad throwing on first down and so good throwing on second.  A puzzle, and the sample seems large enough. 

[Goose]

Yes, I'm not sure why Costello was so bad throwing on first down and so good throwing on second.  A puzzle, and the sample seems large enough.

Hulk, did you post this breakdown, and if so, could you point me to it. Sounds interesting. The data may not be available, but were his first down attempts for bigger yardage perhaps?

[Goose]

Yes, I'm not sure why Costello was so bad throwing on first down and so good throwing on second.  A puzzle, and the sample seems large enough.

Hulk, did you post this breakdown, and if so, could you point me to it. Sounds interesting. The data may not be available, but were his first down attempts for bigger yardage perhaps?

[Hulk01]

Here you go:

Costello passing, by down:

1st: 53.7%, 4.99 ypa, 3 touchdowns, 1 interception, 18% first downs
2nd: 65%, 9.01 ypa, 6 touchdowns, 0 interceptions, 36% first downs
3rd: 55.7%, 8.24 ypa, 5 touchdowns, 2 interceptions, 44% first downs

This isn't common, as you can easily guess. 

I don't have a theory for this.  He/coaches tend to call shorter passes on first down (seems likely from the stats) but KJ struggles completing them. 

[Hulk01]

Here you go:

Costello passing, by down:

1st: 53.7%, 4.99 ypa, 3 touchdowns, 1 interception, 18% first downs
2nd: 65%, 9.01 ypa, 6 touchdowns, 0 interceptions, 36% first downs
3rd: 55.7%, 8.24 ypa, 5 touchdowns, 2 interceptions, 44% first downs

This isn't common, as you can easily guess. 

I don't have a theory for this.  He/coaches tend to call shorter passes on first down (seems likely from the stats) but KJ struggles completing them. 

[pefloresjr]

I've always been a fan of Shawtagonists and Shawpologists.  I'm definitely a Shawpologist because, for me, his results in victories and in production overcome any described "eye tests" I've seen.  Also, simply knowing whether or not a play is a run or pass is not the same as knowing what run is coming.  It is not unusual to hear announcers marveling at the number of different plays Stanford runs out of its base formations.  It can be frustrating to watch when our offense isn't working well.  I hate when our running back gets caught from the backside end rusher like in the Pac 12 Championship.  Also, I felt it was clear that SC was just better than us this year and Shaw did a great job of keeping us in the game until the very end.  I also guess I am conservative because I would have taken the 3 points to tie the game.  Still, I appreciate the aggressive call even if it didn't work. 

One thing I appreciate, and fear, about this board, is that you really need to back up your opinions with facts.  I don't have them, but based on the stats posted by others, I think it is pretty clear that the offense has been very good under Shaw.  I went to the Alamo Bowl and we scored 37 on a team that usually gives up 19.  I wish we would have shown more on the final possession, but sometimes young quarterbacks and lines get flustered at the end of a big game.  It happens to all teams at times.  I think they will learn from it and be better next year. 

I don't care to analyze the line-up of those whose first reaction to a loss or failure seems to be to blame Shaw but at least a few (Hi Teejers) do regularly acknowledge all the great things Shaw does.  There seems to be an underlying idea that we could and should be playing at the Playoff level that doesn't match the reality of our recruiting and of the difficulty in winning consistently.  To my eyes, we are still consistently outplaying our talent level and winning more games than I would expect.  If we can get a higher percentage of top level recruits, my views will probably change, but for now, I am extremely satisfied.  I do go to all the home football games, some road games, a variety of other team's games through the year, and donate a modest amount of money to the Buck Cardinal Club. 

Happy New Year Everybody!

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I've always been a fan of Shawtagonists and Shawpologists.  I'm definitely a Shawpologist because, for me, his results in victories and in production overcome any described "eye tests" I've seen.  Also, simply knowing whether or not a play is a run or pass is not the same as knowing what run is coming.  It is not unusual to hear announcers marveling at the number of different plays Stanford runs out of its base formations.  It can be frustrating to watch when our offense isn't working well.  I hate when our running back gets caught from the backside end rusher like in the Pac 12 Championship.  Also, I felt it was clear that SC was just better than us this year and Shaw did a great job of keeping us in the game until the very end.  I also guess I am conservative because I would have taken the 3 points to tie the game.  Still, I appreciate the aggressive call even if it didn't work. 

One thing I appreciate, and fear, about this board, is that you really need to back up your opinions with facts.  I don't have them, but based on the stats posted by others, I think it is pretty clear that the offense has been very good under Shaw.  I went to the Alamo Bowl and we scored 37 on a team that usually gives up 19.  I wish we would have shown more on the final possession, but sometimes young quarterbacks and lines get flustered at the end of a big game.  It happens to all teams at times.  I think they will learn from it and be better next year. 

I don't care to analyze the line-up of those whose first reaction to a loss or failure seems to be to blame Shaw but at least a few (Hi Teejers) do regularly acknowledge all the great things Shaw does.  There seems to be an underlying idea that we could and should be playing at the Playoff level that doesn't match the reality of our recruiting and of the difficulty in winning consistently.  To my eyes, we are still consistently outplaying our talent level and winning more games than I would expect.  If we can get a higher percentage of top level recruits, my views will probably change, but for now, I am extremely satisfied.  I do go to all the home football games, some road games, a variety of other team's games through the year, and donate a modest amount of money to the Buck Cardinal Club. 

Happy New Year Everybody!

Cheers,
Pete F.

[Red State]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg219970#msg219970 date=1514746670]
We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example,

Possibly true. I am not really sure how often people think we run on first down. You will, I think, grant that we run on first down quite frequently, probably more than most teams but not as much as Army.

and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.

And that is probably one reason we run as often as we do.  :) With Hogan and even more with Luck, we could do real damage on first down when we passed. The last two years, not as much. Hopefully, Costello changes this.

We're starting to see the same thinking on red zone fades.  By any measure in football, the play has been very effective.  Our heavy use of it, however, seems to be convincing some fans that defenses see the throw coming and that only miracle catches by AW rescue the play from certain failure.  But it's a bitch wicked play to defend to begin with,  When you have college football's equivalent of Dennis Rodman going up for the contested ball, it's almost unfair.

As long as a play is working, you should run it. It may not be "sexy", but it wins games. It was interesting that TCU  double covered JJAW as a reply, so we had to flank a slot receiver out on that side to prevent the double coverage. So, it is not like the coaching staff is unaware of the situation on the field. If and when somebody comes up with a good way to defend the play, like a 6'7" safety, we will have to do something else. The whole goal of play calling is to create a situation that puts the defense at a disadvantage that they can't overcome. As long as a certain play does that, changing is stupid.
[/quote]

I've always been a fan of Shawtagonists and Shawpologists.  I'm definitely a Shawpologist because, for me, his results in victories and in production overcome any described "eye tests" I've seen.  Also, simply knowing whether or not a play is a run or pass is not the same as knowing what run is coming.  It is not unusual to hear announcers marveling at the number of different plays Stanford runs out of its base formations.  It can be frustrating to watch when our offense isn't working well.  I hate when our running back gets caught from the backside end rusher like in the Pac 12 Championship.  Also, I felt it was clear that SC was just better than us this year and Shaw did a great job of keeping us in the game until the very end.  I also guess I am conservative because I would have taken the 3 points to tie the game.  Still, I appreciate the aggressive call even if it didn't work. 

One thing I appreciate, and fear, about this board, is that you really need to back up your opinions with facts.  I don't have them, but based on the stats posted by others, I think it is pretty clear that the offense has been very good under Shaw.  I went to the Alamo Bowl and we scored 37 on a team that usually gives up 19.  I wish we would have shown more on the final possession, but sometimes young quarterbacks and lines get flustered at the end of a big game.  It happens to all teams at times.  I think they will learn from it and be better next year. 

I don't care to analyze the line-up of those whose first reaction to a loss or failure is to blame Shaw but at least a few (Hi Teejers) do regularly acknowledge all the great things Shaw does.  There seems to be an underlying idea that we could and should be playing at the Playoff level that doesn't match the reality of our recruiting and of the difficulty in winning consistently.  To my eyes, we are still consistently outplaying our talent level and winning more games than I would expect.  If we can get a higher percentage of top level recruits, my views will probably change, but for now, I am extremely satisfied.  I do go to all the home football games, some road games, a variety of other team's games through the year, and donate a modest amount of money to the Buck Cardinal Club. 

Happy New Year Everybody!

Cheers,
Pete F.

Absolutely +1

[Red State]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg219970#msg219970 date=1514746670]
We don't run on first down as often as 90% of Stanford fans think, for example,

Possibly true. I am not really sure how often people think we run on first down. You will, I think, grant that we run on first down quite frequently, probably more than most teams but not as much as Army.

and we pass far less successfully on first down than fans think, too.

And that is probably one reason we run as often as we do.  :) With Hogan and even more with Luck, we could do real damage on first down when we passed. The last two years, not as much. Hopefully, Costello changes this.

We're starting to see the same thinking on red zone fades.  By any measure in football, the play has been very effective.  Our heavy use of it, however, seems to be convincing some fans that defenses see the throw coming and that only miracle catches by AW rescue the play from certain failure.  But it's a bitch wicked play to defend to begin with,  When you have college football's equivalent of Dennis Rodman going up for the contested ball, it's almost unfair.

As long as a play is working, you should run it. It may not be "sexy", but it wins games. It was interesting that TCU  double covered JJAW as a reply, so we had to flank a slot receiver out on that side to prevent the double coverage. So, it is not like the coaching staff is unaware of the situation on the field. If and when somebody comes up with a good way to defend the play, like a 6'7" safety, we will have to do something else. The whole goal of play calling is to create a situation that puts the defense at a disadvantage that they can't overcome. As long as a certain play does that, changing is stupid.
[/quote]

I've always been a fan of Shawtagonists and Shawpologists.  I'm definitely a Shawpologist because, for me, his results in victories and in production overcome any described "eye tests" I've seen.  Also, simply knowing whether or not a play is a run or pass is not the same as knowing what run is coming.  It is not unusual to hear announcers marveling at the number of different plays Stanford runs out of its base formations.  It can be frustrating to watch when our offense isn't working well.  I hate when our running back gets caught from the backside end rusher like in the Pac 12 Championship.  Also, I felt it was clear that SC was just better than us this year and Shaw did a great job of keeping us in the game until the very end.  I also guess I am conservative because I would have taken the 3 points to tie the game.  Still, I appreciate the aggressive call even if it didn't work. 

One thing I appreciate, and fear, about this board, is that you really need to back up your opinions with facts.  I don't have them, but based on the stats posted by others, I think it is pretty clear that the offense has been very good under Shaw.  I went to the Alamo Bowl and we scored 37 on a team that usually gives up 19.  I wish we would have shown more on the final possession, but sometimes young quarterbacks and lines get flustered at the end of a big game.  It happens to all teams at times.  I think they will learn from it and be better next year. 

I don't care to analyze the line-up of those whose first reaction to a loss or failure is to blame Shaw but at least a few (Hi Teejers) do regularly acknowledge all the great things Shaw does.  There seems to be an underlying idea that we could and should be playing at the Playoff level that doesn't match the reality of our recruiting and of the difficulty in winning consistently.  To my eyes, we are still consistently outplaying our talent level and winning more games than I would expect.  If we can get a higher percentage of top level recruits, my views will probably change, but for now, I am extremely satisfied.  I do go to all the home football games, some road games, a variety of other team's games through the year, and donate a modest amount of money to the Buck Cardinal Club. 

Happy New Year Everybody!

Cheers,
Pete F.

Absolutely +1

[Mick]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=18454.msg219966#msg219966 date=1514745083]
[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219898#msg219898 date=1514688019]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.
[/quote]

Shatheists? Shagnostics? Shaman?

-m.
[/quote]

That post was Shawtastic.

[Mick]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=18454.msg219966#msg219966 date=1514745083]
[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219898#msg219898 date=1514688019]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.
[/quote]

Shatheists? Shagnostics? Shaman?

-m.
[/quote]

That post was Shawtastic.

[Mick]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=18454.msg219966#msg219966 date=1514745083]


Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.

Shawarma?


[/quote]

Looks Shawlicious.

[Mick]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=18454.msg219966#msg219966 date=1514745083]


Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.

Shawarma?


[/quote]

Looks Shawlicious.

[Langdude]

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18454.msg219967#msg219967 date=1514745302]
[quote author=dabigv link=topic=18454.msg219966#msg219966 date=1514745083]
[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219898#msg219898 date=1514688019]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.
[/quote]

Shatheists? Shagnostics? Shaman?

-m.
[/quote]

That post was Shawtastic.
[/quote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYNtZCgCWjc

-m.

[Langdude]

[quote author=Langdude link=topic=18454.msg219967#msg219967 date=1514745302]
[quote author=dabigv link=topic=18454.msg219966#msg219966 date=1514745083]
[quote author=phxfan link=topic=18454.msg219898#msg219898 date=1514688019]

Ok, here's what you've accused all questioners of Shawism:

They are inane
They are asinine
They are fanciful
They have bad arguments
They think all Shawists defend him on all fronts
They think the football program does nothing right
They think that whatever they thinks clearly correct
They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a dumb homer

Shawism! Shawists!

This rules. I hope we can get membership cards to carry.
[/quote]

Shatheists? Shagnostics? Shaman?

-m.
[/quote]

That post was Shawtastic.
[/quote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYNtZCgCWjc

-m.