[Beeg_Dawg]

[/quote]

Wasn't Oregon State the exact opposite?
In that game we were outplayed (a very winnable game for OSU), but did make a couple of plays towards the end to pull out the victory.


The OSU game was frustrating for a different reason, and at least for me a reason that lingers longer.

The close - coulda, woulda, shoulda - games I find sting in the moment (if we had just done X, we would have won, and there are usually about 10 choices for X). But over a longer haul, I find overall poor performances more disappointing. I was disappointed that we could not play a competitive game against $C in week #2, I was disappointed that we let a bad OSU team outplay us for most of the game, I was disappointed we could never put together a quality performance on the road.
[/quote]

Ryan Nall hangs on to the ball and Stanford looses.  I think it was his only fumble this season.  About the only time I felt sorry for a Stanford opponent. 

[Beeg_Dawg]

[/quote]

Wasn't Oregon State the exact opposite?
In that game we were outplayed (a very winnable game for OSU), but did make a couple of plays towards the end to pull out the victory.


The OSU game was frustrating for a different reason, and at least for me a reason that lingers longer.

The close - coulda, woulda, shoulda - games I find sting in the moment (if we had just done X, we would have won, and there are usually about 10 choices for X). But over a longer haul, I find overall poor performances more disappointing. I was disappointed that we could not play a competitive game against $C in week #2, I was disappointed that we let a bad OSU team outplay us for most of the game, I was disappointed we could never put together a quality performance on the road.
[/quote]

Ryan Nall hangs on to the ball and Stanford looses.  I think it was his only fumble this season.  About the only time I felt sorry for a Stanford opponent. 

[teejers1]

Right.  The inflection point for the season would have been starting Costello.  That didn't happen till pretty late, and the O (and team) suffered accordingly.

[teejers1]

Right.  The inflection point for the season would have been starting Costello.  That didn't happen till pretty late, and the O (and team) suffered accordingly.

[Goose]

Right.  The inflection point for the season would have been starting Costello.  That didn't happen till pretty late, and the O (and team) suffered accordingly.

Fully Agree. The QB wasn't our only problem, but without solving that, the other fixes wouldn't have mattered much.

[Goose]

Right.  The inflection point for the season would have been starting Costello.  That didn't happen till pretty late, and the O (and team) suffered accordingly.

Fully Agree. The QB wasn't our only problem, but without solving that, the other fixes wouldn't have mattered much.

[dabigv13]

Amen. This was a big Shaw miscalculation this year, and I bet in his heart, even if he wouldn't say it out loud, he knows it.

[dabigv13]

Amen. This was a big Shaw miscalculation this year, and I bet in his heart, even if he wouldn't say it out loud, he knows it.

[Goose]

Amen. This was a big Shaw miscalculation this year, and I bet in his heart, even if he wouldn't say it out loud, he knows it.

I am not so sure it was a "miscalculation" in Shaw's mind. It is also open to discussion what and when the miscalculation was. One could argue that in an ideal world, Shaw would have recognized that neither Burns nor Chryst was going to "succeed" and started Costello as a freshman. Probably some on this board did in fact suggest that. However, I don't think it would be reasonable to argue that was clearly a "good" strategy at the time. A better argument could be made that after Chryst got hurt in the bowl game, it was time to switch to Costello. However, Chryst had looked "pretty good", albeit against bad teams. Also, the "you shouldn't lose your job due to injury" ethos undoubtedly played a part in how that was decided. The real decision point was after Costello replaced Chryst against UCLA. Bringing Chryst back two games later could be, and was, questioned. However, I think two things saved Chryst's position, for a while. First, there were some problems on the OL that were just getting sorted out. Making too many changes at once seems to muddy the waters. Second, Chryst was a team captain and had worked very hard to get back from his previous injury. Apparently he showed better in practice than he did in games. I believe the thought was "He has to be granted an opportunity to prove himself. He has done enough to require that we give him that chance." He almost did it. Utah was not great, but also not terrible. Oregon looked real good for him. The debacle against OSU was just too much. So Shaw may feel that he did what had to be done. It could be argued he gave Chryst way too much rope. Shaw may not feel that way.

[Goose]

Amen. This was a big Shaw miscalculation this year, and I bet in his heart, even if he wouldn't say it out loud, he knows it.

I am not so sure it was a "miscalculation" in Shaw's mind. It is also open to discussion what and when the miscalculation was. One could argue that in an ideal world, Shaw would have recognized that neither Burns nor Chryst was going to "succeed" and started Costello as a freshman. Probably some on this board did in fact suggest that. However, I don't think it would be reasonable to argue that was clearly a "good" strategy at the time. A better argument could be made that after Chryst got hurt in the bowl game, it was time to switch to Costello. However, Chryst had looked "pretty good", albeit against bad teams. Also, the "you shouldn't lose your job due to injury" ethos undoubtedly played a part in how that was decided. The real decision point was after Costello replaced Chryst against UCLA. Bringing Chryst back two games later could be, and was, questioned. However, I think two things saved Chryst's position, for a while. First, there were some problems on the OL that were just getting sorted out. Making too many changes at once seems to muddy the waters. Second, Chryst was a team captain and had worked very hard to get back from his previous injury. Apparently he showed better in practice than he did in games. I believe the thought was "He has to be granted an opportunity to prove himself. He has done enough to require that we give him that chance." He almost did it. Utah was not great, but also not terrible. Oregon looked real good for him. The debacle against OSU was just too much. So Shaw may feel that he did what had to be done. It could be argued he gave Chryst way too much rope. Shaw may not feel that way.

[BostonCard]

Playing along with this game, yes,  I think Stanford would’ve gone to the playoffs over ‘Bama had it gone 12-1. It would’ve had, what, three top 10 wins. I think Alabama had one top-25 win. Of course Alabama would’ve been the better team but that doesn’t necessarily mean a ton in playoff land.

That said, the season would’ve unfolded much differently. With a better win-loss record early on I doubt Shaw switches to Costello — which means, perversely, that Stanford would’ve probably lost to UW and ND. So, ironically, I think Thomas ends up making zero difference in the W-L.

Maybe not.  I suppose it depends on whether Chryst still gets injured against UCLA and we get to see what Costello can do against UCLA and ASU.  If that doesn’t change, remember that Chryst won games against Oregon, Utah, and OSU when he came back, but the Oregon State game, which was a disaster offensively, prompted Shaw to change over to Costello.

In our alternate universe, we still lose game 2 against USC, but keep SDSU from driving at the end for the win.  Our offense still looks out of sorts against SDSU and the first few series against UCLA, Chryst gets injured, and Costello looks good in beating UCLA and ASU.  Chryst comes back against Utah, looks good against Oregon and then has a near disastrous game against OSU. I think Shaw still makes the change even though we are 7-1 heading into WSU.  With Costello at QB and Thomas on the DL we beat WSU and set up a matchup against the Huskies with playoff implications.  We beat UW, Cal, and ND and head into the rematch against SC at 11-1.  Winner of the match-up of 11-1 teams goes to the playoffs, and with Thomas at DL I like our chances better.

BC

[BostonCard]

Playing along with this game, yes,  I think Stanford would’ve gone to the playoffs over ‘Bama had it gone 12-1. It would’ve had, what, three top 10 wins. I think Alabama had one top-25 win. Of course Alabama would’ve been the better team but that doesn’t necessarily mean a ton in playoff land.

That said, the season would’ve unfolded much differently. With a better win-loss record early on I doubt Shaw switches to Costello — which means, perversely, that Stanford would’ve probably lost to UW and ND. So, ironically, I think Thomas ends up making zero difference in the W-L.

Maybe not.  I suppose it depends on whether Chryst still gets injured against UCLA and we get to see what Costello can do against UCLA and ASU.  If that doesn’t change, remember that Chryst won games against Oregon, Utah, and OSU when he came back, but the Oregon State game, which was a disaster offensively, prompted Shaw to change over to Costello.

In our alternate universe, we still lose game 2 against USC, but keep SDSU from driving at the end for the win.  Our offense still looks out of sorts against SDSU and the first few series against UCLA, Chryst gets injured, and Costello looks good in beating UCLA and ASU.  Chryst comes back against Utah, looks good against Oregon and then has a near disastrous game against OSU. I think Shaw still makes the change even though we are 7-1 heading into WSU.  With Costello at QB and Thomas on the DL we beat WSU and set up a matchup against the Huskies with playoff implications.  We beat UW, Cal, and ND and head into the rematch against SC at 11-1.  Winner of the match-up of 11-1 teams goes to the playoffs, and with Thomas at DL I like our chances better.

BC

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=18454.msg220346#msg220346 date=1515176147]
Playing along with this game, yes,  I think Stanford would’ve gone to the playoffs over ‘Bama had it gone 12-1. It would’ve had, what, three top 10 wins. I think Alabama had one top-25 win. Of course Alabama would’ve been the better team but that doesn’t necessarily mean a ton in playoff land.

That said, the season would’ve unfolded much differently. With a better win-loss record early on I doubt Shaw switches to Costello — which means, perversely, that Stanford would’ve probably lost to UW and ND. So, ironically, I think Thomas ends up making zero difference in the W-L.

Maybe not.  I suppose it depends on whether Chryst still gets injured against UCLA and we get to see what Costello can do against UCLA and ASU.  If that doesn’t change, remember that Chryst won games against Oregon, Utah, and OSU when he came back, but the Oregon State game, which was a disaster offensively, prompted Shaw to change over to Costello.

In our alternate universe, we still lose game 2 against U$C, but keep SDSU from driving at the end for the win.  Our offense still looks out of sorts against SDSU and the first few series against UCLA, Chryst gets injured, and Costello looks good in beating UCLA and ASU.  Chryst comes back against Utah, looks good against Oregon and then has a near disastrous game against OSU. I think Shaw still makes the change even though we are 7-1 heading into WSU.  With Costello at QB and Thomas on the DL we beat WSU and set up a matchup against the Huskies with playoff implications.  We beat UW, ןɐɔ, and ND and head into the rematch against SC at 11-1.  Winner of the match-up of 11-1 teams goes to the playoffs, and with Thomas at DL I like our chances better.

BC
[/quote]

Don't mean to nitpick here, but U$C wouldn't have been 11-1, having lost to both ND and Wazzu.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=18454.msg220346#msg220346 date=1515176147]
Playing along with this game, yes,  I think Stanford would’ve gone to the playoffs over ‘Bama had it gone 12-1. It would’ve had, what, three top 10 wins. I think Alabama had one top-25 win. Of course Alabama would’ve been the better team but that doesn’t necessarily mean a ton in playoff land.

That said, the season would’ve unfolded much differently. With a better win-loss record early on I doubt Shaw switches to Costello — which means, perversely, that Stanford would’ve probably lost to UW and ND. So, ironically, I think Thomas ends up making zero difference in the W-L.

Maybe not.  I suppose it depends on whether Chryst still gets injured against UCLA and we get to see what Costello can do against UCLA and ASU.  If that doesn’t change, remember that Chryst won games against Oregon, Utah, and OSU when he came back, but the Oregon State game, which was a disaster offensively, prompted Shaw to change over to Costello.

In our alternate universe, we still lose game 2 against U$C, but keep SDSU from driving at the end for the win.  Our offense still looks out of sorts against SDSU and the first few series against UCLA, Chryst gets injured, and Costello looks good in beating UCLA and ASU.  Chryst comes back against Utah, looks good against Oregon and then has a near disastrous game against OSU. I think Shaw still makes the change even though we are 7-1 heading into WSU.  With Costello at QB and Thomas on the DL we beat WSU and set up a matchup against the Huskies with playoff implications.  We beat UW, ןɐɔ, and ND and head into the rematch against SC at 11-1.  Winner of the match-up of 11-1 teams goes to the playoffs, and with Thomas at DL I like our chances better.

BC
[/quote]

Don't mean to nitpick here, but U$C wouldn't have been 11-1, having lost to both ND and Wazzu.

[lex24]

Mostly agree I’d switch SDS for first SC game. They hung with SC for a half. But they met a team clicking on all cylinders that day. SC’s best game. Heck they put up over 600.  SDS was a different story. Classic trap game. They looked”flat”.

As for the road - it was amazing how much home field mattered in the Pac-12. I blame, in part, the schedule. But that is in the end an excuse. Stanford played poorly on the road.



Wasn't Oregon State the exact opposite?
In that game we were outplayed (a very winnable game for OSU), but did make a couple of plays towards the end to pull out the victory.


The OSU game was frustrating for a different reason, and at least for me a reason that lingers longer.

The close - coulda, woulda, shoulda - games I find sting in the moment (if we had just done X, we would have won, and there are usually about 10 choices for X). But over a longer haul, I find overall poor performances more disappointing. I was disappointed that we could not play a competitive game against $C in week #2, I was disappointed that we let a bad OSU team outplay us for most of the game, I was disappointed we could never put together a quality performance on the road.
[/quote]

Ryan Nall hangs on to the ball and Stanford looses.  I think it was his only fumble this season.  About the only time I felt sorry for a Stanford opponent.
[/quote]

[lex24]

Mostly agree I’d switch SDS for first SC game. They hung with SC for a half. But they met a team clicking on all cylinders that day. SC’s best game. Heck they put up over 600.  SDS was a different story. Classic trap game. They looked”flat”.

As for the road - it was amazing how much home field mattered in the Pac-12. I blame, in part, the schedule. But that is in the end an excuse. Stanford played poorly on the road.



Wasn't Oregon State the exact opposite?
In that game we were outplayed (a very winnable game for OSU), but did make a couple of plays towards the end to pull out the victory.


The OSU game was frustrating for a different reason, and at least for me a reason that lingers longer.

The close - coulda, woulda, shoulda - games I find sting in the moment (if we had just done X, we would have won, and there are usually about 10 choices for X). But over a longer haul, I find overall poor performances more disappointing. I was disappointed that we could not play a competitive game against $C in week #2, I was disappointed that we let a bad OSU team outplay us for most of the game, I was disappointed we could never put together a quality performance on the road.
[/quote]

Ryan Nall hangs on to the ball and Stanford looses.  I think it was his only fumble this season.  About the only time I felt sorry for a Stanford opponent.
[/quote]

[JohnR34231]

I always think of a trap game as one where you are coming off a big victory, and then have a letdown against a lesser team.
I would have thought we would have come out of the U$C butt kicking ticked off and ready to take it out on someone. Obviously that didn't happen.

[JohnR34231]

I always think of a trap game as one where you are coming off a big victory, and then have a letdown against a lesser team.
I would have thought we would have come out of the U$C butt kicking ticked off and ready to take it out on someone. Obviously that didn't happen.

[Mick]

Mostly agree I’d switch SDS for first SC game. They hung with SC for a half. But they met a team clicking on all cylinders that day. SC’s best game. Heck they put up over 600.  SDS was a different story. Classic trap game. They looked”flat”.

SDSU lost to Army, 42-35, in the Armed Forces Bowl.  Probably the most surprising outcome of the year, to me.

[Mick]

Mostly agree I’d switch SDS for first SC game. They hung with SC for a half. But they met a team clicking on all cylinders that day. SC’s best game. Heck they put up over 600.  SDS was a different story. Classic trap game. They looked”flat”.

SDSU lost to Army, 42-35, in the Armed Forces Bowl.  Probably the most surprising outcome of the year, to me.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18454.msg220444#msg220444 date=1515264978]
Mostly agree I’d switch SDS for first SC game. They hung with SC for a half. But they met a team clicking on all cylinders that day. SC’s best game. Heck they put up over 600.  SDS was a different story. Classic trap game. They looked”flat”.

SDSU lost to Army, 42-35, in the Armed Forces Bowl.  Probably the most surprising outcome of the year, to me.
[/quote]

They also barely squeaked by Air Force, and lost to Boise State 31-14 and Fresno State (which Washington blew out) 27-3.
Despite what we would perhaps like to believe, they were not that good a team.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18454.msg220444#msg220444 date=1515264978]
Mostly agree I’d switch SDS for first SC game. They hung with SC for a half. But they met a team clicking on all cylinders that day. SC’s best game. Heck they put up over 600.  SDS was a different story. Classic trap game. They looked”flat”.

SDSU lost to Army, 42-35, in the Armed Forces Bowl.  Probably the most surprising outcome of the year, to me.
[/quote]

They also barely squeaked by Air Force, and lost to Boise State 31-14 and Fresno State (which Washington blew out) 27-3.
Despite what we would perhaps like to believe, they were not that good a team.

[qwerty49]

It must have been Army’s creative and unpredictable passing attack.  :)

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18454.msg220444#msg220444 date=1515264978]
Mostly agree I’d switch SDS for first SC game. They hung with SC for a half. But they met a team clicking on all cylinders that day. SC’s best game. Heck they put up over 600.  SDS was a different story. Classic trap game. They looked”flat”.

SDSU lost to Army, 42-35, in the Armed Forces Bowl.  Probably the most surprising outcome of the year, to me.
[/quote]

[qwerty49]

It must have been Army’s creative and unpredictable passing attack.  :)

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18454.msg220444#msg220444 date=1515264978]
Mostly agree I’d switch SDS for first SC game. They hung with SC for a half. But they met a team clicking on all cylinders that day. SC’s best game. Heck they put up over 600.  SDS was a different story. Classic trap game. They looked”flat”.

SDSU lost to Army, 42-35, in the Armed Forces Bowl.  Probably the most surprising outcome of the year, to me.
[/quote]

[Phogge]

If BC's fantasy comes true then Stanford just gets historically smoked in the semifinal. The 9-5 record is just about correct. A good but far from great team. H.u.g.e. speed deficiency. Good news next year is getting WSU and Utah at home, bad news is playing at Seattle and South Bend.

[Phogge]

If BC's fantasy comes true then Stanford just gets historically smoked in the semifinal. The 9-5 record is just about correct. A good but far from great team. H.u.g.e. speed deficiency. Good news next year is getting WSU and Utah at home, bad news is playing at Seattle and South Bend.

[BostonCard]

Oh, no question that 9-5 is probably right for this team... just saying that with Thomas on the team, we could have turned three of those four regular season losses to wins.  And yes, we would have gotten smoked in a semifinal.

BC

[BostonCard]

Oh, no question that 9-5 is probably right for this team... just saying that with Thomas on the team, we could have turned three of those four regular season losses to wins.  And yes, we would have gotten smoked in a semifinal.

BC

[fullmetal]

Sean Barton and Alijah Holder were long-term injuries no one banked on during preseason prognostications.  And we lost Alfieri, Reid, and Robinson for some/all of the Alamo Bowl.  Some might say we lost Love's ankles again during the 2Q of the Alamo Bowl as well.

Hope Turley's got some rehab and prevention work ready for next season.

[fullmetal]

Sean Barton and Alijah Holder were long-term injuries no one banked on during preseason prognostications.  And we lost Alfieri, Reid, and Robinson for some/all of the Alamo Bowl.  Some might say we lost Love's ankles again during the 2Q of the Alamo Bowl as well.

Hope Turley's got some rehab and prevention work ready for next season.