[81alum]

Lots of kudos to go around.  I can also think of a lot of things to criticize, but perhaps we can save those for another thread.  Here, I'm interested in thoughtful analysis of how we actually pulled it off.

Here is my theory.  It is based upon two observations.
1) Time of Possession: Stanford 39:01 Washington 20:59.  That is nearly a 2:1 ratio.
2) Our defense has played very well for stretches even in our losses, but has collapsed at the end of games.

Theory:  We have a very good but very thin (and not ideally conditioned) defense.  In this game, our thin defense only needed to perform at a high level for 21 minutes, and it was able to do so.

Credit thus largely belongs to the offense for controlling the clock.  Oddly, we were only 7/14 on 3rd and 4th down conversions, but we made 17 first downs on 1st and 2nd down.  Having a balance between 189 yard of rushing--most courtesy of Scarlett--and 293 yards of mostly accurate passing, certainly helped. 

We have been marveling at how an offensive line with 3 freshmen was able to be reasonably effective in support of the run game.  I watched Hornibrook carefully when he came in for Hattis.  On the next play Scarlett rushed from the 4 for a touchdown.  On that play Hornibrook double teamed with an initial block, got off that and blocked a second Washington player.  I'm beginning to wonder if these three freshmen are actually more talented than the more experienced linemen they are replacing.

So...while there are lots of people who could be praised, none more than three college freshmen playing on the offensive line.  At least the future looks bright there.

[81alum]

Lots of kudos to go around.  I can also think of a lot of things to criticize, but perhaps we can save those for another thread.  Here, I'm interested in thoughtful analysis of how we actually pulled it off.

Here is my theory.  It is based upon two observations.
1) Time of Possession: Stanford 39:01 Washington 20:59.  That is nearly a 2:1 ratio.
2) Our defense has played very well for stretches even in our losses, but has collapsed at the end of games.

Theory:  We have a very good but very thin (and not ideally conditioned) defense.  In this game, our thin defense only needed to perform at a high level for 21 minutes, and it was able to do so.

Credit thus largely belongs to the offense for controlling the clock.  Oddly, we were only 7/14 on 3rd and 4th down conversions, but we made 17 first downs on 1st and 2nd down.  Having a balance between 189 yard of rushing--most courtesy of Scarlett--and 293 yards of mostly accurate passing, certainly helped. 

We have been marveling at how an offensive line with 3 freshmen was able to be reasonably effective in support of the run game.  I watched Hornibrook carefully when he came in for Hattis.  On the next play Scarlett rushed from the 4 for a touchdown.  On that play Hornibrook double teamed with an initial block, got off that and blocked a second Washington player.  I'm beginning to wonder if these three freshmen are actually more talented than the more experienced linemen they are replacing.

So...while there are lots of people who could be praised, none more than three college freshmen playing on the offensive line.  At least the future looks bright there.

[Nan3cy]

The defense allowed just 16 receptions on 36 passes by Eason for just 206 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT and he was sacked twice (24.0 rating).  Very nice.  Their big stud running back ran just 10 times for 64 yards before he got hurt.

Davis Mills was 21/30 for 293 yards and a TD for an 84.0 rating (ESPN).  He also carried three times for 26 yards.

Scarlett was a horse.  33 carries for 151 yards.  At the end of the game, he was still moving the pile forward.

Washington's a good team that beat Cal and USC.  I thought the Stanford coaches called an excellent game against the Huskies.  I hope it continues against the 1-5 UCLA Bruins on 10/17.

I thought they lost to Cal.

[Nan3cy]

The defense allowed just 16 receptions on 36 passes by Eason for just 206 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT and he was sacked twice (24.0 rating).  Very nice.  Their big stud running back ran just 10 times for 64 yards before he got hurt.

Davis Mills was 21/30 for 293 yards and a TD for an 84.0 rating (ESPN).  He also carried three times for 26 yards.

Scarlett was a horse.  33 carries for 151 yards.  At the end of the game, he was still moving the pile forward.

Washington's a good team that beat Cal and USC.  I thought the Stanford coaches called an excellent game against the Huskies.  I hope it continues against the 1-5 UCLA Bruins on 10/17.

I thought they lost to Cal.

[Mick]

The defense allowed just 16 receptions on 36 passes by Eason for just 206 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT and he was sacked twice (24.0 rating).  Very nice.  Their big stud running back ran just 10 times for 64 yards before he got hurt.

Davis Mills was 21/30 for 293 yards and a TD for an 84.0 rating (ESPN).  He also carried three times for 26 yards.

Scarlett was a horse.  33 carries for 151 yards.  At the end of the game, he was still moving the pile forward.

Washington's a good team that beat Cal and USC.  I thought the Stanford coaches called an excellent game against the Huskies.  I hope it continues against the 1-5 UCLA Bruins on 10/17.

I thought they lost to Cal.

You're right.  How could I mistake BYU for Cal?  Washington's wins were against BYU, USC, Hawaii and Eastern Washington.

I feel a little bit bad for Cal.  Started out 4-0 (UC Davis, Washington, Ole Miss and North Texas) and then loses to ASU and Oregon.  Tough.

[Mick]

The defense allowed just 16 receptions on 36 passes by Eason for just 206 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT and he was sacked twice (24.0 rating).  Very nice.  Their big stud running back ran just 10 times for 64 yards before he got hurt.

Davis Mills was 21/30 for 293 yards and a TD for an 84.0 rating (ESPN).  He also carried three times for 26 yards.

Scarlett was a horse.  33 carries for 151 yards.  At the end of the game, he was still moving the pile forward.

Washington's a good team that beat Cal and USC.  I thought the Stanford coaches called an excellent game against the Huskies.  I hope it continues against the 1-5 UCLA Bruins on 10/17.

I thought they lost to Cal.

You're right.  How could I mistake BYU for Cal?  Washington's wins were against BYU, USC, Hawaii and Eastern Washington.

I feel a little bit bad for Cal.  Started out 4-0 (UC Davis, Washington, Ole Miss and North Texas) and then loses to ASU and Oregon.  Tough.

[BostonCard]

In three home games, our defense has allowed 7, 21, and 13 points, or an average of about 14 a game, to teams who have otherwise scored 14 (Northwestern), 34 (Oregon), and 34 (Washington) points per game.  In our three away games, we’ve given up 45, 45, and 28 points, or an average of 39, to teams who have scored 29 (USC), 45 (UCF) and 37 (OSU). And this cannot be explained by the quality of opponent.  Oregon State is the only road game we kept our opponent under their season average; we kept all three home opponents well under their season average.

The defense really struggles on the road, but it is pretty good at home.  The good news is we have 4 out of our remaining 6 games at home.

BC

[BostonCard]

In three home games, our defense has allowed 7, 21, and 13 points, or an average of about 14 a game, to teams who have otherwise scored 14 (Northwestern), 34 (Oregon), and 34 (Washington) points per game.  In our three away games, we’ve given up 45, 45, and 28 points, or an average of 39, to teams who have scored 29 (USC), 45 (UCF) and 37 (OSU). And this cannot be explained by the quality of opponent.  Oregon State is the only road game we kept our opponent under their season average; we kept all three home opponents well under their season average.

The defense really struggles on the road, but it is pretty good at home.  The good news is we have 4 out of our remaining 6 games at home.

BC

[Mick]

In three home games, our defense has allowed 7, 21, and 13 points, or an average of about 14 a game, to teams who have otherwise scored 14 (Northwestern), 34 (Oregon), and 34 (Washington) points per game.  In our three away games, we’ve given up 45, 45, and 28 points, or an average of 39, to teams who have scored 29 (USC), 45 (UCF) and 37 (OSU). And this cannot be explained by the quality of opponent.  Oregon State is the only road game we kept our opponent under their season average; we kept all three home opponents well under their season average.

The defense really struggles on the road, but it is pretty good at home.  The good news is we have 4 out of our remaining 6 games at home.

BC

Are we heading for a 7-5 record?

[Mick]

In three home games, our defense has allowed 7, 21, and 13 points, or an average of about 14 a game, to teams who have otherwise scored 14 (Northwestern), 34 (Oregon), and 34 (Washington) points per game.  In our three away games, we’ve given up 45, 45, and 28 points, or an average of 39, to teams who have scored 29 (USC), 45 (UCF) and 37 (OSU). And this cannot be explained by the quality of opponent.  Oregon State is the only road game we kept our opponent under their season average; we kept all three home opponents well under their season average.

The defense really struggles on the road, but it is pretty good at home.  The good news is we have 4 out of our remaining 6 games at home.

BC

Are we heading for a 7-5 record?

[BostonCard]

The defense allowed just 16 receptions on 36 passes by Eason for just 206 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT and he was sacked twice (24.0 rating).  Very nice.  Their big stud running back ran just 10 times for 64 yards before he got hurt.

Davis Mills was 21/30 for 293 yards and a TD for an 84.0 rating (ESPN).  He also carried three times for 26 yards.

Scarlett was a horse.  33 carries for 151 yards.  At the end of the game, he was still moving the pile forward.

Washington's a good team that beat Cal and USC.  I thought the Stanford coaches called an excellent game against the Huskies.  I hope it continues against the 1-5 UCLA Bruins on 10/17.

I thought they lost to Cal.

You're right.  How could I mistake BYU for Cal?  Washington's wins were against BYU, USC, Hawaii and Eastern Washington.

I feel a little bit bad for Cal.  Started out 4-0 (UC Davis, Washington, Ole Miss and North Texas) and then loses to ASU and Oregon.  Tough.

Cal lost their starting QB, and their back-up is a stinking pile of garbage. Modster’s PER is 81. For comparison, Nunes PER in 2012 was 120, Burns PER in 2016 was 120, and Chryst’s PER in 2017 was 123.

BC

[BostonCard]

The defense allowed just 16 receptions on 36 passes by Eason for just 206 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT and he was sacked twice (24.0 rating).  Very nice.  Their big stud running back ran just 10 times for 64 yards before he got hurt.

Davis Mills was 21/30 for 293 yards and a TD for an 84.0 rating (ESPN).  He also carried three times for 26 yards.

Scarlett was a horse.  33 carries for 151 yards.  At the end of the game, he was still moving the pile forward.

Washington's a good team that beat Cal and USC.  I thought the Stanford coaches called an excellent game against the Huskies.  I hope it continues against the 1-5 UCLA Bruins on 10/17.

I thought they lost to Cal.

You're right.  How could I mistake BYU for Cal?  Washington's wins were against BYU, USC, Hawaii and Eastern Washington.

I feel a little bit bad for Cal.  Started out 4-0 (UC Davis, Washington, Ole Miss and North Texas) and then loses to ASU and Oregon.  Tough.

Cal lost their starting QB, and their back-up is a stinking pile of garbage. Modster’s PER is 81. For comparison, Nunes PER in 2012 was 120, Burns PER in 2016 was 120, and Chryst’s PER in 2017 was 123.

BC

[d4cohn]

The defense really struggles on the road, but it is pretty good at home. 

BC

I mean, that is most teams in CFB (rather than just defenses). Only the very great teams consistently win on the road. Even during our Rose Bowl years, there were plenty of road duds (NW 2015, UW 2012, USC 2013 etc.)

[d4cohn]

The defense really struggles on the road, but it is pretty good at home. 

BC

I mean, that is most teams in CFB (rather than just defenses). Only the very great teams consistently win on the road. Even during our Rose Bowl years, there were plenty of road duds (NW 2015, UW 2012, USC 2013 etc.)

[CTcard]

In three home games, our defense has allowed 7, 21, and 13 points, or an average of about 14 a game, to teams who have otherwise scored 14 (Northwestern), 34 (Oregon), and 34 (Washington) points per game.  In our three away games, we’ve given up 45, 45, and 28 points, or an average of 39, to teams who have scored 29 (USC), 45 (UCF) and 37 (OSU). And this cannot be explained by the quality of opponent.  Oregon State is the only road game we kept our opponent under their season average; we kept all three home opponents well under their season average.

Of course this list also means that we only allowed one team to score more than their season average against us.

The defense has generally altered good/horrendous in ways that I think are not so simple as collapsing late.
Against OSU, it was definitely collapse late.
Against UCF it gave up TDs on the first four drives and points on 6 of 7 in the first half. Then in the second half only a single TD.
Against UW they seemed to put up no resistance on drive #1, let UW cruise to our 8 on the third drive before eking out a stop, then not that much more.
Against U$C we made Slovis look like the second coming of ... I don't know - who's the best college QB ever? [Though he really might be very good. He only managed to play two games plus two complete passes before getting injured himself. He completed 78% of his passes overall with a PER of 169.]

My take is the defense currently is young, thin, and living on the edge. If they get some breaks, it rolls. If they lose some breaks, they collapse.

[CTcard]

In three home games, our defense has allowed 7, 21, and 13 points, or an average of about 14 a game, to teams who have otherwise scored 14 (Northwestern), 34 (Oregon), and 34 (Washington) points per game.  In our three away games, we’ve given up 45, 45, and 28 points, or an average of 39, to teams who have scored 29 (USC), 45 (UCF) and 37 (OSU). And this cannot be explained by the quality of opponent.  Oregon State is the only road game we kept our opponent under their season average; we kept all three home opponents well under their season average.

Of course this list also means that we only allowed one team to score more than their season average against us.

The defense has generally altered good/horrendous in ways that I think are not so simple as collapsing late.
Against OSU, it was definitely collapse late.
Against UCF it gave up TDs on the first four drives and points on 6 of 7 in the first half. Then in the second half only a single TD.
Against UW they seemed to put up no resistance on drive #1, let UW cruise to our 8 on the third drive before eking out a stop, then not that much more.
Against U$C we made Slovis look like the second coming of ... I don't know - who's the best college QB ever? [Though he really might be very good. He only managed to play two games plus two complete passes before getting injured himself. He completed 78% of his passes overall with a PER of 169.]

My take is the defense currently is young, thin, and living on the edge. If they get some breaks, it rolls. If they lose some breaks, they collapse.

[81alum]

Scarlett was wonderful last night.  And yes, I was reminded of our pre-Cmac running days.  This was much more like those times when you look at time of possession.  And with 43 rushes compared with 30 pass attempts I think we were approaching the ratios of those years, too.

But the running scheme did not look at all like those times.  We use such a different formation.  It seemed that a lot (most?) of our running plays come out of the shotgun.  There were some coming from under center but those almost seemed rare to me--I wonder if anyone really counted? 

What is the reason we almost never see the I formation or a fullback?  Is it that we simply have better tight ends than fullbacks, so we feature them more? 

Or is it that Shaw thinks it is better to spread the defense out more before running, given that we have more wide receivers than healthy linemen these days.  Is that why all the running from shotgun?  This would comport with a lot of the sentiment on this board from past years that criticized him for running into stacked boxes.

When we do run from shotgun, how do the blocking schemes change?  Does the O-line do conventional run blocking or is it more like pass blocking?

Finally, what happened on our first two trips inside the five, when we could not punch it into the endzone?  What kind of running plays were we attempting, why did they not work?  What are the running plays we have used in the past that work inside the five?

[81alum]

Scarlett was wonderful last night.  And yes, I was reminded of our pre-Cmac running days.  This was much more like those times when you look at time of possession.  And with 43 rushes compared with 30 pass attempts I think we were approaching the ratios of those years, too.

But the running scheme did not look at all like those times.  We use such a different formation.  It seemed that a lot (most?) of our running plays come out of the shotgun.  There were some coming from under center but those almost seemed rare to me--I wonder if anyone really counted? 

What is the reason we almost never see the I formation or a fullback?  Is it that we simply have better tight ends than fullbacks, so we feature them more? 

Or is it that Shaw thinks it is better to spread the defense out more before running, given that we have more wide receivers than healthy linemen these days.  Is that why all the running from shotgun?  This would comport with a lot of the sentiment on this board from past years that criticized him for running into stacked boxes.

When we do run from shotgun, how do the blocking schemes change?  Does the O-line do conventional run blocking or is it more like pass blocking?

Finally, what happened on our first two trips inside the five, when we could not punch it into the endzone?  What kind of running plays were we attempting, why did they not work?  What are the running plays we have used in the past that work inside the five?

[qwerty49]

Scarlett was wonderful last night.  And yes, I was reminded of our pre-Cmac running days.  This was much more like those times when you look at time of possession.  And with 43 rushes compared with 30 pass attempts I think we were approaching the ratios of those years, too.

But the running scheme did not look at all like those times.  We use such a different formation.  It seemed that a lot (most?) of our running plays come out of the shotgun.  There were some coming from under center but those almost seemed rare to me--I wonder if anyone really counted? 

What is the reason we almost never see the I formation or a fullback?  Is it that we simply have better tight ends than fullbacks, so we feature them more? 

Or is it that Shaw thinks it is better to spread the defense out more before running, given that we have more wide receivers than healthy linemen these days.  Is that why all the running from shotgun?  This would comport with a lot of the sentiment on this board from past years that criticized him for running into stacked boxes.

When we do run from shotgun, how do the blocking schemes change?  Does the O-line do conventional run blocking or is it more like pass blocking?

Finally, what happened on our first two trips inside the five, when we could not punch it into the endzone?  What kind of running plays were we attempting, why did they not work?  What are the running plays we have used in the past that work inside the five?

Your last question is the most intriguing one because it is also emblematic of our frequent failures in short yardage situations where a backside defender gets to the ball carrier behind the LOS.  From my mere fan's perspective, I suspect it has to do somewhat with the defense stacking the LOS and somehow we leave someone unaccounted for and the domino effect takes hold.  

In those two goal-line situations on the first two drives, UW put a lot of guys right on the LOS and I suspect the holes and assignments changed.  I did notice that later in the game, UW stayed in a four-man front on just about every down.  This gave our OL a shot at angles to open some holes and Scarlett was very patient and adept at reading them.  I think Scarlett's skill at waiting and reading might also be the main reason why we ran out of the shotgun a lot.

UW's DL seemed relatively strong at the start of the game and seemed to wear down in the second half.

As far as FBs vs TEs, I would guess you're right as far as blocking goes.  You know a great FB when you see one, e.g. Marecic and Marx.  Not that our current guys are chopped liver, but I think I would much rather have Tucker Fisk leading a play than either Heimuli or Symonds right now.

[qwerty49]

Scarlett was wonderful last night.  And yes, I was reminded of our pre-Cmac running days.  This was much more like those times when you look at time of possession.  And with 43 rushes compared with 30 pass attempts I think we were approaching the ratios of those years, too.

But the running scheme did not look at all like those times.  We use such a different formation.  It seemed that a lot (most?) of our running plays come out of the shotgun.  There were some coming from under center but those almost seemed rare to me--I wonder if anyone really counted? 

What is the reason we almost never see the I formation or a fullback?  Is it that we simply have better tight ends than fullbacks, so we feature them more? 

Or is it that Shaw thinks it is better to spread the defense out more before running, given that we have more wide receivers than healthy linemen these days.  Is that why all the running from shotgun?  This would comport with a lot of the sentiment on this board from past years that criticized him for running into stacked boxes.

When we do run from shotgun, how do the blocking schemes change?  Does the O-line do conventional run blocking or is it more like pass blocking?

Finally, what happened on our first two trips inside the five, when we could not punch it into the endzone?  What kind of running plays were we attempting, why did they not work?  What are the running plays we have used in the past that work inside the five?

Your last question is the most intriguing one because it is also emblematic of our frequent failures in short yardage situations where a backside defender gets to the ball carrier behind the LOS.  From my mere fan's perspective, I suspect it has to do somewhat with the defense stacking the LOS and somehow we leave someone unaccounted for and the domino effect takes hold.  

In those two goal-line situations on the first two drives, UW put a lot of guys right on the LOS and I suspect the holes and assignments changed.  I did notice that later in the game, UW stayed in a four-man front on just about every down.  This gave our OL a shot at angles to open some holes and Scarlett was very patient and adept at reading them.  I think Scarlett's skill at waiting and reading might also be the main reason why we ran out of the shotgun a lot.

UW's DL seemed relatively strong at the start of the game and seemed to wear down in the second half.

As far as FBs vs TEs, I would guess you're right as far as blocking goes.  You know a great FB when you see one, e.g. Marecic and Marx.  Not that our current guys are chopped liver, but I think I would much rather have Tucker Fisk leading a play than either Heimuli or Symonds right now.

[Goose]

My read on how we won the game is that 1) we had open receivers on most pass attempts, and 2) Mills completed the passes. That is the difference. Scarlett played great in this game, but he pretty much has all year. Because we completed passes, we got first downs, which allowed Scarlett to stay on the field and do damage. This also kept our defense off the field, allowing them to be fresh. At the end of the game, the UW DL was so worn out that we could run the same running play 9 straight times and still be successful.

I believe that reliably having open receivers was the key. It made the rest happen. Mills threw into coverage only twice that I remember. Some of the windows were not real big, but they were there. Were our schemes better in this game? I can't tell, but it didn't look that different to me. Comments on this aspect of the game would be interesting.

[Goose]

My read on how we won the game is that 1) we had open receivers on most pass attempts, and 2) Mills completed the passes. That is the difference. Scarlett played great in this game, but he pretty much has all year. Because we completed passes, we got first downs, which allowed Scarlett to stay on the field and do damage. This also kept our defense off the field, allowing them to be fresh. At the end of the game, the UW DL was so worn out that we could run the same running play 9 straight times and still be successful.

I believe that reliably having open receivers was the key. It made the rest happen. Mills threw into coverage only twice that I remember. Some of the windows were not real big, but they were there. Were our schemes better in this game? I can't tell, but it didn't look that different to me. Comments on this aspect of the game would be interesting.

[murky]

We also got pressure on their QB, often.

[murky]

We also got pressure on their QB, often.

[martyup]

Don't forget that Fehoko finally started catching the ball.  He made some clutch grabs, including the wide open TD catch.

[martyup]

Don't forget that Fehoko finally started catching the ball.  He made some clutch grabs, including the wide open TD catch.

[Goose]

Don't forget that Fehoko finally started catching the ball.  He made some clutch grabs, including the wide open TD catch.

The operative words are "wide open". Glad he caught it, but most importantly, he was open. He got open two other times as well, not that open, but "open enough". Wilson also did very well. Not as flashy, perhaps, but six catches. Nine players caught passes for Stanford in this game. That is spreading it around. If Fehoko and Wilson are perceived as legitimate threats by opposing defenses, Parkinson can't be doubled all the time. That really helps!

[Goose]

Don't forget that Fehoko finally started catching the ball.  He made some clutch grabs, including the wide open TD catch.

The operative words are "wide open". Glad he caught it, but most importantly, he was open. He got open two other times as well, not that open, but "open enough". Wilson also did very well. Not as flashy, perhaps, but six catches. Nine players caught passes for Stanford in this game. That is spreading it around. If Fehoko and Wilson are perceived as legitimate threats by opposing defenses, Parkinson can't be doubled all the time. That really helps!

[martyup]

I would really like to hear more about how our team got motivated for this game.  (BTW, where was the usual pre-game motivational video?.)  They played like they collectively decided "enough of this losing crap," "not in our house," "we are going to thump the Huskies."  They looked nothing like the team that played the prior five games.  It was as if someone flipped a switch and everything changed.  There has to be a story behind this turnaround.

[martyup]

I would really like to hear more about how our team got motivated for this game.  (BTW, where was the usual pre-game motivational video?.)  They played like they collectively decided "enough of this losing crap," "not in our house," "we are going to thump the Huskies."  They looked nothing like the team that played the prior five games.  It was as if someone flipped a switch and everything changed.  There has to be a story behind this turnaround.

[81alum]

I would really like to hear more about how our team got motivated for this game.  (BTW, where was the usual pre-game motivational video?.)  They played like they collectively decided "enough of this losing crap," "not in our house," "we are going to thump the Huskies."  They looked nothing like the team that played the prior five games.  It was as if someone flipped a switch and everything changed.  There has to be a story behind this turnaround.

Shaw called Tyler Gaffney to come back and talk to the team earlier in the week.  Said it would be an "attitude" game.  Gave Tyler a lot of credit for helping them get ready.

Maybe Gaffney "flipped the switch."

[81alum]

I would really like to hear more about how our team got motivated for this game.  (BTW, where was the usual pre-game motivational video?.)  They played like they collectively decided "enough of this losing crap," "not in our house," "we are going to thump the Huskies."  They looked nothing like the team that played the prior five games.  It was as if someone flipped a switch and everything changed.  There has to be a story behind this turnaround.

Shaw called Tyler Gaffney to come back and talk to the team earlier in the week.  Said it would be an "attitude" game.  Gave Tyler a lot of credit for helping them get ready.

Maybe Gaffney "flipped the switch."

[CornFed]

Perhaps we shall dub him "The Cardinal Whisperer".  Or more likely the Marissa Meyer or Sergey Brin Director of Cardinal Whispering.

[CornFed]

Perhaps we shall dub him "The Cardinal Whisperer".  Or more likely the Marissa Meyer or Sergey Brin Director of Cardinal Whispering.

[Griffins78]

I wasn’t sure where to post this or whether it was mentioned...

During Stanford’s second possession we were 4th and 2 from ~ Stanford’s 49 and “conservative, stubborn” David Shaw decided to “go for it.” I was at the game and it fired up the crowd. We were yelling louder than any time this year. And Scarlett bulled his way for a first down and we drove close to the goal line and got a field goal. From that point on the crowd was into the game in a big way. Then Shaw moved to a no huddle offense and we were left looking at each other in disbelief and started screaming support for Shaw. And Mills optioned and fooled everyone and ran the ball.

I think the gutsy play calling got the crowd and the team fired up and was a big part of us winning too.

[Griffins78]

I wasn’t sure where to post this or whether it was mentioned...

During Stanford’s second possession we were 4th and 2 from ~ Stanford’s 49 and “conservative, stubborn” David Shaw decided to “go for it.” I was at the game and it fired up the crowd. We were yelling louder than any time this year. And Scarlett bulled his way for a first down and we drove close to the goal line and got a field goal. From that point on the crowd was into the game in a big way. Then Shaw moved to a no huddle offense and we were left looking at each other in disbelief and started screaming support for Shaw. And Mills optioned and fooled everyone and ran the ball.

I think the gutsy play calling got the crowd and the team fired up and was a big part of us winning too.

[d4cohn]

I wasn’t sure where to post this or whether it was mentioned...

During Stanford’s second possession we were 4th and 2 from ~ Stanford’s 49 and “conservative, stubborn” David Shaw decided to “go for it.” I was at the game and it fired up the crowd. We were yelling louder than any time this year. And Scarlett bulled his way for a first down and we drove close to the goal line and got a field goal. From that point on the crowd was into the game in a big way. Then Shaw moved to a no huddle offense and we were left looking at each other in disbelief and started screaming support for Shaw. And Mills optioned and fooled everyone and ran the ball.

I think the gutsy play calling got the crowd and the team fired up and was a big part of us winning too.

I mean, to be fair to Shaw, he has been going for more stuff recently. And with regards to the options game, we tried it at least twice in the opener (among possibly other times with Mills), and it led to two fumbles recovered by Northwestern. I want to be clear that I know you were focusing on this game, but Shaw has been doing these things in earlier games. It is just that when it works and we win, it gets all of us fans fired up. When it doesn't and we lose, fans get upset and bemoan the play calling.

[d4cohn]

I wasn’t sure where to post this or whether it was mentioned...

During Stanford’s second possession we were 4th and 2 from ~ Stanford’s 49 and “conservative, stubborn” David Shaw decided to “go for it.” I was at the game and it fired up the crowd. We were yelling louder than any time this year. And Scarlett bulled his way for a first down and we drove close to the goal line and got a field goal. From that point on the crowd was into the game in a big way. Then Shaw moved to a no huddle offense and we were left looking at each other in disbelief and started screaming support for Shaw. And Mills optioned and fooled everyone and ran the ball.

I think the gutsy play calling got the crowd and the team fired up and was a big part of us winning too.

I mean, to be fair to Shaw, he has been going for more stuff recently. And with regards to the options game, we tried it at least twice in the opener (among possibly other times with Mills), and it led to two fumbles recovered by Northwestern. I want to be clear that I know you were focusing on this game, but Shaw has been doing these things in earlier games. It is just that when it works and we win, it gets all of us fans fired up. When it doesn't and we lose, fans get upset and bemoan the play calling.

[qwerty49]

I wasn’t sure where to post this or whether it was mentioned...

During Stanford’s second possession we were 4th and 2 from ~ Stanford’s 49 and “conservative, stubborn” David Shaw decided to “go for it.” I was at the game and it fired up the crowd. We were yelling louder than any time this year. And Scarlett bulled his way for a first down and we drove close to the goal line and got a field goal. From that point on the crowd was into the game in a big way. Then Shaw moved to a no huddle offense and we were left looking at each other in disbelief and started screaming support for Shaw. And Mills optioned and fooled everyone and ran the ball.

I think the gutsy play calling got the crowd and the team fired up and was a big part of us winning too.

I mean, to be fair to Shaw, he has been going for more stuff recently. And with regards to the options game, we tried it at least twice in the opener (among possibly other times with Mills), and it led to two fumbles recovered by Northwestern. I want to be clear that I know you were focusing on this game, but Shaw has been doing these things in earlier games. It is just that when it works and we win, it gets all of us fans fired up. When it doesn't and we lose, fans get upset and bemoan the play calling.

LOL the right play is always the one that works! 

I think we can breathe easy that we won’t see Buddy’s shotgun draw or Wlat’s 3rd down quick kick this year. At one point a couple of weeks ago I was afraid we would.

[qwerty49]

I wasn’t sure where to post this or whether it was mentioned...

During Stanford’s second possession we were 4th and 2 from ~ Stanford’s 49 and “conservative, stubborn” David Shaw decided to “go for it.” I was at the game and it fired up the crowd. We were yelling louder than any time this year. And Scarlett bulled his way for a first down and we drove close to the goal line and got a field goal. From that point on the crowd was into the game in a big way. Then Shaw moved to a no huddle offense and we were left looking at each other in disbelief and started screaming support for Shaw. And Mills optioned and fooled everyone and ran the ball.

I think the gutsy play calling got the crowd and the team fired up and was a big part of us winning too.

I mean, to be fair to Shaw, he has been going for more stuff recently. And with regards to the options game, we tried it at least twice in the opener (among possibly other times with Mills), and it led to two fumbles recovered by Northwestern. I want to be clear that I know you were focusing on this game, but Shaw has been doing these things in earlier games. It is just that when it works and we win, it gets all of us fans fired up. When it doesn't and we lose, fans get upset and bemoan the play calling.

LOL the right play is always the one that works! 

I think we can breathe easy that we won’t see Buddy’s shotgun draw or Wlat’s 3rd down quick kick this year. At one point a couple of weeks ago I was afraid we would.