[OutsiderFan]

What a predictably boring game. Herm Edwards vs. David Shaw is never going to put many points on the board. David Shaw might as well be 25 years older the way he coaches. Like watching an NFL game from several years ago when there was defense played.

Aside from the mind-numbing number of first down runs that went for mostly nothing for both teams, and Shaw's infuriating idea that running the clock and making the other team use timeouts is more important than getting a first down, two things stood out in that game.

Screens
Stanford ran and executed the two most effective screen passes to a RB I have seen since I can remember.  The fact both ended up with flags being tossed against the offense should not dissuade them from being called in the future. The Hamilton penalty on the one for what should have been a TD was dumb to commit and to call, as it had nothing at all to do with the play because it happened after Scarlett went passed the guy Hamilton was blocking.  And the late hit on Smith on the other one was just pointless and dumb.  But they both were really well executed aside from the unfortunate penalties, demonstrating Stanford absolutely should be able to run them as a way to slow down pass rush and get RBs involved in the passing's game.

Reid
Now y'all can see why I was so high on Gabe Reid and say him as better than Jordan Fox. The dude has an explosive first step no other Stanford pass rusher has. He gets in the backfield better than any other Stanford OLB.  He just needs to play under control a bit more because he runs by too many QBs. But you seem him all over the field making his presence felt.  He had the most tackles of any OLB last night and he didn't start.

Speaking of OLBs. Wither Alfieri? He started with Toohill, but I don't remember seeing him on the field hardly at all and he didn't dent the stat sheet.  
I didn't watch the entire game, so maybe I missed him getting injured?

[OutsiderFan]

What a predictably boring game. Herm Edwards vs. David Shaw is never going to put many points on the board. David Shaw might as well be 25 years older the way he coaches. Like watching an NFL game from several years ago when there was defense played.

Aside from the mind-numbing number of first down runs that went for mostly nothing for both teams, and Shaw's infuriating idea that running the clock and making the other team use timeouts is more important than getting a first down, two things stood out in that game.

Screens
Stanford ran and executed the two most effective screen passes to a RB I have seen since I can remember.  The fact both ended up with flags being tossed against the offense should not dissuade them from being called in the future. The Hamilton penalty on the one for what should have been a TD was dumb to commit and to call, as it had nothing at all to do with the play because it happened after Scarlett went passed the guy Hamilton was blocking.  And the late hit on Smith on the other one was just pointless and dumb.  But they both were really well executed aside from the unfortunate penalties, demonstrating Stanford absolutely should be able to run them as a way to slow down pass rush and get RBs involved in the passing's game.

Reid
Now y'all can see why I was so high on Gabe Reid and say him as better than Jordan Fox. The dude has an explosive first step no other Stanford pass rusher has. He gets in the backfield better than any other Stanford OLB.  He just needs to play under control a bit more because he runs by too many QBs. But you seem him all over the field making his presence felt.  He had the most tackles of any OLB last night and he didn't start.

Speaking of OLBs. Wither Alfieri? He started with Toohill, but I don't remember seeing him on the field hardly at all and he didn't dent the stat sheet.  
I didn't watch the entire game, so maybe I missed him getting injured?

[slide]

nice post.  

agreed on the screens.  good to see the development as well as KJ dumping short passes to RBs.  one more:  KJ looked a little more mobile last night.  nice to see him pick up the 1st down with the 13 yard (or so) run.

the total turtle in the 4th quarter was tough to watch.  playing not to lose as opposed to playing to win.

[slide]

nice post.  

agreed on the screens.  good to see the development as well as KJ dumping short passes to RBs.  one more:  KJ looked a little more mobile last night.  nice to see him pick up the 1st down with the 13 yard (or so) run.

the total turtle in the 4th quarter was tough to watch.  playing not to lose as opposed to playing to win.

[winflop]

agreed on the screens

It has to be said - why haven't they done any of this with Love??? Is he really that bad at catching passes? I just fail to understand why Stanford hasn't done more to get him into space - this year or last year.

[winflop]

agreed on the screens

It has to be said - why haven't they done any of this with Love??? Is he really that bad at catching passes? I just fail to understand why Stanford hasn't done more to get him into space - this year or last year.

[GK3]

nice post.  

agreed on the screens.  good to see the development as well as KJ dumping short passes to RBs.  one more:  KJ looked a little more mobile last night.  nice to see him pick up the 1st down with the 13 yard (or so) run.

the total turtle in the 4th quarter was tough to watch.  playing not to lose as opposed to playing to win.

The 4th quarter was very hard to watch.  Unfortunately this team is prone to make some very stupid plays.  The take down that called back the TD and Barton's rather blatant personal foul after the play was over were prime examples.  I love KJ, but he does make some poor throws, he threw a couple last night that could easily have been intercepted.  Shaw is always conservative and I think he was trying to minimize the chance of another stupid play that might have given ASU the ball in our territory with a short field.  Not my choice of play calling, but a win is a win.

Oregon - WSU game is going to be interesting.  Glad we get WSU at our place.  We tend to have trouble in Pullman, and it would be just our luck to get a miserable early winter day/night for the game there.   If we have to play one of the Washington schools on road, I will always take playing UDub versus WSU, even though the Husky Stadium is a very tough place to play, we have won there.

[GK3]

nice post.  

agreed on the screens.  good to see the development as well as KJ dumping short passes to RBs.  one more:  KJ looked a little more mobile last night.  nice to see him pick up the 1st down with the 13 yard (or so) run.

the total turtle in the 4th quarter was tough to watch.  playing not to lose as opposed to playing to win.

The 4th quarter was very hard to watch.  Unfortunately this team is prone to make some very stupid plays.  The take down that called back the TD and Barton's rather blatant personal foul after the play was over were prime examples.  I love KJ, but he does make some poor throws, he threw a couple last night that could easily have been intercepted.  Shaw is always conservative and I think he was trying to minimize the chance of another stupid play that might have given ASU the ball in our territory with a short field.  Not my choice of play calling, but a win is a win.

Oregon - WSU game is going to be interesting.  Glad we get WSU at our place.  We tend to have trouble in Pullman, and it would be just our luck to get a miserable early winter day/night for the game there.   If we have to play one of the Washington schools on road, I will always take playing UDub versus WSU, even though the Husky Stadium is a very tough place to play, we have won there.

[gocard14]

agreed on the screens

It has to be said - why haven't they done any of this with Love??? Is he really that bad at catching passes? I just fail to understand why Stanford hasn't done more to get him into space - this year or last year.

My guess is that teams key on Love, meaning 1-2 LBs and maybe even DL aren't going to just let him slip free and mindlessly rush the passer.  It was similar for Cmac, I don't recall too many traditional screens working for him. He had much better success running routes out of the backfield as a reciever.

---

What a predictably boring game. Herm Edwards vs. David Shaw is never going to put many points on the board. David Shaw might as well be 25 years older the way he coaches. Like watching an NFL game from several years ago when there was defense played.

Aside from the mind-numbing number of first down runs that went for mostly nothing for both teams, and Shaw's infuriating idea that running the clock and making the other team use timeouts is more important than getting a first down, two things stood out in that game.

Screens
Stanford ran and executed the two most effective screen passes to a RB I have seen since I can remember.  The fact both ended up with flags being tossed against the offense should not dissuade them from being called in the future. The Hamilton penalty on the one for what should have been a TD was dumb to commit and to call, as it had nothing at all to do with the play because it happened after Scarlett went passed the guy Hamilton was blocking.  And the late hit on Smith on the other one was just pointless and dumb.  But they both were really well executed aside from the unfortunate penalties, demonstrating Stanford absolutely should be able to run them as a way to slow down pass rush and get RBs involved in the passing's game.

Reid
Now y'all can see why I was so high on Gabe Reid and say him as better than Jordan Fox. The dude has an explosive first step no other Stanford pass rusher has. He gets in the backfield better than any other Stanford OLB.  He just needs to play under control a bit more because he runs by too many QBs. But you seem him all over the field making his presence felt.  He had the most tackles of any OLB last night and he didn't start.

Speaking of OLBs. Wither Alfieri? He started with Toohill, but I don't remember seeing him on the field hardly at all and he didn't dent the stat sheet.  
I didn't watch the entire game, so maybe I missed him getting injured?

Edited: Just felt like I came across too negative. I firmly believe there is no such thing as a bad win in a conference game, especially on the road, so to that end the team and coaching staff should be applauded. ASU is not great, but is not a bad team and is better then their record suggests (4 losses by 1 score), so great job getting the W!. Now that being said . . .

I too hate the turtling at the end of games. I especially hate it this year when our run game is so ineffectual. KJ is mature enough to understand game situations and I'd say to let him lead in that setting.  Overall I think the odds of KJ throwing for a first down and winning the game when the D is stacking against the run are higher then the odds our defense will get a stop.  This, to their credit, they did, but it was a near miss.  Just because it hasn't cost a game to my recollection doesn't mean it won't soon. 

Overall loved the effort from the defense on the road. The pass rush made it's presence felt, especially Reid and Fox, but both have to learn to break down and get the tackle rather then fly by the QB.  LBs had a very good game.  We're still too undisciplined on pass rush lanes and mobile QBs make us pay for it, but I'll take that over no pass rush like we saw before.  I liked the mix of blitzes we brought on D that were not all on 3rd down.  Still too many missed tackles in the secondary but with the exception of that blown zone coverage that let up the 50 yard pass (not sure if Holder's fault for not tracking deeper or Safeties fault for not being over the top), Adebo and Holder had great coverage on the outside.  

Offensively I remain convinced that our best bet is to run no-huddle and give KJ the keys to the car.  I'm not saying he won't make some dumb plays and was lucky to avoid a pick on that post to smith, but our offense works best when he is out there slinging the ball.  No-huddle slows the pass rush, limits the fancy blitzes and pre snap defensive motion that have given us fits, and I think keeps Shaw from getting too cute with personnel packages for televised runs.

[gocard14]

agreed on the screens

It has to be said - why haven't they done any of this with Love??? Is he really that bad at catching passes? I just fail to understand why Stanford hasn't done more to get him into space - this year or last year.

My guess is that teams key on Love, meaning 1-2 LBs and maybe even DL aren't going to just let him slip free and mindlessly rush the passer.  It was similar for Cmac, I don't recall too many traditional screens working for him. He had much better success running routes out of the backfield as a reciever.

---

What a predictably boring game. Herm Edwards vs. David Shaw is never going to put many points on the board. David Shaw might as well be 25 years older the way he coaches. Like watching an NFL game from several years ago when there was defense played.

Aside from the mind-numbing number of first down runs that went for mostly nothing for both teams, and Shaw's infuriating idea that running the clock and making the other team use timeouts is more important than getting a first down, two things stood out in that game.

Screens
Stanford ran and executed the two most effective screen passes to a RB I have seen since I can remember.  The fact both ended up with flags being tossed against the offense should not dissuade them from being called in the future. The Hamilton penalty on the one for what should have been a TD was dumb to commit and to call, as it had nothing at all to do with the play because it happened after Scarlett went passed the guy Hamilton was blocking.  And the late hit on Smith on the other one was just pointless and dumb.  But they both were really well executed aside from the unfortunate penalties, demonstrating Stanford absolutely should be able to run them as a way to slow down pass rush and get RBs involved in the passing's game.

Reid
Now y'all can see why I was so high on Gabe Reid and say him as better than Jordan Fox. The dude has an explosive first step no other Stanford pass rusher has. He gets in the backfield better than any other Stanford OLB.  He just needs to play under control a bit more because he runs by too many QBs. But you seem him all over the field making his presence felt.  He had the most tackles of any OLB last night and he didn't start.

Speaking of OLBs. Wither Alfieri? He started with Toohill, but I don't remember seeing him on the field hardly at all and he didn't dent the stat sheet.  
I didn't watch the entire game, so maybe I missed him getting injured?

Edited: Just felt like I came across too negative. I firmly believe there is no such thing as a bad win in a conference game, especially on the road, so to that end the team and coaching staff should be applauded. ASU is not great, but is not a bad team and is better then their record suggests (4 losses by 1 score), so great job getting the W!. Now that being said . . .

I too hate the turtling at the end of games. I especially hate it this year when our run game is so ineffectual. KJ is mature enough to understand game situations and I'd say to let him lead in that setting.  Overall I think the odds of KJ throwing for a first down and winning the game when the D is stacking against the run are higher then the odds our defense will get a stop.  This, to their credit, they did, but it was a near miss.  Just because it hasn't cost a game to my recollection doesn't mean it won't soon. 

Overall loved the effort from the defense on the road. The pass rush made it's presence felt, especially Reid and Fox, but both have to learn to break down and get the tackle rather then fly by the QB.  LBs had a very good game.  We're still too undisciplined on pass rush lanes and mobile QBs make us pay for it, but I'll take that over no pass rush like we saw before.  I liked the mix of blitzes we brought on D that were not all on 3rd down.  Still too many missed tackles in the secondary but with the exception of that blown zone coverage that let up the 50 yard pass (not sure if Holder's fault for not tracking deeper or Safeties fault for not being over the top), Adebo and Holder had great coverage on the outside.  

Offensively I remain convinced that our best bet is to run no-huddle and give KJ the keys to the car.  I'm not saying he won't make some dumb plays and was lucky to avoid a pick on that post to smith, but our offense works best when he is out there slinging the ball.  No-huddle slows the pass rush, limits the fancy blitzes and pre snap defensive motion that have given us fits, and I think keeps Shaw from getting too cute with personnel packages for televised runs.

[SamuelMcF]

Speaking of OLBs. Wither Alfieri? He started with Toohill, but I don't remember seeing him on the field hardly at all and he didn't dent the stat sheet.  
I didn't watch the entire game, so maybe I missed him getting injured?

Walking with his arm in a sling after the game.

[SamuelMcF]

Speaking of OLBs. Wither Alfieri? He started with Toohill, but I don't remember seeing him on the field hardly at all and he didn't dent the stat sheet.  
I didn't watch the entire game, so maybe I missed him getting injured?

Walking with his arm in a sling after the game.

[CTcard]

I too hate the turtling at the end of games. I especially hate it this year when our run game is so ineffectual. KJ is mature enough to understand game situations and I'd say to let him lead in that setting.  Overall I think the odds of KJ throwing for a first down and winning the game when the D is stacking against the run are higher then the odds our defense will get a stop.  This, to their credit, they did, but it was a near miss.  Just because it hasn't cost a game to my recollection doesn't mean it won't soon.

Obviously, turtling at the end of games was going to become a topic again after that game.
I guess the first thing I would say is that I am glad that we were ahead by enough to have an option to turtle.

Generally, I have been a defender of Shaw on turtling. I haven't checked lately, but I think it is still true that Stanford has never lost a game due to going into turtle mode [though it is possible some precise definition of turtling is necessary for that to be true - I don't quite remember]. More importantly, most of the time there is, at the least, a strong argument that Shaw's approach gave the best chance to win - even if it gave the worst chance to have compelling football to watch.

In my opinion, this game was one of the least defensible acts of turtling. It looks like the turtling began on the second play of the fourth quarter, immediately after the Scarlett tripping penalty that wiped out a completion to Irwin. That's too long, with too little a lead, and with too poor a run game for this approach.
From that point forward, Stanford ran 13 runs (12 by Speights, 1 scramble by Costello) and 1 pass. The only first down came on the pass plus scramble after a holding penalty. This gave ASU 4 possessions in the fourth quarter (their most in any quarter) and two possessions when within a score.

Of course I temper all of this with the fact that it actually did work, that ASU ran out of time, so I shouldn't be too certain of my stance.

Still too many missed tackles in the secondary but with the exception of that blown zone coverage that let up the 50 yard pass (not sure if Holder's fault for not tracking deeper or Safeties fault for not being over the top), Adebo and Holder had great coverage on the outside. 

Holder had several blatant misses, and looked notably slow to me. I am quite sure he isn't fully healthy.
Adebo generally was fantastic (he spent most of the game stonewalling the likely #1 WR in the next draft), though he did make a blatant misplay that gave up a 28 yard catch and gave ASU a shot to win at the end. A rookie mistake - but an awesome game.

Offensively I remain convinced that our best bet is to run no-huddle and give KJ the keys to the car.  I'm not saying he won't make some dumb plays and was lucky to avoid a pick on that post to smith, but our offense works best when he is out there slinging the ball.  No-huddle slows the pass rush, limits the fancy blitzes and pre snap defensive motion that have given us fits, and I think keeps Shaw from getting too cute with personnel packages for televised runs.

televised ??

I generally disagree on the no-huddle, but you make reasoned arguments. Hmmm.

[CTcard]

I too hate the turtling at the end of games. I especially hate it this year when our run game is so ineffectual. KJ is mature enough to understand game situations and I'd say to let him lead in that setting.  Overall I think the odds of KJ throwing for a first down and winning the game when the D is stacking against the run are higher then the odds our defense will get a stop.  This, to their credit, they did, but it was a near miss.  Just because it hasn't cost a game to my recollection doesn't mean it won't soon.

Obviously, turtling at the end of games was going to become a topic again after that game.
I guess the first thing I would say is that I am glad that we were ahead by enough to have an option to turtle.

Generally, I have been a defender of Shaw on turtling. I haven't checked lately, but I think it is still true that Stanford has never lost a game due to going into turtle mode [though it is possible some precise definition of turtling is necessary for that to be true - I don't quite remember]. More importantly, most of the time there is, at the least, a strong argument that Shaw's approach gave the best chance to win - even if it gave the worst chance to have compelling football to watch.

In my opinion, this game was one of the least defensible acts of turtling. It looks like the turtling began on the second play of the fourth quarter, immediately after the Scarlett tripping penalty that wiped out a completion to Irwin. That's too long, with too little a lead, and with too poor a run game for this approach.
From that point forward, Stanford ran 13 runs (12 by Speights, 1 scramble by Costello) and 1 pass. The only first down came on the pass plus scramble after a holding penalty. This gave ASU 4 possessions in the fourth quarter (their most in any quarter) and two possessions when within a score.

Of course I temper all of this with the fact that it actually did work, that ASU ran out of time, so I shouldn't be too certain of my stance.

Still too many missed tackles in the secondary but with the exception of that blown zone coverage that let up the 50 yard pass (not sure if Holder's fault for not tracking deeper or Safeties fault for not being over the top), Adebo and Holder had great coverage on the outside. 

Holder had several blatant misses, and looked notably slow to me. I am quite sure he isn't fully healthy.
Adebo generally was fantastic (he spent most of the game stonewalling the likely #1 WR in the next draft), though he did make a blatant misplay that gave up a 28 yard catch and gave ASU a shot to win at the end. A rookie mistake - but an awesome game.

Offensively I remain convinced that our best bet is to run no-huddle and give KJ the keys to the car.  I'm not saying he won't make some dumb plays and was lucky to avoid a pick on that post to smith, but our offense works best when he is out there slinging the ball.  No-huddle slows the pass rush, limits the fancy blitzes and pre snap defensive motion that have given us fits, and I think keeps Shaw from getting too cute with personnel packages for televised runs.

televised ??

I generally disagree on the no-huddle, but you make reasoned arguments. Hmmm.

[Austroturf]

I haven't checked lately, but I think it is still true that Stanford has never lost a game due to going into turtle mode [though it is possible some precise definition of turtling is necessary for that to be true - I don't quite remember]. More importantly, most of the time there is, at the least, a strong argument that Shaw's approach gave the best chance to win - even if it gave the worst chance to have compelling football to watch. 

Agree that the turtling in this ASU game was scarcely defensible, even though it worked.  In the broadest sense, this is how I define the Shaw "turtle-mode": whenever you have something you believe is safe, you forego what might be risky.  So in this game, turtling meant NOT taking any undue risks to get a first down and keeping the ball safely on the ground.  In concrete terms, a three-yard loss by Trevor Speights was preferable to a K.J. Costello pick-six (i.e., Utah).  With this definition of turtling, I can offer an instance in which Shaw lost a game this way.  It was the Fiesta Bowl after the 2011 season vs. Oklahoma State.  With the score tied at 38-38, Stanford was driving late in the 4th quarter.  With 45 seconds left, Stanford had 1st and 10 at the OK State 25.  Any score wins the game.  You have all-world QB Andrew Luck under center and 45 seconds left with three full downs to attack the end-zone.  But Shaw saw the risk: a sack, a fumble, an interception.  Rather than take that risk, he turtled and sent Stepfan Taylor up the middle for a six-yard gain.  Then he hammered him back into the middle for a two-yard gain at the middle of the field.  Then he let the clock run down to three seconds, called a time-out and sent his freshman FG-kicker Jordan Williamson onto the field to hit the game-winner.  From 17 yards out, surely Williamson wouldn't miss.  This was safer (more turtlesque) than asking your Voldemort runner-up to get you a TD (or at least get even closer to the goal-line).  Well, we all know how that turned out.  Turtling doesn't always work out, and there have been other examples.  Shaw mostly gets away with it.  But not always.

[Austroturf]

I haven't checked lately, but I think it is still true that Stanford has never lost a game due to going into turtle mode [though it is possible some precise definition of turtling is necessary for that to be true - I don't quite remember]. More importantly, most of the time there is, at the least, a strong argument that Shaw's approach gave the best chance to win - even if it gave the worst chance to have compelling football to watch. 

Agree that the turtling in this ASU game was scarcely defensible, even though it worked.  In the broadest sense, this is how I define the Shaw "turtle-mode": whenever you have something you believe is safe, you forego what might be risky.  So in this game, turtling meant NOT taking any undue risks to get a first down and keeping the ball safely on the ground.  In concrete terms, a three-yard loss by Trevor Speights was preferable to a K.J. Costello pick-six (i.e., Utah).  With this definition of turtling, I can offer an instance in which Shaw lost a game this way.  It was the Fiesta Bowl after the 2011 season vs. Oklahoma State.  With the score tied at 38-38, Stanford was driving late in the 4th quarter.  With 45 seconds left, Stanford had 1st and 10 at the OK State 25.  Any score wins the game.  You have all-world QB Andrew Luck under center and 45 seconds left with three full downs to attack the end-zone.  But Shaw saw the risk: a sack, a fumble, an interception.  Rather than take that risk, he turtled and sent Stepfan Taylor up the middle for a six-yard gain.  Then he hammered him back into the middle for a two-yard gain at the middle of the field.  Then he let the clock run down to three seconds, called a time-out and sent his freshman FG-kicker Jordan Williamson onto the field to hit the game-winner.  From 17 yards out, surely Williamson wouldn't miss.  This was safer (more turtlesque) than asking your Voldemort runner-up to get you a TD (or at least get even closer to the goal-line).  Well, we all know how that turned out.  Turtling doesn't always work out, and there have been other examples.  Shaw mostly gets away with it.  But not always.

[JustAnotherFan]

Holder had several blatant misses, and looked notably slow to me. I am quite sure he isn't fully healthy. 
Adebo generally was fantastic (he spent most of the game stonewalling the likely #1 WR in the next draft), though he did make a blatant misplay that gave up a 28 yard catch and gave ASU a shot to win at the end. A rookie mistake - but an awesome game.

Totally agree on these two. Holder is benefiting from experience and it showed on what should have been a forced fumble and recovery. His presence is needed. And at the same time, he was running in slow motion, which was exposed pretty dramatically on at least two plays. Not sure if it is worth having him in there to provide the experience we need while risking him getting burned.

But Adebo - he was fabulous. Easily the MVP of the game in my eyes.

[JustAnotherFan]

Holder had several blatant misses, and looked notably slow to me. I am quite sure he isn't fully healthy. 
Adebo generally was fantastic (he spent most of the game stonewalling the likely #1 WR in the next draft), though he did make a blatant misplay that gave up a 28 yard catch and gave ASU a shot to win at the end. A rookie mistake - but an awesome game.

Totally agree on these two. Holder is benefiting from experience and it showed on what should have been a forced fumble and recovery. His presence is needed. And at the same time, he was running in slow motion, which was exposed pretty dramatically on at least two plays. Not sure if it is worth having him in there to provide the experience we need while risking him getting burned.

But Adebo - he was fabulous. Easily the MVP of the game in my eyes.

[BostonCard]

I haven't checked lately, but I think it is still true that Stanford has never lost a game due to going into turtle mode [though it is possible some precise definition of turtling is necessary for that to be true - I don't quite remember]. More importantly, most of the time there is, at the least, a strong argument that Shaw's approach gave the best chance to win - even if it gave the worst chance to have compelling football to watch. 

Agree that the turtling in this ASU game was scarcely defensible, even though it worked.  In the broadest sense, this is how I define the Shaw "turtle-mode": whenever you have something you believe is safe, you forego what might be risky.  So in this game, turtling meant NOT taking any undue risks to get a first down and keeping the ball safely on the ground.  In concrete terms, a three-yard loss by Trevor Speights was preferable to a K.J. Costello pick-six (i.e., Utah).  With this definition of turtling, I can offer an instance in which Shaw lost a game this way.  It was the Fiesta Bowl after the 2011 season vs. Oklahoma State.  With the score tied at 38-38, Stanford was driving late in the 4th quarter.  With 45 seconds left, Stanford had 1st and 10 at the OK State 25.  Any score wins the game.  You have all-world QB Andrew Luck under center and 45 seconds left with three full downs to attack the end-zone.  But Shaw saw the risk: a sack, a fumble, an interception.  Rather than take that risk, he turtled and sent Stepfan Taylor up the middle for a six-yard gain.  Then he hammered him back into the middle for a two-yard gain at the middle of the field.  Then he let the clock run down to three seconds, called a time-out and sent his freshman FG-kicker Jordan Williamson onto the field to hit the game-winner.  From 17 yards out, surely Williamson wouldn't miss.  This was safer (more turtlesque) than asking your Voldemort runner-up to get you a TD (or at least get even closer to the goal-line).  Well, we all know how that turned out.  Turtling doesn't always work out, and there have been other examples.  Shaw mostly gets away with it.  But not always.

While I agree that Shaw was excessively conservative there, I don't think that would be considered turtling.  I think most of us consider turtling using the run game not just to minimize the risk of a turnover but also to burn clock.  The idea is you will forgo further scoring or even further possession (even though getting a first down will give you three fresh chances to burn clock) in order to not stop the clock with an incompletion and not turn the ball over.  And I think that's why even many relatively moderate posters felt that Shaw "turtled" to early in this game.  By going three and out, we not only gave up any chance of extending the lead and getting a safer three possession lead, but we also didn't burn all that much clock in the fourth quarter.  Our last four drives took 3:49, 2:13, 2:22, and 2:03, and we got an average of 4 plays off before punting in each.  We left ASU 2:20 for that last drive, which allowed them to drive to the 20 yard line.  Had we been able to get two more first downs in any of those four drives we would have likely been able to take a knee on our last drive without ASU getting the ball back, and it would have saved us all a lot of stress (in my case, constantly checking my watch at a restaurant).

BC

[BostonCard]

I haven't checked lately, but I think it is still true that Stanford has never lost a game due to going into turtle mode [though it is possible some precise definition of turtling is necessary for that to be true - I don't quite remember]. More importantly, most of the time there is, at the least, a strong argument that Shaw's approach gave the best chance to win - even if it gave the worst chance to have compelling football to watch. 

Agree that the turtling in this ASU game was scarcely defensible, even though it worked.  In the broadest sense, this is how I define the Shaw "turtle-mode": whenever you have something you believe is safe, you forego what might be risky.  So in this game, turtling meant NOT taking any undue risks to get a first down and keeping the ball safely on the ground.  In concrete terms, a three-yard loss by Trevor Speights was preferable to a K.J. Costello pick-six (i.e., Utah).  With this definition of turtling, I can offer an instance in which Shaw lost a game this way.  It was the Fiesta Bowl after the 2011 season vs. Oklahoma State.  With the score tied at 38-38, Stanford was driving late in the 4th quarter.  With 45 seconds left, Stanford had 1st and 10 at the OK State 25.  Any score wins the game.  You have all-world QB Andrew Luck under center and 45 seconds left with three full downs to attack the end-zone.  But Shaw saw the risk: a sack, a fumble, an interception.  Rather than take that risk, he turtled and sent Stepfan Taylor up the middle for a six-yard gain.  Then he hammered him back into the middle for a two-yard gain at the middle of the field.  Then he let the clock run down to three seconds, called a time-out and sent his freshman FG-kicker Jordan Williamson onto the field to hit the game-winner.  From 17 yards out, surely Williamson wouldn't miss.  This was safer (more turtlesque) than asking your Voldemort runner-up to get you a TD (or at least get even closer to the goal-line).  Well, we all know how that turned out.  Turtling doesn't always work out, and there have been other examples.  Shaw mostly gets away with it.  But not always.

While I agree that Shaw was excessively conservative there, I don't think that would be considered turtling.  I think most of us consider turtling using the run game not just to minimize the risk of a turnover but also to burn clock.  The idea is you will forgo further scoring or even further possession (even though getting a first down will give you three fresh chances to burn clock) in order to not stop the clock with an incompletion and not turn the ball over.  And I think that's why even many relatively moderate posters felt that Shaw "turtled" to early in this game.  By going three and out, we not only gave up any chance of extending the lead and getting a safer three possession lead, but we also didn't burn all that much clock in the fourth quarter.  Our last four drives took 3:49, 2:13, 2:22, and 2:03, and we got an average of 4 plays off before punting in each.  We left ASU 2:20 for that last drive, which allowed them to drive to the 20 yard line.  Had we been able to get two more first downs in any of those four drives we would have likely been able to take a knee on our last drive without ASU getting the ball back, and it would have saved us all a lot of stress (in my case, constantly checking my watch at a restaurant).

BC

[Austroturf]

I haven't checked lately, but I think it is still true that Stanford has never lost a game due to going into turtle mode [though it is possible some precise definition of turtling is necessary for that to be true - I don't quite remember]. More importantly, most of the time there is, at the least, a strong argument that Shaw's approach gave the best chance to win - even if it gave the worst chance to have compelling football to watch. 

Agree that the turtling in this ASU game was scarcely defensible, even though it worked.  In the broadest sense, this is how I define the Shaw "turtle-mode": whenever you have something you believe is safe, you forego what might be risky.  So in this game, turtling meant NOT taking any undue risks to get a first down and keeping the ball safely on the ground.  In concrete terms, a three-yard loss by Trevor Speights was preferable to a K.J. Costello pick-six (i.e., Utah).  With this definition of turtling, I can offer an instance in which Shaw lost a game this way.  It was the Fiesta Bowl after the 2011 season vs. Oklahoma State.  With the score tied at 38-38, Stanford was driving late in the 4th quarter.  With 45 seconds left, Stanford had 1st and 10 at the OK State 25.  Any score wins the game.  You have all-world QB Andrew Luck under center and 45 seconds left with three full downs to attack the end-zone.  But Shaw saw the risk: a sack, a fumble, an interception.  Rather than take that risk, he turtled and sent Stepfan Taylor up the middle for a six-yard gain.  Then he hammered him back into the middle for a two-yard gain at the middle of the field.  Then he let the clock run down to three seconds, called a time-out and sent his freshman FG-kicker Jordan Williamson onto the field to hit the game-winner.  From 17 yards out, surely Williamson wouldn't miss.  This was safer (more turtlesque) than asking your Voldemort runner-up to get you a TD (or at least get even closer to the goal-line).  Well, we all know how that turned out.  Turtling doesn't always work out, and there have been other examples.  Shaw mostly gets away with it.  But not always.

While I agree that Shaw was excessively conservative there, I don't think that would be considered turtling.  I think most of us consider turtling using the run game not just to minimize the risk of a turnover but also to burn clock.  The idea is you will forgo further scoring or even further possession (even though getting a first down will give you three fresh chances to burn clock) in order to not stop the clock with an incompletion and not turn the ball over.  And I think that's why even many relatively moderate posters felt that Shaw "turtled" to early in this game.  By going three and out, we not only gave up any chance of extending the lead and getting a safer three possession lead, but we also didn't burn all that much clock in the fourth quarter.  Our last four drives took 3:49, 2:13, 2:22, and 2:03, and we got an average of 4 plays off before punting in each.  We left ASU 2:20 for that last drive, which allowed them to drive to the 20 yard line.  Had we been able to get two more first downs in any of those four drives we would have likely been able to take a knee on our last drive without ASU getting the ball back, and it would have saved us all a lot of stress (in my case, constantly checking my watch at a restaurant).

BC

OK, with that definition of turtling, my example fails.  I have been around Shaw and the program long enough to have observed his penchant for never giving up the bird in the hand for the two that inhabit the bush.  The loss to OK State in the Fiesta Bowl pursuant to the 2011 season was emblematic of Shaw's conservative style.  He thought he had his first post-season bowl game under wraps and didn't want Andrew Luck risking it with last minute dramatics.  He played the odds, trusted Williamson and lost.  This was not classic turtling, but it was the same spirit.

[Austroturf]

I haven't checked lately, but I think it is still true that Stanford has never lost a game due to going into turtle mode [though it is possible some precise definition of turtling is necessary for that to be true - I don't quite remember]. More importantly, most of the time there is, at the least, a strong argument that Shaw's approach gave the best chance to win - even if it gave the worst chance to have compelling football to watch. 

Agree that the turtling in this ASU game was scarcely defensible, even though it worked.  In the broadest sense, this is how I define the Shaw "turtle-mode": whenever you have something you believe is safe, you forego what might be risky.  So in this game, turtling meant NOT taking any undue risks to get a first down and keeping the ball safely on the ground.  In concrete terms, a three-yard loss by Trevor Speights was preferable to a K.J. Costello pick-six (i.e., Utah).  With this definition of turtling, I can offer an instance in which Shaw lost a game this way.  It was the Fiesta Bowl after the 2011 season vs. Oklahoma State.  With the score tied at 38-38, Stanford was driving late in the 4th quarter.  With 45 seconds left, Stanford had 1st and 10 at the OK State 25.  Any score wins the game.  You have all-world QB Andrew Luck under center and 45 seconds left with three full downs to attack the end-zone.  But Shaw saw the risk: a sack, a fumble, an interception.  Rather than take that risk, he turtled and sent Stepfan Taylor up the middle for a six-yard gain.  Then he hammered him back into the middle for a two-yard gain at the middle of the field.  Then he let the clock run down to three seconds, called a time-out and sent his freshman FG-kicker Jordan Williamson onto the field to hit the game-winner.  From 17 yards out, surely Williamson wouldn't miss.  This was safer (more turtlesque) than asking your Voldemort runner-up to get you a TD (or at least get even closer to the goal-line).  Well, we all know how that turned out.  Turtling doesn't always work out, and there have been other examples.  Shaw mostly gets away with it.  But not always.

While I agree that Shaw was excessively conservative there, I don't think that would be considered turtling.  I think most of us consider turtling using the run game not just to minimize the risk of a turnover but also to burn clock.  The idea is you will forgo further scoring or even further possession (even though getting a first down will give you three fresh chances to burn clock) in order to not stop the clock with an incompletion and not turn the ball over.  And I think that's why even many relatively moderate posters felt that Shaw "turtled" to early in this game.  By going three and out, we not only gave up any chance of extending the lead and getting a safer three possession lead, but we also didn't burn all that much clock in the fourth quarter.  Our last four drives took 3:49, 2:13, 2:22, and 2:03, and we got an average of 4 plays off before punting in each.  We left ASU 2:20 for that last drive, which allowed them to drive to the 20 yard line.  Had we been able to get two more first downs in any of those four drives we would have likely been able to take a knee on our last drive without ASU getting the ball back, and it would have saved us all a lot of stress (in my case, constantly checking my watch at a restaurant).

BC

OK, with that definition of turtling, my example fails.  I have been around Shaw and the program long enough to have observed his penchant for never giving up the bird in the hand for the two that inhabit the bush.  The loss to OK State in the Fiesta Bowl pursuant to the 2011 season was emblematic of Shaw's conservative style.  He thought he had his first post-season bowl game under wraps and didn't want Andrew Luck risking it with last minute dramatics.  He played the odds, trusted Williamson and lost.  This was not classic turtling, but it was the same spirit.

[washingtonismoney]

I dunno why you're so down on Jordan Fox, outsider. He makes some mistakes at times but is a pretty dynamic player. He's still in the upwards part of the learning curve, so I see no particular reason to set up a Fox versus Reid dynamic.

[washingtonismoney]

I dunno why you're so down on Jordan Fox, outsider. He makes some mistakes at times but is a pretty dynamic player. He's still in the upwards part of the learning curve, so I see no particular reason to set up a Fox versus Reid dynamic.

[BostonCard]

Of course I temper all of this with the fact that it actually did work, that ASU ran out of time, so I shouldn't be too certain of my stance.

"It worked" doesn't mean it was the right decision, and I think there is general consensus on this board about that.  As I think D4Cohn has mentioned, when we got the ball back with 2 minutes left in the third quarter and a two touchdown lead, our probability of winning the game was 95%, so at the time we started turtling, we were expected to win the game.  Shaw's chosen course of action did lower that probability to 83% when Trevor Speights ran for two yards on third and 12 with a touchdown lead and 6 minutes left in the game, so I think turtling that early hurt us.

All's well that ends well, but some day we will face a team that will throw a touchdown from the 20 yard line with time expiring and then beat us in overtime because Shaw decided to turtle too early.

BC

[BostonCard]

Of course I temper all of this with the fact that it actually did work, that ASU ran out of time, so I shouldn't be too certain of my stance.

"It worked" doesn't mean it was the right decision, and I think there is general consensus on this board about that.  As I think D4Cohn has mentioned, when we got the ball back with 2 minutes left in the third quarter and a two touchdown lead, our probability of winning the game was 95%, so at the time we started turtling, we were expected to win the game.  Shaw's chosen course of action did lower that probability to 83% when Trevor Speights ran for two yards on third and 12 with a touchdown lead and 6 minutes left in the game, so I think turtling that early hurt us.

All's well that ends well, but some day we will face a team that will throw a touchdown from the 20 yard line with time expiring and then beat us in overtime because Shaw decided to turtle too early.

BC

[CTcard]

Of course I temper all of this with the fact that it actually did work, that ASU ran out of time, so I shouldn't be too certain of my stance.

"It worked" doesn't mean it was the right decision, and I think there is general consensus on this board about that.  As I think D4Cohn has mentioned, when we got the ball back with 2 minutes left in the third quarter and a two touchdown lead, our probability of winning the game was 95%, so at the time we started turtling, we were expected to win the game.  Shaw's chosen course of action did lower that probability to 83% when Trevor Speights ran for two yards on third and 12 with a touchdown lead and 6 minutes left in the game, so I think turtling that early hurt us.

All's well that ends well, but some day we will face a team that will throw a touchdown from the 20 yard line with time expiring and then beat us in overtime because Shaw decided to turtle too early.

BC

I don't mean to be too cantankerous here, but ...
- that sentence you quote from me followed a lengthy paragraph as to why I thought this turtling in this situation was the wrong move.
- The fact that ""It worked" doesn't MEAN it was the right decision" is not the same thing as "It worked" not being evidence that it might have been the correct decision. 
- Please don't treat ESPN's "odds of winning" as absolute truth.
- Odds of winning dropping is at least as much about what happened as soundness of strategy.
- Of course one day Stanford will lose after having a substantial lead late - regardless of strategy.

[CTcard]

Of course I temper all of this with the fact that it actually did work, that ASU ran out of time, so I shouldn't be too certain of my stance.

"It worked" doesn't mean it was the right decision, and I think there is general consensus on this board about that.  As I think D4Cohn has mentioned, when we got the ball back with 2 minutes left in the third quarter and a two touchdown lead, our probability of winning the game was 95%, so at the time we started turtling, we were expected to win the game.  Shaw's chosen course of action did lower that probability to 83% when Trevor Speights ran for two yards on third and 12 with a touchdown lead and 6 minutes left in the game, so I think turtling that early hurt us.

All's well that ends well, but some day we will face a team that will throw a touchdown from the 20 yard line with time expiring and then beat us in overtime because Shaw decided to turtle too early.

BC

I don't mean to be too cantankerous here, but ...
- that sentence you quote from me followed a lengthy paragraph as to why I thought this turtling in this situation was the wrong move.
- The fact that ""It worked" doesn't MEAN it was the right decision" is not the same thing as "It worked" not being evidence that it might have been the correct decision. 
- Please don't treat ESPN's "odds of winning" as absolute truth.
- Odds of winning dropping is at least as much about what happened as soundness of strategy.
- Of course one day Stanford will lose after having a substantial lead late - regardless of strategy.