[Goose]

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.

Those two run plays made 8 yards. I think that isn't a bad result. What I question more is the pass on third down, although it wasn't a "crazy" call. I can in no way think that was "turtling". By running twice in a row, Shaw was breaking tendencies shown in this game. It mostly worked.  He got 8 yards. That isn't chopped liver. Third and 2 is normally a good down and distance situation.

[Goose]

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.

Those two run plays made 8 yards. I think that isn't a bad result. What I question more is the pass on third down, although it wasn't a "crazy" call. I can in no way think that was "turtling". By running twice in a row, Shaw was breaking tendencies shown in this game. It mostly worked.  He got 8 yards. That isn't chopped liver. Third and 2 is normally a good down and distance situation.

[StanfordMatt]

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.

1) We are in agreement on the defense. It was awful. If we had gotten even an average defensive performance, we wouldn't have needed our offensive play calling to be perfect. But since we didn't, perfection was what we needed.

2) I didn't say we turtled the whole second half. I was pointing to two specific plays during which it appeared. Again, we should've been able to overcome it, but in a game with the margins as close as they were, those two plays cost us.

Those two run plays made 8 yards. I think that isn't a bad result. What I question more is the pass on third down, although it wasn't a "crazy" call. I can in no way think that was "turtling". By running twice in a row, Shaw was breaking tendencies shown in this game. It mostly worked.  He got 8 yards. That isn't chopped liver. Third and 2 is normally a good down and distance situation.

The result was fine. A pass on the first and/or second play of that drive could've just as easily resulted in the same 3rd and 2. My criticism is directed towards the approach. We went back in our shell with the heavy set and it disrupted our offensive rhythm.

[StanfordMatt]

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.

1) We are in agreement on the defense. It was awful. If we had gotten even an average defensive performance, we wouldn't have needed our offensive play calling to be perfect. But since we didn't, perfection was what we needed.

2) I didn't say we turtled the whole second half. I was pointing to two specific plays during which it appeared. Again, we should've been able to overcome it, but in a game with the margins as close as they were, those two plays cost us.

Those two run plays made 8 yards. I think that isn't a bad result. What I question more is the pass on third down, although it wasn't a "crazy" call. I can in no way think that was "turtling". By running twice in a row, Shaw was breaking tendencies shown in this game. It mostly worked.  He got 8 yards. That isn't chopped liver. Third and 2 is normally a good down and distance situation.

The result was fine. A pass on the first and/or second play of that drive could've just as easily resulted in the same 3rd and 2. My criticism is directed towards the approach. We went back in our shell with the heavy set and it disrupted our offensive rhythm.

[Goose]

The result was fine. A pass on the first and/or second play of that drive could've just as easily resulted in the same 3rd and 2.

Or not. Trying to break patterns is what we have been asking for. The pattern was passing on first down. We broke the pattern. I don't see that as a reversion in form.

My criticism is directed towards the approach. We went back in our shell with the heavy set and it disrupted our offensive rhythm.

The real problem was that we didn't get the first down on 3rd and 2. If we had, people would praise the creativity of making WSU still respect the run. That is what "disrupted" our drive. We didn't keep the ball.

[Goose]

The result was fine. A pass on the first and/or second play of that drive could've just as easily resulted in the same 3rd and 2.

Or not. Trying to break patterns is what we have been asking for. The pattern was passing on first down. We broke the pattern. I don't see that as a reversion in form.

My criticism is directed towards the approach. We went back in our shell with the heavy set and it disrupted our offensive rhythm.

The real problem was that we didn't get the first down on 3rd and 2. If we had, people would praise the creativity of making WSU still respect the run. That is what "disrupted" our drive. We didn't keep the ball.

[StanfordMatt]

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this topic. Not sure about anyone else, but I've never called for breaking patterns merely for the sake of breaking patterns. When your offense has been more effective than it has been all year as a result of trying a new approach, I'm a fan of sticking with that approach until the opposing defense shows it can stop it.

I did see the last possession of the third quarter as reversion in form because those heavy sets have been a staple of the Shaw offense for the past decade. In past years, they've worked great. This year, however, they've stunk. Despite their ineffectiveness, I believe Shaw is still more comfortable calling plays out of those sets than the up-tempo, spread formations we saw on the first seven drives. Call it Shaw being conservative, or turtling or any other label you choose. The bottom line is that for one possession, we got away from the approach that was working and that deviation was enough to cost us a win.

[StanfordMatt]

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this topic. Not sure about anyone else, but I've never called for breaking patterns merely for the sake of breaking patterns. When your offense has been more effective than it has been all year as a result of trying a new approach, I'm a fan of sticking with that approach until the opposing defense shows it can stop it.

I did see the last possession of the third quarter as reversion in form because those heavy sets have been a staple of the Shaw offense for the past decade. In past years, they've worked great. This year, however, they've stunk. Despite their ineffectiveness, I believe Shaw is still more comfortable calling plays out of those sets than the up-tempo, spread formations we saw on the first seven drives. Call it Shaw being conservative, or turtling or any other label you choose. The bottom line is that for one possession, we got away from the approach that was working and that deviation was enough to cost us a win.

[Austroturf]

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this topic. Not sure about anyone else, but I've never called for breaking patterns merely for the sake of breaking patterns. When your offense has been more effective than it has been all year as a result of trying a new approach, I'm a fan of sticking with that approach until the opposing defense shows it can stop it.

I did see the last possession of the third quarter as reversion in form because those heavy sets have been a staple of the Shaw offense for the past decade. In past years, they've worked great. This year, however, they've stunk. Despite their ineffectiveness, I believe Shaw is still more comfortable calling plays out of those sets than the up-tempo, spread formations we saw on the first seven drives. Call it Shaw being conservative, or turtling or any other label you choose. The bottom line is that for one possession, we got away from the approach that was working and that deviation was enough to cost us a win.

You are not alone in your perception.  I heard other people commenting that Stanford's eighth possession (second of the second half) represented a reversion to past form.  That said, getting eight yards on two runs is rather good.  With two pass plays to open that series, Costello might have had us at midfield already and threatening to go two scores up.  Our defense had just gotten what would be its only stop of the second half; and to go two scores up towards the end of the 3rd quarter would have been big.  Instead, we punted; and the Cougs marched down the field to tie the score.

Whether this series was the momentum shift or not is open to debate.  Going 3-and-out is always bad in a tight game.  On possession 4 we also went 3-and-out and had opened the series with an incomplete pass, followed by a run, then an incomplete pass.  

What is undeniable is that there was a momentum shift in the 3rd quarter, and I believe it was a combination of things, not just one series.  If Shaw had gone for it on 4th and under a yard at the Wazzu 22 on possession #7 (1st of the second half) and we had scored a TD instead of a FG, we keep the two possession differential.  As it would turn out, we would only have 4 possessions in the 2nd half, so maximizing points per possession was key; but Shaw settled for a FG.  Then we got a badly needed stop and immediately went 3-and-out.  During this phase of the game, the momentum was tipping toward the Cougs.  When we turned the ball over on possession 9 with the game tied, the shift was complete, and we were back on our heels.  So I don't think it was one series, but a combination of different factors.  And our defense being unable to defuse the air-raid was the biggest of these factors.

[Austroturf]

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this topic. Not sure about anyone else, but I've never called for breaking patterns merely for the sake of breaking patterns. When your offense has been more effective than it has been all year as a result of trying a new approach, I'm a fan of sticking with that approach until the opposing defense shows it can stop it.

I did see the last possession of the third quarter as reversion in form because those heavy sets have been a staple of the Shaw offense for the past decade. In past years, they've worked great. This year, however, they've stunk. Despite their ineffectiveness, I believe Shaw is still more comfortable calling plays out of those sets than the up-tempo, spread formations we saw on the first seven drives. Call it Shaw being conservative, or turtling or any other label you choose. The bottom line is that for one possession, we got away from the approach that was working and that deviation was enough to cost us a win.

You are not alone in your perception.  I heard other people commenting that Stanford's eighth possession (second of the second half) represented a reversion to past form.  That said, getting eight yards on two runs is rather good.  With two pass plays to open that series, Costello might have had us at midfield already and threatening to go two scores up.  Our defense had just gotten what would be its only stop of the second half; and to go two scores up towards the end of the 3rd quarter would have been big.  Instead, we punted; and the Cougs marched down the field to tie the score.

Whether this series was the momentum shift or not is open to debate.  Going 3-and-out is always bad in a tight game.  On possession 4 we also went 3-and-out and had opened the series with an incomplete pass, followed by a run, then an incomplete pass.  

What is undeniable is that there was a momentum shift in the 3rd quarter, and I believe it was a combination of things, not just one series.  If Shaw had gone for it on 4th and under a yard at the Wazzu 22 on possession #7 (1st of the second half) and we had scored a TD instead of a FG, we keep the two possession differential.  As it would turn out, we would only have 4 possessions in the 2nd half, so maximizing points per possession was key; but Shaw settled for a FG.  Then we got a badly needed stop and immediately went 3-and-out.  During this phase of the game, the momentum was tipping toward the Cougs.  When we turned the ball over on possession 9 with the game tied, the shift was complete, and we were back on our heels.  So I don't think it was one series, but a combination of different factors.  And our defense being unable to defuse the air-raid was the biggest of these factors.

[BostonCard]

WSU adjusted its defensive strategy and started playing cover 2 with two deep safeties.  That took away a lot of our downfield passing and forced Costello to check down a bunch of times (which is why Love had more receptions yesterday than any other game).  Cover 2 is somewhat vulnerable to runs, so running it made sense.

https://steelerswire.usatoday.com/2015/0...ve-scheme/

Additionally, Cover 2 sets will leave the box seven-strong on any given play, and a Tampa 2 set could leave the middle linebacker out of position in case of a draw or play action; this opens the door for the opponents running game.

And, as others pointed out, that strategy worked pretty well.  More focus should be on the failure to get a first down on third and 2, which has been a real problem all year. 

BC

[BostonCard]

WSU adjusted its defensive strategy and started playing cover 2 with two deep safeties.  That took away a lot of our downfield passing and forced Costello to check down a bunch of times (which is why Love had more receptions yesterday than any other game).  Cover 2 is somewhat vulnerable to runs, so running it made sense.

https://steelerswire.usatoday.com/2015/0...ve-scheme/

Additionally, Cover 2 sets will leave the box seven-strong on any given play, and a Tampa 2 set could leave the middle linebacker out of position in case of a draw or play action; this opens the door for the opponents running game.

And, as others pointed out, that strategy worked pretty well.  More focus should be on the failure to get a first down on third and 2, which has been a real problem all year. 

BC

[Goose]

More focus should be on the failure to get a first down on third and 2, which has been a real problem all year. 

BC

I agree, both on that particular play and also on the entire year. Playing "Stanford Football" as it was in past years, we run and make in 90%+ of the time. In the last three years, and especially this year, getting that first by running has been problematic. This time, we elected to pass. That didn't work out too well, although, as with runs, it was an "execution failure". I thought KJ gave up on the play and made a hurried throw. Then again, he probably felt he had no time left.

[Goose]

More focus should be on the failure to get a first down on third and 2, which has been a real problem all year. 

BC

I agree, both on that particular play and also on the entire year. Playing "Stanford Football" as it was in past years, we run and make in 90%+ of the time. In the last three years, and especially this year, getting that first by running has been problematic. This time, we elected to pass. That didn't work out too well, although, as with runs, it was an "execution failure". I thought KJ gave up on the play and made a hurried throw. Then again, he probably felt he had no time left.

[Spiny_Norman]

This storyline is getting old:
UNC Sun Bowl 2016 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop UNC on 10 play, 97 yard drive. They score with 25 seconds remaining. Stanford is saved when they sack the QB on the 2 point conversion which would have tied the game.
SDSU 2017 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop SDSU on 11 play, 75 yard drive. They score with 54 seconds remaining to win.
WSU 2017 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop WSU on 11 play, 94 yard drive. They score with 6:56 remaining to win.
USC P12 championship game 2017 - Stanford trails by 3 in 4th quarter but cannot stop USC on 8 play, 99 yard drive. They score with 4:22 remaining.
TCU Alamo Bowl - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop TCU on 9 play, 59 yard drive. They kick a FG with 3:07 remaining to take the lead.
WSU 2018 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop WSU on 7 play, 50 yard drive. They kick a FG with 19 seconds remaining to win.

Defense wins championships and Stanford is not there right now.

[Spiny_Norman]

This storyline is getting old:
UNC Sun Bowl 2016 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop UNC on 10 play, 97 yard drive. They score with 25 seconds remaining. Stanford is saved when they sack the QB on the 2 point conversion which would have tied the game.
SDSU 2017 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop SDSU on 11 play, 75 yard drive. They score with 54 seconds remaining to win.
WSU 2017 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop WSU on 11 play, 94 yard drive. They score with 6:56 remaining to win.
USC P12 championship game 2017 - Stanford trails by 3 in 4th quarter but cannot stop USC on 8 play, 99 yard drive. They score with 4:22 remaining.
TCU Alamo Bowl - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop TCU on 9 play, 59 yard drive. They kick a FG with 3:07 remaining to take the lead.
WSU 2018 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop WSU on 7 play, 50 yard drive. They kick a FG with 19 seconds remaining to win.

Defense wins championships and Stanford is not there right now.

[Goose]

This storyline is getting old:
UNC Sun Bowl 2016 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop UNC on 10 play, 97 yard drive. They score with 25 seconds remaining. Stanford is saved when they sack the QB on the 2 point conversion which would have tied the game.
SDSU 2017 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop SDSU on 11 play, 75 yard drive. They score with 54 seconds remaining to win.
WSU 2017 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop WSU on 11 play, 94 yard drive. They score with 6:56 remaining to win.
USC P12 championship game 2017 - Stanford trails by 3 in 4th quarter but cannot stop USC on 8 play, 99 yard drive. They score with 4:22 remaining.
TCU Alamo Bowl - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop TCU on 9 play, 59 yard drive. They kick a FG with 3:07 remaining to take the lead.
WSU 2018 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop WSU on 7 play, 50 yard drive. They kick a FG with 19 seconds remaining to win.

Defense wins championships and Stanford is not there right now.

You are correct. As you point out, this has been a problem for a while. It has also been a traditional Stanford problem. "Back in the day" we could score points on anybody, but we couldn't stop anybody. Even during our recent string under Shaw, I would argue that our defense wasn't really our strength. The ability to control the clock and run the ball created a situation where the defense only had to be good for "a while", not  an entire game. When we don't have the ability to control the tempo, our defense gets exposed as not top level.
I don't expect us to be able to change that. We can be better on defense than we are at present, but probably not "top level". We need to get back to controlling the game. That means the OL has to enable us to "run the damn ball". That we have been able to do in the past. We need to be able to do it again.

[Goose]

This storyline is getting old:
UNC Sun Bowl 2016 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop UNC on 10 play, 97 yard drive. They score with 25 seconds remaining. Stanford is saved when they sack the QB on the 2 point conversion which would have tied the game.
SDSU 2017 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop SDSU on 11 play, 75 yard drive. They score with 54 seconds remaining to win.
WSU 2017 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop WSU on 11 play, 94 yard drive. They score with 6:56 remaining to win.
USC P12 championship game 2017 - Stanford trails by 3 in 4th quarter but cannot stop USC on 8 play, 99 yard drive. They score with 4:22 remaining.
TCU Alamo Bowl - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop TCU on 9 play, 59 yard drive. They kick a FG with 3:07 remaining to take the lead.
WSU 2018 - Stanford leads in the 4th quarter but cannot stop WSU on 7 play, 50 yard drive. They kick a FG with 19 seconds remaining to win.

Defense wins championships and Stanford is not there right now.

You are correct. As you point out, this has been a problem for a while. It has also been a traditional Stanford problem. "Back in the day" we could score points on anybody, but we couldn't stop anybody. Even during our recent string under Shaw, I would argue that our defense wasn't really our strength. The ability to control the clock and run the ball created a situation where the defense only had to be good for "a while", not  an entire game. When we don't have the ability to control the tempo, our defense gets exposed as not top level.
I don't expect us to be able to change that. We can be better on defense than we are at present, but probably not "top level". We need to get back to controlling the game. That means the OL has to enable us to "run the damn ball". That we have been able to do in the past. We need to be able to do it again.