[Austroturf]

I have undertaken a quarter-by-quarter analysis of the Stanford-WSU game to illuminate how this game slipped away from us and what some of the root causes might be.  Here are the raw numbers:

                             Stanford Offense vs. WSU 2018                              
                            Q1         Q2         Q3         Q4          Total
Run                        7            5            4            7            23
Yards                    57          17           10          45          129
YPP                     8.14       3.40        2.50        6.43        5.61

---

Pass                     14          10             7          12            43
Yards                    69        118           38          97          322
YPP                      4.93       11.80    5.43         8.08        7.49

---

1st downs              10          9             3            6            28
Total Yards           126       135          48          142         451
Total Plays             21         15          11           19           66
Total YPP              6.00       9.00      4.36       7.47       6.83

---

%Run                  33%       33%       36%       37%       35%
%Pass                 67%       67%       64%       63%       65%

---

TOP                    09:25     07:41     05:24      06:28     28:56
# Poss                 3            3             2              3          11

---

Points                 14          14             3              7          38

One obvious conclusion: yes, we passed a lot more and to great effect, particularly in the first half, when Costello actually outdueled Minshew.  In each of the first quarters, we had the ball three times and scored TDs on two of these possessions.  We also dominated the TOP with 17:06 vs. WSU's 12:54.  We ran a total of 36 plays for 251 yards and nearly 7 YPP, amassing 19 first downs.  WSU also had the ball 6 times and scored on three of those possessions, one being a FG in the waning seconds of the first half.  

The script was flipped in the 2nd half; and it would be incorrect to attribute this reversal to a fundamental change in play-calling or strategy.  There were comments that Shaw went conservative in the 2nd half and tried to preserve the 11 point halftime lead.  The stats show that we just couldn't get the ball in the hands of our offense because our defense was under assault for long, clock-consuming drives.  Our TOP dropped in the second half to 11:52 vs. 18:08 for WSU.  Some of this is to be expected since Wazzu got the ball to start off the second half; but this does not explain all of it.  Effectively, we only possessed the ball 4 times in the second half, twice in each quarter, and scored on two of them.  I have included the final possession in the statistics, because we formally had the ball.  But with so little time, there really was no scoring opportunity.  Pass-to-run ratio remained roughly at 2:1; but with so few possessions, we would have had to increase our points-per-possession, which dropped from 4.7 in the first half to 2.5 in the second half.  And we only managed 9 first downs vs. 19 in the first half.  

No miracle here: we could not win the game because our defense could not get a stop in the second half.  Wazzu had the ball 5 times in the second half and scored on 4 of those possessions for a total of 24 points.  Just one stop resulting in a FG for Stanford would have won that game.  The D couldn't hold when it counted; and that is something for Shaw and Anderson to stew about: how could the once vaunted Stanford defense be so ineffective for the third time this season (Notre Dame, Utah, now WSU)?  Frankly, this decline in the defense has been a multi-year phenomenon; and I would like to understand what the root causes are (ineffective recruiting, poor player development, lack of top-level recruits able to meet Stanford's entrance criteria, all three).    

It may also sound controversial, but I do not think that Minshew and the Cougs are really that good.  If they ever face a truly stout defensive front, their air-raid attack will falter.  Utah almost got them in Pullman; USC prevailed against them in the Coliseum.  Truly strong defensive teams (i.e., Clemson, Alabama) would shred them.  Unfortunately, Stanford does not have such a defense at the moment; and we saw the result yesterday evening.  As d4cohn has postulated, the Pac-12 has become similar to the Big 12, with potent spread offenses and weak defenses.  Not surprising that a former Big 12 coach is now riding high in this conference, and I am chagrined to see it.

[Austroturf]

I have undertaken a quarter-by-quarter analysis of the Stanford-WSU game to illuminate how this game slipped away from us and what some of the root causes might be.  Here are the raw numbers:

                             Stanford Offense vs. WSU 2018                              
                            Q1         Q2         Q3         Q4          Total
Run                        7            5            4            7            23
Yards                    57          17           10          45          129
YPP                     8.14       3.40        2.50        6.43        5.61

---

Pass                     14          10             7          12            43
Yards                    69        118           38          97          322
YPP                      4.93       11.80    5.43         8.08        7.49

---

1st downs              10          9             3            6            28
Total Yards           126       135          48          142         451
Total Plays             21         15          11           19           66
Total YPP              6.00       9.00      4.36       7.47       6.83

---

%Run                  33%       33%       36%       37%       35%
%Pass                 67%       67%       64%       63%       65%

---

TOP                    09:25     07:41     05:24      06:28     28:56
# Poss                 3            3             2              3          11

---

Points                 14          14             3              7          38

One obvious conclusion: yes, we passed a lot more and to great effect, particularly in the first half, when Costello actually outdueled Minshew.  In each of the first quarters, we had the ball three times and scored TDs on two of these possessions.  We also dominated the TOP with 17:06 vs. WSU's 12:54.  We ran a total of 36 plays for 251 yards and nearly 7 YPP, amassing 19 first downs.  WSU also had the ball 6 times and scored on three of those possessions, one being a FG in the waning seconds of the first half.  

The script was flipped in the 2nd half; and it would be incorrect to attribute this reversal to a fundamental change in play-calling or strategy.  There were comments that Shaw went conservative in the 2nd half and tried to preserve the 11 point halftime lead.  The stats show that we just couldn't get the ball in the hands of our offense because our defense was under assault for long, clock-consuming drives.  Our TOP dropped in the second half to 11:52 vs. 18:08 for WSU.  Some of this is to be expected since Wazzu got the ball to start off the second half; but this does not explain all of it.  Effectively, we only possessed the ball 4 times in the second half, twice in each quarter, and scored on two of them.  I have included the final possession in the statistics, because we formally had the ball.  But with so little time, there really was no scoring opportunity.  Pass-to-run ratio remained roughly at 2:1; but with so few possessions, we would have had to increase our points-per-possession, which dropped from 4.7 in the first half to 2.5 in the second half.  And we only managed 9 first downs vs. 19 in the first half.  

No miracle here: we could not win the game because our defense could not get a stop in the second half.  Wazzu had the ball 5 times in the second half and scored on 4 of those possessions for a total of 24 points.  Just one stop resulting in a FG for Stanford would have won that game.  The D couldn't hold when it counted; and that is something for Shaw and Anderson to stew about: how could the once vaunted Stanford defense be so ineffective for the third time this season (Notre Dame, Utah, now WSU)?  Frankly, this decline in the defense has been a multi-year phenomenon; and I would like to understand what the root causes are (ineffective recruiting, poor player development, lack of top-level recruits able to meet Stanford's entrance criteria, all three).    

It may also sound controversial, but I do not think that Minshew and the Cougs are really that good.  If they ever face a truly stout defensive front, their air-raid attack will falter.  Utah almost got them in Pullman; USC prevailed against them in the Coliseum.  Truly strong defensive teams (i.e., Clemson, Alabama) would shred them.  Unfortunately, Stanford does not have such a defense at the moment; and we saw the result yesterday evening.  As d4cohn has postulated, the Pac-12 has become similar to the Big 12, with potent spread offenses and weak defenses.  Not surprising that a former Big 12 coach is now riding high in this conference, and I am chagrined to see it.

[Goose]

It may also sound controversial, but I do not think that Minshew and the Cougs are really that good.  If they ever face a truly stout defensive front, their air-raid attack will falter.  Utah almost got them in Pullman; USC prevailed against them in the Coliseum.  Truly strong defensive teams (i.e., Clemson, Alabama) would shred them.  Unfortunately, Stanford does not have such a defense at the moment; and we saw the result yesterday evening.  As d4cohn has postulated, the Pac-12 has become similar to the Big 12, with potent spread offenses and weak defenses.  Not surprising that a former Big 12 coach is now riding high in this conference, and I am chagrined to see it.

I like you analysis of the game, but I think you are under-rating Minshew and the Cougs (Is that a band?). They are good. They may not be Alabama, but The Pirate has lucked into something. Minshew is the perfect guy for the system. He doesn't have a cannon of an arm, but the ball comes out fast. He is almost the anti-Falk. Read and throw. He does have trouble if you can cover all his receivers (Duh), but to do that you probably drop 8, which means no pressure. He can wait you out, running a bit if necessary. The fact is, they are getting better. The improvement in performance has been steep. The "loss" to USC was a bit tainted, and was the first conference game Minshew had ever played. It was also on the road. They are much better on offense than they were in week four.
I think their problem is on defense. We scored a lot of points, but the real killer for the Cougs is a team that can run the ball and keep Minshew on the bench. If we could have run a lick we could have turned our 14 point lead into a victory. Teams like Alabama can do that, for sure.

[Goose]

It may also sound controversial, but I do not think that Minshew and the Cougs are really that good.  If they ever face a truly stout defensive front, their air-raid attack will falter.  Utah almost got them in Pullman; USC prevailed against them in the Coliseum.  Truly strong defensive teams (i.e., Clemson, Alabama) would shred them.  Unfortunately, Stanford does not have such a defense at the moment; and we saw the result yesterday evening.  As d4cohn has postulated, the Pac-12 has become similar to the Big 12, with potent spread offenses and weak defenses.  Not surprising that a former Big 12 coach is now riding high in this conference, and I am chagrined to see it.

I like you analysis of the game, but I think you are under-rating Minshew and the Cougs (Is that a band?). They are good. They may not be Alabama, but The Pirate has lucked into something. Minshew is the perfect guy for the system. He doesn't have a cannon of an arm, but the ball comes out fast. He is almost the anti-Falk. Read and throw. He does have trouble if you can cover all his receivers (Duh), but to do that you probably drop 8, which means no pressure. He can wait you out, running a bit if necessary. The fact is, they are getting better. The improvement in performance has been steep. The "loss" to USC was a bit tainted, and was the first conference game Minshew had ever played. It was also on the road. They are much better on offense than they were in week four.
I think their problem is on defense. We scored a lot of points, but the real killer for the Cougs is a team that can run the ball and keep Minshew on the bench. If we could have run a lick we could have turned our 14 point lead into a victory. Teams like Alabama can do that, for sure.

[Austroturf]

It may also sound controversial, but I do not think that Minshew and the Cougs are really that good.  If they ever face a truly stout defensive front, their air-raid attack will falter.  Utah almost got them in Pullman; USC prevailed against them in the Coliseum.  Truly strong defensive teams (i.e., Clemson, Alabama) would shred them.  Unfortunately, Stanford does not have such a defense at the moment; and we saw the result yesterday evening.  As d4cohn has postulated, the Pac-12 has become similar to the Big 12, with potent spread offenses and weak defenses.  Not surprising that a former Big 12 coach is now riding high in this conference, and I am chagrined to see it.

I like you analysis of the game, but I think you are under-rating Minshew and the Cougs (Is that a band?). They are good. They may not be Alabama, but The Pirate has lucked into something. Minshew is the perfect guy for the system. He doesn't have a cannon of an arm, but the ball comes out fast. He is almost the anti-Falk. Read and throw. He does have trouble if you can cover all his receivers (Duh), but to do that you probably drop 8, which means no pressure. He can wait you out, running a bit if necessary. The fact is, they are getting better. The improvement in performance has been steep. The "loss" to USC was a bit tainted, and was the first conference game Minshew had ever played. It was also on the road. They are much better on offense than they were in week four.
I think their problem is on defense. We scored a lot of points, but the real killer for the Cougs is a team that can run the ball and keep Minshew on the bench. If we could have run a lick we could have turned our 14 point lead into a victory. Teams like Alabama can do that, for sure.

Good insight.  I don't want to underestimate what the Cougs have achieved; but I also think that the air-raid, if forcefully countered, can become a house of cards.  Wazzu is running it very well and has had a lot of success; but, as d4cohn pointed out, they are having that success against teams with Big-12-like defensive units; and sadly, ours has devolved into such a unit.  The air-raid system is certainly less susceptible to the blitz because the routes tend to be shorter and the release is normally quicker; but I would have loved to see this same game with one of our elite defensive units (2010-2014) on the field.  A few sacks and a few batted passes would have shaken up the air-raid, gotten the stop, and the flow of the game would have looked very different.  A team with a menagerie of hulks on the front-seven would have a blast defusing the air-raid system.  Let's see how the Bears do next week; but they have to travel to Pullman, and that is a tall order for any team.

[Austroturf]

It may also sound controversial, but I do not think that Minshew and the Cougs are really that good.  If they ever face a truly stout defensive front, their air-raid attack will falter.  Utah almost got them in Pullman; USC prevailed against them in the Coliseum.  Truly strong defensive teams (i.e., Clemson, Alabama) would shred them.  Unfortunately, Stanford does not have such a defense at the moment; and we saw the result yesterday evening.  As d4cohn has postulated, the Pac-12 has become similar to the Big 12, with potent spread offenses and weak defenses.  Not surprising that a former Big 12 coach is now riding high in this conference, and I am chagrined to see it.

I like you analysis of the game, but I think you are under-rating Minshew and the Cougs (Is that a band?). They are good. They may not be Alabama, but The Pirate has lucked into something. Minshew is the perfect guy for the system. He doesn't have a cannon of an arm, but the ball comes out fast. He is almost the anti-Falk. Read and throw. He does have trouble if you can cover all his receivers (Duh), but to do that you probably drop 8, which means no pressure. He can wait you out, running a bit if necessary. The fact is, they are getting better. The improvement in performance has been steep. The "loss" to USC was a bit tainted, and was the first conference game Minshew had ever played. It was also on the road. They are much better on offense than they were in week four.
I think their problem is on defense. We scored a lot of points, but the real killer for the Cougs is a team that can run the ball and keep Minshew on the bench. If we could have run a lick we could have turned our 14 point lead into a victory. Teams like Alabama can do that, for sure.

Good insight.  I don't want to underestimate what the Cougs have achieved; but I also think that the air-raid, if forcefully countered, can become a house of cards.  Wazzu is running it very well and has had a lot of success; but, as d4cohn pointed out, they are having that success against teams with Big-12-like defensive units; and sadly, ours has devolved into such a unit.  The air-raid system is certainly less susceptible to the blitz because the routes tend to be shorter and the release is normally quicker; but I would have loved to see this same game with one of our elite defensive units (2010-2014) on the field.  A few sacks and a few batted passes would have shaken up the air-raid, gotten the stop, and the flow of the game would have looked very different.  A team with a menagerie of hulks on the front-seven would have a blast defusing the air-raid system.  Let's see how the Bears do next week; but they have to travel to Pullman, and that is a tall order for any team.

[d4cohn]

I really think the regression in defensive performance has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group. 

We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking.

[d4cohn]

I really think the regression in defensive performance has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group. 

We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking.

[Goose]

Good insight.  I don't want to underestimate what the Cougs have achieved; but I also think that the air-raid, if forcefully countered, can become a house of cards.  Wazzu is running it very well and has had a lot of success; but, as d4cohn pointed out, they are having that success against teams with Big-12-like defensive units; and sadly, ours has devolved into such a unit.  The air-raid system is certainly less susceptible to the blitz because the routes tend to be shorter and the release is normally quicker; but I would have loved to see this same game with one of our elite defensive units (2010-2014) on the field.  A few sacks and a few batted passes would have shaken up the air-raid, gotten the stop, and the flow of the game would have looked very different.  A team with a menagerie of hulks on the front-seven would have a blast defusing the air-raid system.  Let's see how the Bears do next week; but they have to travel to Pullman, and that is a tall order for any team.

I don't agree with the idea that 7 hulks would be good. The air raid eats that up. What you need is four lock-down pass defenders that can tackle and one linebacker that can handle the #5 receiver. Basically, very few teams have that. If you look at past Stanford defenses, the thing that fixed our "Oregon problem" was an improvement in speed, particularly sideline to sideline speed. It wasn't that our DL was great, it was rather that our linebackers were. The could run and they could tackle. The "party in the backfield" only mattered because the "normal" Oregon read-option / stretch plays were contained so they had to resort to a more conventional set of pass plays. Our DBs were also an improvement over the previous Stanford norm, but they probably were no better than what we have now. It was also true that we could control the TOP so that our defense wasn't out there the entire game, which we can't do now (at least nearly as well).
The air-raid is a different beast. However, against both the spread and the air-raid, you need to be able to tackle one-on-one. The 2010-2014 teams were generally good at that. Our defense this year basically is not particularly good at it. The "bend but don't break" defensive philosophy that we use relies on the idea that we can force you to execute a long, multi-play drive, and that most teams are not efficient enough to do that. They will have a bad play, get behind the sticks, and not convert. That happened in the first half against WSU. The air-raid will take the short pass play if it is all that is available. If the DB makes the tackle, the offense has to execute a LOT of plays perfectly to score. Most team's who run the air raid can't do that. In the second half, WSU could. However, they were greatly helped by our DBs NOT making the tackle and reducing the number of plays they had to execute perfectly. That beat us.

[Goose]

Good insight.  I don't want to underestimate what the Cougs have achieved; but I also think that the air-raid, if forcefully countered, can become a house of cards.  Wazzu is running it very well and has had a lot of success; but, as d4cohn pointed out, they are having that success against teams with Big-12-like defensive units; and sadly, ours has devolved into such a unit.  The air-raid system is certainly less susceptible to the blitz because the routes tend to be shorter and the release is normally quicker; but I would have loved to see this same game with one of our elite defensive units (2010-2014) on the field.  A few sacks and a few batted passes would have shaken up the air-raid, gotten the stop, and the flow of the game would have looked very different.  A team with a menagerie of hulks on the front-seven would have a blast defusing the air-raid system.  Let's see how the Bears do next week; but they have to travel to Pullman, and that is a tall order for any team.

I don't agree with the idea that 7 hulks would be good. The air raid eats that up. What you need is four lock-down pass defenders that can tackle and one linebacker that can handle the #5 receiver. Basically, very few teams have that. If you look at past Stanford defenses, the thing that fixed our "Oregon problem" was an improvement in speed, particularly sideline to sideline speed. It wasn't that our DL was great, it was rather that our linebackers were. The could run and they could tackle. The "party in the backfield" only mattered because the "normal" Oregon read-option / stretch plays were contained so they had to resort to a more conventional set of pass plays. Our DBs were also an improvement over the previous Stanford norm, but they probably were no better than what we have now. It was also true that we could control the TOP so that our defense wasn't out there the entire game, which we can't do now (at least nearly as well).
The air-raid is a different beast. However, against both the spread and the air-raid, you need to be able to tackle one-on-one. The 2010-2014 teams were generally good at that. Our defense this year basically is not particularly good at it. The "bend but don't break" defensive philosophy that we use relies on the idea that we can force you to execute a long, multi-play drive, and that most teams are not efficient enough to do that. They will have a bad play, get behind the sticks, and not convert. That happened in the first half against WSU. The air-raid will take the short pass play if it is all that is available. If the DB makes the tackle, the offense has to execute a LOT of plays perfectly to score. Most team's who run the air raid can't do that. In the second half, WSU could. However, they were greatly helped by our DBs NOT making the tackle and reducing the number of plays they had to execute perfectly. That beat us.

[Austroturf]

I really think the regression in defensive performance has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group. 

We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking.

One of Stanford's virtues during this recent run of success has been the coaching staff's ability to turn the Ben Gardners of the world into elite players.  Our success vs. USC in recent years has also been attributed to our ability to take lesser talents, coach them up and then form them all into a well-disciplined unit that is greater than the sum of the parts.  USC consistently out-recruits us on the 4- and 5-star level; but we have dominated the last decade in head-to-head match-ups.  

Now if our ability to do that is also subject to the law of regression to the mean, then that explains a lot, but is certainly not satisfactory.  It either means we are not finding players like Ben Gardner anymore; or, if we do find them, we are unable to coach them up to elite level. Or perhaps a combination of both.  In any case, I miss the days when our 3-stars played like 4 and 5 star athletes.  

I appreciate the information on recruiting difficulties on the defensive line.  I was completely unaware of that.  If you have a link to that article, that would be great.  

The Coaches' Poll for this week is out.  UW slots in at #19, while we drop out altogether and come in at #38 (just counting further the teams that also receive votes).  Interestingly, the Dawgs have lost to three unranked teams (Auburn, Oregon and Cal.), while we have lost to #16 (Utah), #11 (WSU) and #3 (ND).  Must be their 6th win that makes the difference.

---

Good insight.  I don't want to underestimate what the Cougs have achieved; but I also think that the air-raid, if forcefully countered, can become a house of cards.  Wazzu is running it very well and has had a lot of success; but, as d4cohn pointed out, they are having that success against teams with Big-12-like defensive units; and sadly, ours has devolved into such a unit.  The air-raid system is certainly less susceptible to the blitz because the routes tend to be shorter and the release is normally quicker; but I would have loved to see this same game with one of our elite defensive units (2010-2014) on the field.  A few sacks and a few batted passes would have shaken up the air-raid, gotten the stop, and the flow of the game would have looked very different.  A team with a menagerie of hulks on the front-seven would have a blast defusing the air-raid system.  Let's see how the Bears do next week; but they have to travel to Pullman, and that is a tall order for any team.

I don't agree with the idea that 7 hulks would be good. The air raid eats that up. What you need is four lock-down pass defenders that can tackle and one linebacker that can handle the #5 receiver. Basically, very few teams have that.  If you look at past Stanford defenses, the thing that fixed our "Oregon problem" was an improvement in speed, particularly sideline to sideline speed. It wasn't that our DL was great, it was rather that our linebackers were. The could run and they could tackle. The "party in the backfield" only mattered because the "normal" Oregon read-option / stretch plays were contained so they had to resort to a more conventional set of pass plays. Our DBs were also an improvement over the previous Stanford norm, but they probably were no better than what we have now. It was also true that we could control the TOP so that our defense wasn't out there the entire game, which we can't do now (at least nearly as well).
The air-raid is a different beast. However, against both the spread and the air-raid, you need to be able to tackle one-on-one. The 2010-2014 teams were generally good at that. Our defense this year basically is not particularly good at it. The "bend but don't break" defensive philosophy that we use relies on the idea that we can force you to execute a long, multi-play drive, and that most teams are not efficient enough to do that. They will have a bad play, get behind the sticks, and not convert. That happened in the first half against WSU.  The air-raid will take the short pass play if it is all that is available. If the DB makes the tackle, the offense has to execute a LOT of plays perfectly to score. Most team's who run the air raid can't do that. In the second half, WSU could. However, they were greatly helped by our DBs NOT making the tackle and reducing the number of plays they had to execute perfectly. That beat us.

Great analysis.  I suppose our defense also got tired on those long drives, which exacerbated the problem of tackling one-on-one.

[Austroturf]

I really think the regression in defensive performance has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group. 

We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking.

One of Stanford's virtues during this recent run of success has been the coaching staff's ability to turn the Ben Gardners of the world into elite players.  Our success vs. USC in recent years has also been attributed to our ability to take lesser talents, coach them up and then form them all into a well-disciplined unit that is greater than the sum of the parts.  USC consistently out-recruits us on the 4- and 5-star level; but we have dominated the last decade in head-to-head match-ups.  

Now if our ability to do that is also subject to the law of regression to the mean, then that explains a lot, but is certainly not satisfactory.  It either means we are not finding players like Ben Gardner anymore; or, if we do find them, we are unable to coach them up to elite level. Or perhaps a combination of both.  In any case, I miss the days when our 3-stars played like 4 and 5 star athletes.  

I appreciate the information on recruiting difficulties on the defensive line.  I was completely unaware of that.  If you have a link to that article, that would be great.  

The Coaches' Poll for this week is out.  UW slots in at #19, while we drop out altogether and come in at #38 (just counting further the teams that also receive votes).  Interestingly, the Dawgs have lost to three unranked teams (Auburn, Oregon and Cal.), while we have lost to #16 (Utah), #11 (WSU) and #3 (ND).  Must be their 6th win that makes the difference.

---

Good insight.  I don't want to underestimate what the Cougs have achieved; but I also think that the air-raid, if forcefully countered, can become a house of cards.  Wazzu is running it very well and has had a lot of success; but, as d4cohn pointed out, they are having that success against teams with Big-12-like defensive units; and sadly, ours has devolved into such a unit.  The air-raid system is certainly less susceptible to the blitz because the routes tend to be shorter and the release is normally quicker; but I would have loved to see this same game with one of our elite defensive units (2010-2014) on the field.  A few sacks and a few batted passes would have shaken up the air-raid, gotten the stop, and the flow of the game would have looked very different.  A team with a menagerie of hulks on the front-seven would have a blast defusing the air-raid system.  Let's see how the Bears do next week; but they have to travel to Pullman, and that is a tall order for any team.

I don't agree with the idea that 7 hulks would be good. The air raid eats that up. What you need is four lock-down pass defenders that can tackle and one linebacker that can handle the #5 receiver. Basically, very few teams have that.  If you look at past Stanford defenses, the thing that fixed our "Oregon problem" was an improvement in speed, particularly sideline to sideline speed. It wasn't that our DL was great, it was rather that our linebackers were. The could run and they could tackle. The "party in the backfield" only mattered because the "normal" Oregon read-option / stretch plays were contained so they had to resort to a more conventional set of pass plays. Our DBs were also an improvement over the previous Stanford norm, but they probably were no better than what we have now. It was also true that we could control the TOP so that our defense wasn't out there the entire game, which we can't do now (at least nearly as well).
The air-raid is a different beast. However, against both the spread and the air-raid, you need to be able to tackle one-on-one. The 2010-2014 teams were generally good at that. Our defense this year basically is not particularly good at it. The "bend but don't break" defensive philosophy that we use relies on the idea that we can force you to execute a long, multi-play drive, and that most teams are not efficient enough to do that. They will have a bad play, get behind the sticks, and not convert. That happened in the first half against WSU.  The air-raid will take the short pass play if it is all that is available. If the DB makes the tackle, the offense has to execute a LOT of plays perfectly to score. Most team's who run the air raid can't do that. In the second half, WSU could. However, they were greatly helped by our DBs NOT making the tackle and reducing the number of plays they had to execute perfectly. That beat us.

Great analysis.  I suppose our defense also got tired on those long drives, which exacerbated the problem of tackling one-on-one.

[d4cohn]

ESPN Insider Article on state of DL recruiting for Class of 2019:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/ins...ve-lineman

"Defensive linemen are at a premium in the 2019 class"


I would point out 1 of these players is from Westlake Village, CA, another is from Hawaii (so not all of these players are from other parts of the country). We are not in remote contention for any of them.

[d4cohn]

ESPN Insider Article on state of DL recruiting for Class of 2019:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/ins...ve-lineman

"Defensive linemen are at a premium in the 2019 class"


I would point out 1 of these players is from Westlake Village, CA, another is from Hawaii (so not all of these players are from other parts of the country). We are not in remote contention for any of them.

[Austroturf]

ESPN Insider Article on state of DL recruiting for Class of 2019:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/ins...ve-lineman

"Defensive linemen are at a premium in the 2019 class"


I would point out 1 of these players is from Westlake Village, CA, another is from Hawaii (so not all of these players are from other parts of the country). We are not in remote contention for any of them.

Thanks!

[Austroturf]

ESPN Insider Article on state of DL recruiting for Class of 2019:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/ins...ve-lineman

"Defensive linemen are at a premium in the 2019 class"


I would point out 1 of these players is from Westlake Village, CA, another is from Hawaii (so not all of these players are from other parts of the country). We are not in remote contention for any of them.

Thanks!

[Redrum]

A Spokane Spokesman sports writer thinks he knows:

"Stanford decided after last season’s loss in Pullman to throw the ball often against Washington State. It could have been another case of David Shaw outsmarting himself. The Cardinal may have scored often but its defense, asked to play more than usual, couldn’t keep up in the second half."

---

A Spokane Spokesman sports writer thinks he knows:

"Stanford decided after last season’s loss in Pullman to throw the ball often against Washington State. It could have been another case of David Shaw outsmarting himself. The Cardinal may have scored often but its defense, asked to play more than usual, couldn’t keep up in the second half."


I don't know much, watching/listening from afar in the late, late Central Time Zone, but I do miss the days where "If you guys run power one more time, I'm done"...remember that opponent (USC) reaction?  I'm not anti-passing, I just remember the dominant thinking back then was running was an equalizer for a talent gap which, apparently, we have at positions that used to be our strength.

[Redrum]

A Spokane Spokesman sports writer thinks he knows:

"Stanford decided after last season’s loss in Pullman to throw the ball often against Washington State. It could have been another case of David Shaw outsmarting himself. The Cardinal may have scored often but its defense, asked to play more than usual, couldn’t keep up in the second half."

---

A Spokane Spokesman sports writer thinks he knows:

"Stanford decided after last season’s loss in Pullman to throw the ball often against Washington State. It could have been another case of David Shaw outsmarting himself. The Cardinal may have scored often but its defense, asked to play more than usual, couldn’t keep up in the second half."


I don't know much, watching/listening from afar in the late, late Central Time Zone, but I do miss the days where "If you guys run power one more time, I'm done"...remember that opponent (USC) reaction?  I'm not anti-passing, I just remember the dominant thinking back then was running was an equalizer for a talent gap which, apparently, we have at positions that used to be our strength.

[CTcard]

 The D couldn't hold when it counted; and that is something for Shaw and Anderson to stew about: how could the once vaunted Stanford defense be so ineffective for the third time this season (Notre Dame, Utah, now WSU)?  Frankly, this decline in the defense has been a multi-year phenomenon; and I would like to understand what the root causes are (ineffective recruiting, poor player development, lack of top-level recruits able to meet Stanford's entrance criteria, all three).   

I think this is an interesting topic, but I think it is one best explored after the season ends.

What happens the rest of the way will influence our thinking a lot. I hope to see improvement (of course), and I think it likely to at least show superficial improvement as the rest of the offenses we will face aren't that great.

This year alone, the defense is about what I was expecting. Able to make stops from time to time and holds up to weaker offenses, but overwhelmed by better opponents. Last year was the one time on a particular year's basis I was heavily disappointed in the performance. However, the trend overall has not been good. [Personally, I am particularly worried about what has happened to our defensive backfield.]

[CTcard]

 The D couldn't hold when it counted; and that is something for Shaw and Anderson to stew about: how could the once vaunted Stanford defense be so ineffective for the third time this season (Notre Dame, Utah, now WSU)?  Frankly, this decline in the defense has been a multi-year phenomenon; and I would like to understand what the root causes are (ineffective recruiting, poor player development, lack of top-level recruits able to meet Stanford's entrance criteria, all three).   

I think this is an interesting topic, but I think it is one best explored after the season ends.

What happens the rest of the way will influence our thinking a lot. I hope to see improvement (of course), and I think it likely to at least show superficial improvement as the rest of the offenses we will face aren't that great.

This year alone, the defense is about what I was expecting. Able to make stops from time to time and holds up to weaker offenses, but overwhelmed by better opponents. Last year was the one time on a particular year's basis I was heavily disappointed in the performance. However, the trend overall has not been good. [Personally, I am particularly worried about what has happened to our defensive backfield.]

[martyup]

I would argue that the Costello fumble cost us the game. I kept waiting for us to get a turnover, but it never came.

[martyup]

I would argue that the Costello fumble cost us the game. I kept waiting for us to get a turnover, but it never came.

[Hulk01]

Our defense (1) discourages and (2) encourages me.

(1).  The tackling has been bad from the first game opening drive.  Defensive backs are recruited for their ability to cover, and the skill is in decline.  Wayne Lyons was a good tackler, as one example, as were Alex Carter, Jordan Richards, and Dallas Lloyd, and as are Murphy and Adebo.  But Lord, the rest of the DBs look like they've played only in 7 on 7 leagues.  Get wide, shorten your steps, accelerate through the ball carrier's chest.  C'mon guys.

(2)  The young DLs are developing.  Williams improved dramatically and Booker looks promising.  Swann has some burst and a surplus of attitude.  Andres Fox has prompted lots of praise.  Still have hope for Wade-Perry.

(2)  Fox, Reid and Toohill are a nice OLB trio to take into next year along with a step-faster, we hope, Sean Barton.  And Barton and Toohill will bring strong veteran leadership to that front seven.  ILB 2 is a question.

(2)  Akina had said that the kid DBs--Bonner, Williamson, and Logan--are keepers.  (Head appears not to be.)

They have to work on tackling before next fall.  We are so fundamentalll flawed: bad run blockers, poor tacklers.  That part of football is declining generally, but we seem to moving backward in double time.

[Hulk01]

Our defense (1) discourages and (2) encourages me.

(1).  The tackling has been bad from the first game opening drive.  Defensive backs are recruited for their ability to cover, and the skill is in decline.  Wayne Lyons was a good tackler, as one example, as were Alex Carter, Jordan Richards, and Dallas Lloyd, and as are Murphy and Adebo.  But Lord, the rest of the DBs look like they've played only in 7 on 7 leagues.  Get wide, shorten your steps, accelerate through the ball carrier's chest.  C'mon guys.

(2)  The young DLs are developing.  Williams improved dramatically and Booker looks promising.  Swann has some burst and a surplus of attitude.  Andres Fox has prompted lots of praise.  Still have hope for Wade-Perry.

(2)  Fox, Reid and Toohill are a nice OLB trio to take into next year along with a step-faster, we hope, Sean Barton.  And Barton and Toohill will bring strong veteran leadership to that front seven.  ILB 2 is a question.

(2)  Akina had said that the kid DBs--Bonner, Williamson, and Logan--are keepers.  (Head appears not to be.)

They have to work on tackling before next fall.  We are so fundamentalll flawed: bad run blockers, poor tacklers.  That part of football is declining generally, but we seem to moving backward in double time.

[Goose]

I would argue that the Costello fumble cost us the game.  I kept waiting for us to get a turnover, but it never came.

Objectively, you are correct. While in a close game, many "little things" matter, losing the turnover battle is not a "little" thing. The fact we got no interceptions was a bit of a surprise to me, but credit WSU for playing mistake free.

[Goose]

I would argue that the Costello fumble cost us the game.  I kept waiting for us to get a turnover, but it never came.

Objectively, you are correct. While in a close game, many "little things" matter, losing the turnover battle is not a "little" thing. The fact we got no interceptions was a bit of a surprise to me, but credit WSU for playing mistake free.

[Austroturf]

I would argue that the Costello fumble cost us the game.  I kept waiting for us to get a turnover, but it never came.

Objectively, you are correct. While in a close game, many "little things" matter, losing the turnover battle is not a "little" thing. The fact we got no interceptions was a bit of a surprise to me, but credit WSU for playing mistake free.

Yes, that was my big disappointment: a QB slings it out 50 times, and not one of them is picked off by the defense.  Amazing.  When conjuring up a road-map to victory, I stated that we would need one or two takeaways.  Losing the turnover battle was decidedly not part of that road-map.

[Austroturf]

I would argue that the Costello fumble cost us the game.  I kept waiting for us to get a turnover, but it never came.

Objectively, you are correct. While in a close game, many "little things" matter, losing the turnover battle is not a "little" thing. The fact we got no interceptions was a bit of a surprise to me, but credit WSU for playing mistake free.

Yes, that was my big disappointment: a QB slings it out 50 times, and not one of them is picked off by the defense.  Amazing.  When conjuring up a road-map to victory, I stated that we would need one or two takeaways.  Losing the turnover battle was decidedly not part of that road-map.

[winflop]

Minshew is a great QB for the system, but the few times we got pressure on him he wasn't very good.

This is the third time a QB has thrown for 75%+ completion percentage. In each of those games we failed to generate sufficient pressure.

That, combined with awful tackling in the second half on their receivers, are why we lost.

[winflop]

Minshew is a great QB for the system, but the few times we got pressure on him he wasn't very good.

This is the third time a QB has thrown for 75%+ completion percentage. In each of those games we failed to generate sufficient pressure.

That, combined with awful tackling in the second half on their receivers, are why we lost.

[Goose]

Minshew is a great QB for the system, but the few times we got pressure on him he wasn't very good.

This is the third time a QB has thrown for 75%+ completion percentage. In each of those games we failed to generate sufficient pressure.

That, combined with awful tackling in the second half on their receivers, are why we lost.

It is real hard to get pressure against an air raid team. There are two ways to go. One is quick pressure, which makes the QB decide "right now" where to throw. No time at all to read coverage. To do that, you probably need to bring 5. If the QB guesses right on where he throws, you get burned bad. The other way is a "coverage sack". That is how we went about it most of the night. You have to be able to cover long enough for one of your three or four rushers to get home. If you have a Solomon Thomas, that may work. We don't right now. We came close, but not close enough. That said, how we played it is probably the only way we could play it. If you try to play a more "conventional" defense, there will always be somebody open and there will be time to complete the pass.

If we could tackle, we could give up short gains and still force a punt. However, last night, we didn't tackle well, and that was it.

[Goose]

Minshew is a great QB for the system, but the few times we got pressure on him he wasn't very good.

This is the third time a QB has thrown for 75%+ completion percentage. In each of those games we failed to generate sufficient pressure.

That, combined with awful tackling in the second half on their receivers, are why we lost.

It is real hard to get pressure against an air raid team. There are two ways to go. One is quick pressure, which makes the QB decide "right now" where to throw. No time at all to read coverage. To do that, you probably need to bring 5. If the QB guesses right on where he throws, you get burned bad. The other way is a "coverage sack". That is how we went about it most of the night. You have to be able to cover long enough for one of your three or four rushers to get home. If you have a Solomon Thomas, that may work. We don't right now. We came close, but not close enough. That said, how we played it is probably the only way we could play it. If you try to play a more "conventional" defense, there will always be somebody open and there will be time to complete the pass.

If we could tackle, we could give up short gains and still force a punt. However, last night, we didn't tackle well, and that was it.

[needle]

 This is the third time a QB has thrown for 75%+ completion percentage. In each of those games we failed to generate sufficient pressure.  

Huntley had an 81 percent completion percentage against Stanford, his highest completion percentage of the season.

Minshew had an 80 percent completion percentage against Stanford, his highest completion percentage of the season.

Herbert had a 78.8 percent completion percentage against Stanford, his highest completion percentage of the season.

[needle]

 This is the third time a QB has thrown for 75%+ completion percentage. In each of those games we failed to generate sufficient pressure.  

Huntley had an 81 percent completion percentage against Stanford, his highest completion percentage of the season.

Minshew had an 80 percent completion percentage against Stanford, his highest completion percentage of the season.

Herbert had a 78.8 percent completion percentage against Stanford, his highest completion percentage of the season.

[CTcard]

Our defense (1) discourages and (2) encourages me.

(1).  ... the rest of the DBs look like they've played only in 7 on 7 leagues.  Get wide, shorten your steps, accelerate through the ball carrier's chest.  C'mon guys.

(2)  The young DLs are developing 

(2)  Fox, Reid and Toohill are a nice OLB trio to take into next year along with a step-faster, we hope, Sean Barton. 

(2)  Akina had said that the kid DBs--Bonner, Williamson, and Logan--are keepers.

I sure hope that the kid DBs are in fact keepers, because otherwise we are going to have a tough time trying to figure out how to have Adebo cover all of our opponents' receivers at the same time.

For the immediate future, that group worries me the most. Sort of surprising. Akina has possibly the best credentials of any of our coaches. We've recruited more and higher rated guys for the defensive backfield than ... ever(?). Yet we seem to have one plus player and a lot of guys who don't seem to be coming along for positive contributions.

[CTcard]

Our defense (1) discourages and (2) encourages me.

(1).  ... the rest of the DBs look like they've played only in 7 on 7 leagues.  Get wide, shorten your steps, accelerate through the ball carrier's chest.  C'mon guys.

(2)  The young DLs are developing 

(2)  Fox, Reid and Toohill are a nice OLB trio to take into next year along with a step-faster, we hope, Sean Barton. 

(2)  Akina had said that the kid DBs--Bonner, Williamson, and Logan--are keepers.

I sure hope that the kid DBs are in fact keepers, because otherwise we are going to have a tough time trying to figure out how to have Adebo cover all of our opponents' receivers at the same time.

For the immediate future, that group worries me the most. Sort of surprising. Akina has possibly the best credentials of any of our coaches. We've recruited more and higher rated guys for the defensive backfield than ... ever(?). Yet we seem to have one plus player and a lot of guys who don't seem to be coming along for positive contributions.

[StanfordMatt]

We lost this game on our last offensive possession of the third quarter. Yes, the defense was horrendous and made Minshew look like Joe Montana, but we began that possession with the ball and a 7 point lead (31-24). If we had simply held serve, we would've won.

In another thread, Hank contended that we have never lost a game with Shaw as head coach due to "turtling." That may have been the case entering Saturday, but it is true no more. It may be crazy to think of "turtling" in the third quarter of a one possession game, but that is precisely what Shaw did. Up until that drive, we had 7 possessions which resulted in 4 TDs, 1 FG, 1 turnover, and 1 punt. On 6 of those 7 drives, our first play was a pass. We also called passes on 6 of the 7 second plays of those drives. Not once did we run the ball two times to start a drive. What did we do on the first two plays of the last possession of the third quarter? Two consecutive runs by Speights up the middle. Costello's pass on third down to Irwin was broken up and we punted. It was only our second three-and-out of the game and only the third drive that didn't result in points.

Putting aside the statistics, you could visually observe the change in approach on that possession. It was night and day from everything we had done on offense up until that point. All game long, we had been running an up-tempo offense with KJ primarily operating out of the gun and airing it out. I was stunning to watch and it was a thing of beauty. WSU had no answers for JJ or Kaden.  Todd Husak even tweeted that it was the "most brilliant offensive play calling in years." Shaw had stepped out of his comfort zone and I applauded him. But alas, it was too good to be true. You could almost see the wheels spinning in Shaw's head. We're up 7, we have the ball and it's "starting to get late." Let's go back to the plays we're accustomed to calling and impose our will. Lo and behold we come out in a heavy set and run up the middle twice. Sure, we picked up decent yardage on the two plays, but we lost our offensive tempo/rhythm and WSU could sit on a third down pass play. We lost our momentum and WSU never looked back.

Those two run plays may have been a blip on the radar for many, but in my mind they cost us the game.

[StanfordMatt]

We lost this game on our last offensive possession of the third quarter. Yes, the defense was horrendous and made Minshew look like Joe Montana, but we began that possession with the ball and a 7 point lead (31-24). If we had simply held serve, we would've won.

In another thread, Hank contended that we have never lost a game with Shaw as head coach due to "turtling." That may have been the case entering Saturday, but it is true no more. It may be crazy to think of "turtling" in the third quarter of a one possession game, but that is precisely what Shaw did. Up until that drive, we had 7 possessions which resulted in 4 TDs, 1 FG, 1 turnover, and 1 punt. On 6 of those 7 drives, our first play was a pass. We also called passes on 6 of the 7 second plays of those drives. Not once did we run the ball two times to start a drive. What did we do on the first two plays of the last possession of the third quarter? Two consecutive runs by Speights up the middle. Costello's pass on third down to Irwin was broken up and we punted. It was only our second three-and-out of the game and only the third drive that didn't result in points.

Putting aside the statistics, you could visually observe the change in approach on that possession. It was night and day from everything we had done on offense up until that point. All game long, we had been running an up-tempo offense with KJ primarily operating out of the gun and airing it out. I was stunning to watch and it was a thing of beauty. WSU had no answers for JJ or Kaden.  Todd Husak even tweeted that it was the "most brilliant offensive play calling in years." Shaw had stepped out of his comfort zone and I applauded him. But alas, it was too good to be true. You could almost see the wheels spinning in Shaw's head. We're up 7, we have the ball and it's "starting to get late." Let's go back to the plays we're accustomed to calling and impose our will. Lo and behold we come out in a heavy set and run up the middle twice. Sure, we picked up decent yardage on the two plays, but we lost our offensive tempo/rhythm and WSU could sit on a third down pass play. We lost our momentum and WSU never looked back.

Those two run plays may have been a blip on the radar for many, but in my mind they cost us the game.

[d4cohn]

We lost this game on our last offensive possession of the third quarter. Yes, the defense was horrendous and made Minshew look like Joe Montana, but we began that possession with the ball and a 7 point lead (31-24). If we had simply held serve, we would've won.

In another thread, Hank contended that we have never lost a game with Shaw as head coach due to "turtling." That may have been the case entering Saturday, but it is true no more. It may be crazy to think of "turtling" in the third quarter of a one possession game, but that is precisely what Shaw did. Up until that drive, we had 7 possessions which resulted in 4 TDs, 1 FG, 1 turnover, and 1 punt. On 6 of those 7 drives, our first play was a pass. We also called passes on 6 of the 7 second plays of those drives. Not once did we run the ball two times to start a drive. What did we do on the first two plays of the last possession of the third quarter? Two consecutive runs by Speights up the middle. Costello's pass on third down to Irwin was broken up and we punted. It was only our second three-and-out of the game and only the third drive that didn't result in points.

Putting aside the statistics, you could visually observe the change in approach on that possession. It was night and day from everything we had done on offense up until that point. All game long, we had been running an up-tempo offense with KJ primarily operating out of the gun and airing it out. I was stunning to watch and it was a thing of beauty. WSU had no answers for JJ or Kaden.  Todd Husak even tweeted that it was the "most brilliant offensive play calling in years." Shaw had stepped out of his comfort zone and I applauded him. But alas, it was too good to be true. You could almost see the wheels spinning in Shaw's head. We're up 7, we have the ball and it's "starting to get late." Let's go back to the plays we're accustomed to calling and impose our will. Lo and behold we come out in a heavy set and run up the middle twice. Sure, we picked up decent yardage on the two plays, but we lost our offensive tempo/rhythm and WSU could sit on a third down pass play. We lost our momentum and WSU never looked back.

Those two run plays may have been a blip on the radar for many, but in my mind they cost us the game.

Drive chart for significant drives in second half: FG, Punt, Turnover on Downs (+32), TD. We may not have gotten the points we wanted or needed, but that is not turtling. Turtling is not going for it on 4th and 3 at +32 with Jet Toner as the kicker. Maybe you could argue 4th and 1/2 a yard is a bit conservative, but the idea that we lost the game because we failed to score 42 points instead of 38, as opposed to a defense that literally could not buy a stop in the second half, is a stretch to say the least.

This game was the repeat of the TCU Alamo Bowl. It wasn't the offense's fault then, or the offensive playcaller's fault, and it certainly isn't now. Was it perfect? No, but how often do we see a perfectly called offensive gameplan? We scored 38 points (most rather effortlessly). I expect the defense to hold even a team like Wazzu to under 38 points.

[d4cohn]

We lost this game on our last offensive possession of the third quarter. Yes, the defense was horrendous and made Minshew look like Joe Montana, but we began that possession with the ball and a 7 point lead (31-24). If we had simply held serve, we would've won.

In another thread, Hank contended that we have never lost a game with Shaw as head coach due to "turtling." That may have been the case entering Saturday, but it is true no more. It may be crazy to think of "turtling" in the third quarter of a one possession game, but that is precisely what Shaw did. Up until that drive, we had 7 possessions which resulted in 4 TDs, 1 FG, 1 turnover, and 1 punt. On 6 of those 7 drives, our first play was a pass. We also called passes on 6 of the 7 second plays of those drives. Not once did we run the ball two times to start a drive. What did we do on the first two plays of the last possession of the third quarter? Two consecutive runs by Speights up the middle. Costello's pass on third down to Irwin was broken up and we punted. It was only our second three-and-out of the game and only the third drive that didn't result in points.

Putting aside the statistics, you could visually observe the change in approach on that possession. It was night and day from everything we had done on offense up until that point. All game long, we had been running an up-tempo offense with KJ primarily operating out of the gun and airing it out. I was stunning to watch and it was a thing of beauty. WSU had no answers for JJ or Kaden.  Todd Husak even tweeted that it was the "most brilliant offensive play calling in years." Shaw had stepped out of his comfort zone and I applauded him. But alas, it was too good to be true. You could almost see the wheels spinning in Shaw's head. We're up 7, we have the ball and it's "starting to get late." Let's go back to the plays we're accustomed to calling and impose our will. Lo and behold we come out in a heavy set and run up the middle twice. Sure, we picked up decent yardage on the two plays, but we lost our offensive tempo/rhythm and WSU could sit on a third down pass play. We lost our momentum and WSU never looked back.

Those two run plays may have been a blip on the radar for many, but in my mind they cost us the game.

Drive chart for significant drives in second half: FG, Punt, Turnover on Downs (+32), TD. We may not have gotten the points we wanted or needed, but that is not turtling. Turtling is not going for it on 4th and 3 at +32 with Jet Toner as the kicker. Maybe you could argue 4th and 1/2 a yard is a bit conservative, but the idea that we lost the game because we failed to score 42 points instead of 38, as opposed to a defense that literally could not buy a stop in the second half, is a stretch to say the least.

This game was the repeat of the TCU Alamo Bowl. It wasn't the offense's fault then, or the offensive playcaller's fault, and it certainly isn't now. Was it perfect? No, but how often do we see a perfectly called offensive gameplan? We scored 38 points (most rather effortlessly). I expect the defense to hold even a team like Wazzu to under 38 points.