[OutsiderFan]

A theme Shaw hit on in his presser was first half fugly play is in part attributable to playing in a "tough road environment' and that it takes some time for player to adjust to it.  While this makes some sense, can't it also be a crutch to excuse poor performance?

On the game broadcast, Chris Fowler pointed out how one of the things Oregon HC Cristobal learned from his time on Nick Saban's staff was that in a big game, you always want to attack early. Bill Walsh used to say you always want to be the first team to introduce some exotic play call. Both these things prevent the opposition from getting comfortable with their game plans.  

On offense, if you run a double reverse pass on the first series, the defense isn't going to be as comfortable just stopping what they have seen on film and practiced to stop all week.  On offense, if you bring a heavy blitz early, the QB is more likely to get rattled.  

Clearly the starting OL for Oregon probably hampered Stanford in the first half, so all the more reason to do something the defense isn't expecting, rather than running your base stuff they have seen on video all week. Still, Stanford's defense was way too passive to start the game against the Ducks, IMO.

So given Stanford was able to right the ship in a tough environment and win against Oregon, does this imply a David Shaw methodical approach is just as effective in big games as a Nick Saban let's go for the throat and attack early one?

[OutsiderFan]

A theme Shaw hit on in his presser was first half fugly play is in part attributable to playing in a "tough road environment' and that it takes some time for player to adjust to it.  While this makes some sense, can't it also be a crutch to excuse poor performance?

On the game broadcast, Chris Fowler pointed out how one of the things Oregon HC Cristobal learned from his time on Nick Saban's staff was that in a big game, you always want to attack early. Bill Walsh used to say you always want to be the first team to introduce some exotic play call. Both these things prevent the opposition from getting comfortable with their game plans.  

On offense, if you run a double reverse pass on the first series, the defense isn't going to be as comfortable just stopping what they have seen on film and practiced to stop all week.  On offense, if you bring a heavy blitz early, the QB is more likely to get rattled.  

Clearly the starting OL for Oregon probably hampered Stanford in the first half, so all the more reason to do something the defense isn't expecting, rather than running your base stuff they have seen on video all week. Still, Stanford's defense was way too passive to start the game against the Ducks, IMO.

So given Stanford was able to right the ship in a tough environment and win against Oregon, does this imply a David Shaw methodical approach is just as effective in big games as a Nick Saban let's go for the throat and attack early one?

[washingtonismoney]

I dunno, I think this is an interpretive bridge too far. Shaw pretty frequently introduces wrinkles early on -- I can recall the first Rose Bowl, the 2013 game against ASU, and the 2018 game against SC (in which Shaw used the three TE no FB formation for the first time this year) as examples.

[washingtonismoney]

I dunno, I think this is an interpretive bridge too far. Shaw pretty frequently introduces wrinkles early on -- I can recall the first Rose Bowl, the 2013 game against ASU, and the 2018 game against SC (in which Shaw used the three TE no FB formation for the first time this year) as examples.

[murky]

A theme Shaw hit on in his presser was first half fugly play is in part attributable to playing in a "tough road environment' and that it takes some time for player to adjust to it.  While this makes some sense, can't it also be a crutch to excuse poor performance?

On the game broadcast, Chris Fowler pointed out how one of the things Oregon HC Cristobal learned from his time on Nick Saban's staff was that in a big game, you always want to attack early. Bill Walsh used to say you always want to be the first team to introduce some exotic play call. Both these things prevent the opposition from getting comfortable with their game plans.  

On offense, if you run a double reverse pass on the first series, the defense isn't going to be as comfortable just stopping what they have seen on film and practiced to stop all week.  On offense, if you bring a heavy blitz early, the QB is more likely to get rattled.  

Clearly the starting OL for Oregon probably hampered Stanford in the first half, so all the more reason to do something the defense isn't expecting, rather than running your base stuff they have seen on video all week. Still, Stanford's defense was way too passive to start the game against the Ducks, IMO.

So given Stanford was able to right the ship in a tough environment and win against Oregon, does this imply a David Shaw methodical approach is just as effective in big games as a Nick Saban let's go for the throat and attack early one?

Walsh II had some ugly early game cute plays.

[murky]

A theme Shaw hit on in his presser was first half fugly play is in part attributable to playing in a "tough road environment' and that it takes some time for player to adjust to it.  While this makes some sense, can't it also be a crutch to excuse poor performance?

On the game broadcast, Chris Fowler pointed out how one of the things Oregon HC Cristobal learned from his time on Nick Saban's staff was that in a big game, you always want to attack early. Bill Walsh used to say you always want to be the first team to introduce some exotic play call. Both these things prevent the opposition from getting comfortable with their game plans.  

On offense, if you run a double reverse pass on the first series, the defense isn't going to be as comfortable just stopping what they have seen on film and practiced to stop all week.  On offense, if you bring a heavy blitz early, the QB is more likely to get rattled.  

Clearly the starting OL for Oregon probably hampered Stanford in the first half, so all the more reason to do something the defense isn't expecting, rather than running your base stuff they have seen on video all week. Still, Stanford's defense was way too passive to start the game against the Ducks, IMO.

So given Stanford was able to right the ship in a tough environment and win against Oregon, does this imply a David Shaw methodical approach is just as effective in big games as a Nick Saban let's go for the throat and attack early one?

Walsh II had some ugly early game cute plays.

[stupac2]

A theme Shaw hit on in his presser was first half fugly play is in part attributable to playing in a "tough road environment' and that it takes some time for player to adjust to it.  While this makes some sense, can't it also be a crutch to excuse poor performance?

On the game broadcast, Chris Fowler pointed out how one of the things Oregon HC Cristobal learned from his time on Nick Saban's staff was that in a big game, you always want to attack early. Bill Walsh used to say you always want to be the first team to introduce some exotic play call. Both these things prevent the opposition from getting comfortable with their game plans.  

On offense, if you run a double reverse pass on the first series, the defense isn't going to be as comfortable just stopping what they have seen on film and practiced to stop all week.  On offense, if you bring a heavy blitz early, the QB is more likely to get rattled.  

Clearly the starting OL for Oregon probably hampered Stanford in the first half, so all the more reason to do something the defense isn't expecting, rather than running your base stuff they have seen on video all week. Still, Stanford's defense was way too passive to start the game against the Ducks, IMO.

So given Stanford was able to right the ship in a tough environment and win against Oregon, does this imply a David Shaw methodical approach is just as effective in big games as a Nick Saban let's go for the throat and attack early one?

Based on my one viewing, we weren't actually doing that badly on offense in the first half. On the first drive we were derailed by a holding penalty and then a dropped pass that would've been a first. The second we gave up a sack on third down. The third we got a TD. The forth Costello threw incomplete on 3rd and 2, I don't recall if that was a drop but the box score says it was broken up by a DB. The fifth was at the end of of the half, and had that long sack/fumble. It wasn't like nothing was working, we gained at least one first down on every drive but one. Once again it was mistakes like drops and sacks derailing otherwise promising drives.

Would it have been even better had we done some more attacking? I suppose it's possible, although it seems like the biggest problem we had were OL-related (holding call taking a conversion off the board, two 3rd down sacks). I'm optimistic that with Hall back for the full game we'll see something more like the second half performance.

[stupac2]

A theme Shaw hit on in his presser was first half fugly play is in part attributable to playing in a "tough road environment' and that it takes some time for player to adjust to it.  While this makes some sense, can't it also be a crutch to excuse poor performance?

On the game broadcast, Chris Fowler pointed out how one of the things Oregon HC Cristobal learned from his time on Nick Saban's staff was that in a big game, you always want to attack early. Bill Walsh used to say you always want to be the first team to introduce some exotic play call. Both these things prevent the opposition from getting comfortable with their game plans.  

On offense, if you run a double reverse pass on the first series, the defense isn't going to be as comfortable just stopping what they have seen on film and practiced to stop all week.  On offense, if you bring a heavy blitz early, the QB is more likely to get rattled.  

Clearly the starting OL for Oregon probably hampered Stanford in the first half, so all the more reason to do something the defense isn't expecting, rather than running your base stuff they have seen on video all week. Still, Stanford's defense was way too passive to start the game against the Ducks, IMO.

So given Stanford was able to right the ship in a tough environment and win against Oregon, does this imply a David Shaw methodical approach is just as effective in big games as a Nick Saban let's go for the throat and attack early one?

Based on my one viewing, we weren't actually doing that badly on offense in the first half. On the first drive we were derailed by a holding penalty and then a dropped pass that would've been a first. The second we gave up a sack on third down. The third we got a TD. The forth Costello threw incomplete on 3rd and 2, I don't recall if that was a drop but the box score says it was broken up by a DB. The fifth was at the end of of the half, and had that long sack/fumble. It wasn't like nothing was working, we gained at least one first down on every drive but one. Once again it was mistakes like drops and sacks derailing otherwise promising drives.

Would it have been even better had we done some more attacking? I suppose it's possible, although it seems like the biggest problem we had were OL-related (holding call taking a conversion off the board, two 3rd down sacks). I'm optimistic that with Hall back for the full game we'll see something more like the second half performance.

[cctop]

Walsh II had some ugly early game cute plays.

Was it Walsh II where we would frequently lateral the ball to the other side of the field after catching kickoffs & punts?

I recently saw another team do that.  It was a blast from the past.

[cctop]

Walsh II had some ugly early game cute plays.

Was it Walsh II where we would frequently lateral the ball to the other side of the field after catching kickoffs & punts?

I recently saw another team do that.  It was a blast from the past.

[Snorlax94]

In terms of the defense being too "passive" during the first half, it kind of felt like the right call. Mario Cristobal, in his post-game conference, even admitted that the team had been holding things back and saving them from Stanford. Their top receiver Mitchell, who had 14 receptions for 239 yards, had only 6 receptions total from the first three games. I've heard of holding stuff back, but this takes it to a new level.

If you don't have tape of the real offense -- or even of who the top receiving targets will be -- it seems practical to give a bigger cushion when you have confidence in your DBs like ours to close out distances and make sure tackles. Even with the cushions, Herbert had to hit some very, very tight windows to get completions. It was pretty shocking.

In terms of the offense being too passive, it's the dumb drive-killing errors. If they eliminate the stupid holding/false starts/delay of game stuff, and can maintain their pass-blocking consistency, and if Costello plays early the way he plays late, then the first half plays are fine. 

Another side of Stanford's play-calling and cautious starts: 0 interceptions.

[Snorlax94]

In terms of the defense being too "passive" during the first half, it kind of felt like the right call. Mario Cristobal, in his post-game conference, even admitted that the team had been holding things back and saving them from Stanford. Their top receiver Mitchell, who had 14 receptions for 239 yards, had only 6 receptions total from the first three games. I've heard of holding stuff back, but this takes it to a new level.

If you don't have tape of the real offense -- or even of who the top receiving targets will be -- it seems practical to give a bigger cushion when you have confidence in your DBs like ours to close out distances and make sure tackles. Even with the cushions, Herbert had to hit some very, very tight windows to get completions. It was pretty shocking.

In terms of the offense being too passive, it's the dumb drive-killing errors. If they eliminate the stupid holding/false starts/delay of game stuff, and can maintain their pass-blocking consistency, and if Costello plays early the way he plays late, then the first half plays are fine. 

Another side of Stanford's play-calling and cautious starts: 0 interceptions.

[BostonCard]

In terms of the defense being too "passive" during the first half, it kind of felt like the right call. Mario Cristobal, in his post-game conference, even admitted that the team had been holding things back and saving them from Stanford. Their top receiver Mitchell, who had 14 receptions for 239 yards, had only 6 receptions total from the first three games. I've heard of holding stuff back, but this takes it to a new level.

If you don't have tape of the real offense -- or even of who the top receiving targets will be -- it seems practical to give a bigger cushion when you have confidence in your DBs like ours to close out distances and make sure tackles. Even with the cushions, Herbert had to hit some very, very tight windows to get completions. It was pretty shocking.

In terms of the offense being too passive, it's the dumb drive-killing errors. If they eliminate the stupid holding/false starts/delay of game stuff, and can maintain their pass-blocking consistency, and if Costello plays early the way he plays late, then the first half plays are fine. 

Another side of Stanford's play-calling and cautious starts: 0 interceptions.

Also, remember we had safeties injured, so we may have played the cornerbacks off the ball because we were worried about a big play against inexperienced safeties.

BC

[BostonCard]

In terms of the defense being too "passive" during the first half, it kind of felt like the right call. Mario Cristobal, in his post-game conference, even admitted that the team had been holding things back and saving them from Stanford. Their top receiver Mitchell, who had 14 receptions for 239 yards, had only 6 receptions total from the first three games. I've heard of holding stuff back, but this takes it to a new level.

If you don't have tape of the real offense -- or even of who the top receiving targets will be -- it seems practical to give a bigger cushion when you have confidence in your DBs like ours to close out distances and make sure tackles. Even with the cushions, Herbert had to hit some very, very tight windows to get completions. It was pretty shocking.

In terms of the offense being too passive, it's the dumb drive-killing errors. If they eliminate the stupid holding/false starts/delay of game stuff, and can maintain their pass-blocking consistency, and if Costello plays early the way he plays late, then the first half plays are fine. 

Another side of Stanford's play-calling and cautious starts: 0 interceptions.

Also, remember we had safeties injured, so we may have played the cornerbacks off the ball because we were worried about a big play against inexperienced safeties.

BC