[winflop]

I think if you look at the 4 teams Stanford has lost to in the last 5 weeks, it could be argued that they are the worst team in the conference.

I'm not sure there's any team that I'd pick them to beat at this point. 7-5 talent with 2-10 coaching.

[winflop]

I think if you look at the 4 teams Stanford has lost to in the last 5 weeks, it could be argued that they are the worst team in the conference.

I'm not sure there's any team that I'd pick them to beat at this point. 7-5 talent with 2-10 coaching.

[lex24]

Sorry, but they don’t have 7-5 talent. Not with that defense.  Not defending Shaw. Just stating what I think is the obvious. It’s the worst Stanford defense I can remember in a long time. Slow and soft. Not a good combination.   Much easier if it was just some bad playcalling etc. Unfortunately I think it’s a much deeper problem than that

[lex24]

Sorry, but they don’t have 7-5 talent. Not with that defense.  Not defending Shaw. Just stating what I think is the obvious. It’s the worst Stanford defense I can remember in a long time. Slow and soft. Not a good combination.   Much easier if it was just some bad playcalling etc. Unfortunately I think it’s a much deeper problem than that

[JohnR34231]

FWIW, I think Arizona might be worse. They have now lost six straight (after starting the season 4-1), including the one to us. Other than our game with them in that stretch, the closest they have come to anyone was an 18 point loss to Oregon State.
Then again, if we were playing them in Tuscon.....

[JohnR34231]

FWIW, I think Arizona might be worse. They have now lost six straight (after starting the season 4-1), including the one to us. Other than our game with them in that stretch, the closest they have come to anyone was an 18 point loss to Oregon State.
Then again, if we were playing them in Tuscon.....

[StanfordMatt]

Sorry, but they don’t have 7-5 talent. Not with that defense.  Not defending Shaw. Just stating what I think is the obvious. It’s the worst Stanford defense I can remember in a long time. Slow and soft. Not a good combination.   Much easier if it was just some bad playcalling etc. Unfortunately I think it’s a much deeper problem than that

Agreed that the talent is not 7-5. And yes, pointing out that fact is not a defense of Shaw and the staff - it’s an indictment. Our recruiting has fallen off considerably in recent years.

[StanfordMatt]

Sorry, but they don’t have 7-5 talent. Not with that defense.  Not defending Shaw. Just stating what I think is the obvious. It’s the worst Stanford defense I can remember in a long time. Slow and soft. Not a good combination.   Much easier if it was just some bad playcalling etc. Unfortunately I think it’s a much deeper problem than that

Agreed that the talent is not 7-5. And yes, pointing out that fact is not a defense of Shaw and the staff - it’s an indictment. Our recruiting has fallen off considerably in recent years.

[winflop]

I say 7-5 talent because that’s what I think our record would be with good coaching. The current roster is not 7-5 but this isn’t the roster across the whole season.

---

FWIW, I think Arizona might be worse. They have now lost six straight (after starting the season 4-1), including the one to us. Other than our game with them in that stretch, the closest they have come to anyone was an 18 point loss to Oregon State.
Then again, if we were playing them in Tuscon.....

Probably right. But the fact that there’s even a consideration...

[winflop]

I say 7-5 talent because that’s what I think our record would be with good coaching. The current roster is not 7-5 but this isn’t the roster across the whole season.

---

FWIW, I think Arizona might be worse. They have now lost six straight (after starting the season 4-1), including the one to us. Other than our game with them in that stretch, the closest they have come to anyone was an 18 point loss to Oregon State.
Then again, if we were playing them in Tuscon.....

Probably right. But the fact that there’s even a consideration...

[cardcrimson]

Sorry, but they don’t have 7-5 talent. Not with that defense.  Not defending Shaw. Just stating what I think is the obvious. It’s the worst Stanford defense I can remember in a long time. Slow and soft. Not a good combination.   Much easier if it was just some bad playcalling etc. Unfortunately I think it’s a much deeper problem than that

Agreed that the talent is not 7-5. And yes, pointing out that fact is not a defense of Shaw and the staff - it’s an indictment. Our recruiting has fallen off considerably in recent years.

There was a post awhile back showing the talent we have recruited and that the talent level really hasn't dropped, though the quantity has. I'm not close enough to make the point, but several have suggested it's the type of player, not the talent level as we don't seem to have the Skov / DeCastro type players anymore. Similarly, we haven't done a good job on the S&C  and player development, as many suggest there hasn't been a ton of improvement in the abilities since their high school days.

[cardcrimson]

Sorry, but they don’t have 7-5 talent. Not with that defense.  Not defending Shaw. Just stating what I think is the obvious. It’s the worst Stanford defense I can remember in a long time. Slow and soft. Not a good combination.   Much easier if it was just some bad playcalling etc. Unfortunately I think it’s a much deeper problem than that

Agreed that the talent is not 7-5. And yes, pointing out that fact is not a defense of Shaw and the staff - it’s an indictment. Our recruiting has fallen off considerably in recent years.

There was a post awhile back showing the talent we have recruited and that the talent level really hasn't dropped, though the quantity has. I'm not close enough to make the point, but several have suggested it's the type of player, not the talent level as we don't seem to have the Skov / DeCastro type players anymore. Similarly, we haven't done a good job on the S&C  and player development, as many suggest there hasn't been a ton of improvement in the abilities since their high school days.

[Treebound]

Complacency

That's the word that comes to mind after watching the last 2-3 years.   We've lost some solid coaches and recruiters.  The S&C mess hasn't helped either.   I think the staff and some of the senior leaders got a little too comfortable and believed a little too much of their own you know what.   

If you aren't reinventing yourself and evolving/disrupting your program, then someone else will.   It's clearly time for some change - no, I'm not talking at the top, but Shaw needs to own this.   If we don't see it in this offseason, then I'll be spending more time in Chuck Taylor vs watching silly penalties, poor clock management and predictable play calling inside a half full stadium.  Yes, the crowd was better yesterday, but it will be a Domer home game next week.

[Treebound]

Complacency

That's the word that comes to mind after watching the last 2-3 years.   We've lost some solid coaches and recruiters.  The S&C mess hasn't helped either.   I think the staff and some of the senior leaders got a little too comfortable and believed a little too much of their own you know what.   

If you aren't reinventing yourself and evolving/disrupting your program, then someone else will.   It's clearly time for some change - no, I'm not talking at the top, but Shaw needs to own this.   If we don't see it in this offseason, then I'll be spending more time in Chuck Taylor vs watching silly penalties, poor clock management and predictable play calling inside a half full stadium.  Yes, the crowd was better yesterday, but it will be a Domer home game next week.

[BostonCard]

Cal outgained us by 90 yards, and the turnover margin was 2-0.  That would typically predict a two score game, not a four point game. So I’m not entirely sure where the coaching cost us the game, other than it was the coaching that failed to fill a half dozen scholarships, it was the coaching that whiffed on offensive linemen two years ago forcing us to start three freshmen, it was the coaching that has tolerated subpar strength and conditioning, it was the coaching that failed to identify and/or develop safeties and linebackers. Ultimately, as long as the coaches are payed well and the players aren’t, the buck stops at the coaches.  But if this is about, Shaw should have called a run when he passed or vice versa, yeah that wouldn’t have made a damned bit of difference.

BC

[BostonCard]

Cal outgained us by 90 yards, and the turnover margin was 2-0.  That would typically predict a two score game, not a four point game. So I’m not entirely sure where the coaching cost us the game, other than it was the coaching that failed to fill a half dozen scholarships, it was the coaching that whiffed on offensive linemen two years ago forcing us to start three freshmen, it was the coaching that has tolerated subpar strength and conditioning, it was the coaching that failed to identify and/or develop safeties and linebackers. Ultimately, as long as the coaches are payed well and the players aren’t, the buck stops at the coaches.  But if this is about, Shaw should have called a run when he passed or vice versa, yeah that wouldn’t have made a damned bit of difference.

BC

[Goose]

Yes, the defense didn't have an answer for Garbers running the ball. That is certainly due to several factors, the most important being weakness at ILB and Safety. However, the coaches didn't resort to a "spy" on Garbers. I suspect that was because they really had nobody they trusted to do that, and that the inexperienced Corners needed all the help they could get in coverage. Not a good situation.

The factor that worries me even more than the injuries (S&C or not) is our total inability to run the ball. Many have suggested that Shaw needs to "reinvent" himself. IMHO, he has reinvented himself too much, probably out of necessity. The last four years have shown a steady decline in our ability to play "smash-mouth" football. Is that intentional or just what happened? I don't know. I had hoped that it was the OL Coach, and that we would be improving in this area. That doesn't seem to be true. On Saturday, we couldn't make a fourth and two with the game on the line. It wasn't close. That isn't "Stanford Football". Yes, there was a freshman guard on the right side of the formation, but there was a senior center and a junior tackle. It may make sense to change the approach and become more of a "spread" team. However, we seem to be stuck in a "can't do either" state. One thing I am pretty sure of is that any team that rushes for 60 yards (not counting Mills ) isn't going to win many games, unless you are WSU.

This is especially true of a team with a defense like ours. We are thin up the middle at full strength. We have injuries so we are not at full strength. If our offense can't control the tempo, we get tired and play even worse. Some of Garbers scrambles worked because our defense couldn't finish the sack or just missed him as he ran out of the pocket. Fresh legs on the DL and maybe that doesn't happen.

The delay of game penalties were mostly on Mills. The play came in on time. The QB was trying to make adjustments and ran out of time. His recognition was a bit late, and/or he needed to realize it was just too late to change the play. That isn't always the problem, but yesterday it was.

[Goose]

Yes, the defense didn't have an answer for Garbers running the ball. That is certainly due to several factors, the most important being weakness at ILB and Safety. However, the coaches didn't resort to a "spy" on Garbers. I suspect that was because they really had nobody they trusted to do that, and that the inexperienced Corners needed all the help they could get in coverage. Not a good situation.

The factor that worries me even more than the injuries (S&C or not) is our total inability to run the ball. Many have suggested that Shaw needs to "reinvent" himself. IMHO, he has reinvented himself too much, probably out of necessity. The last four years have shown a steady decline in our ability to play "smash-mouth" football. Is that intentional or just what happened? I don't know. I had hoped that it was the OL Coach, and that we would be improving in this area. That doesn't seem to be true. On Saturday, we couldn't make a fourth and two with the game on the line. It wasn't close. That isn't "Stanford Football". Yes, there was a freshman guard on the right side of the formation, but there was a senior center and a junior tackle. It may make sense to change the approach and become more of a "spread" team. However, we seem to be stuck in a "can't do either" state. One thing I am pretty sure of is that any team that rushes for 60 yards (not counting Mills ) isn't going to win many games, unless you are WSU.

This is especially true of a team with a defense like ours. We are thin up the middle at full strength. We have injuries so we are not at full strength. If our offense can't control the tempo, we get tired and play even worse. Some of Garbers scrambles worked because our defense couldn't finish the sack or just missed him as he ran out of the pocket. Fresh legs on the DL and maybe that doesn't happen.

The delay of game penalties were mostly on Mills. The play came in on time. The QB was trying to make adjustments and ran out of time. His recognition was a bit late, and/or he needed to realize it was just too late to change the play. That isn't always the problem, but yesterday it was.

[lex24]

Delay of game and last second play clock time outs happen essentially to all teams. If anybody has any proof that happens more to Stanford than fine submit it. But I don’t think so. That’s one of those criticisms that I think is a fiction.

---

Agree 100%. 

Yes, the defense didn't have an answer for Garbers running the ball. That is certainly due to several factors, the most important being weakness at ILB and Safety. However, the coaches didn't resort to a "spy" on Garbers. I suspect that was because they really had nobody they trusted to do that, and that the inexperienced Corners needed all the help they could get in coverage. Not a good situation.

The factor that worries me even more than the injuries (S&C or not) is our total inability to run the ball. Many have suggested that Shaw needs to "reinvent" himself. IMHO, he has reinvented himself too much, probably out of necessity. The last four years have shown a steady decline in our ability to play "smash-mouth" football. Is that intentional or just what happened? I don't know. I had hoped that it was the OL Coach, and that we would be improving in this area. That doesn't seem to be true. On Saturday, we couldn't make a fourth and two with the game on the line. It wasn't close. That isn't "Stanford Football". Yes, there was a freshman guard on the right side of the formation, but there was a senior center and a junior tackle. It may make sense to change the approach and become more of a "spread" team. However, we seem to be stuck in a "can't do either" state. One thing I am pretty sure of is that any team that rushes for 60 yards (not counting Mills ) isn't going to win many games, unless you are WSU.

This is especially true of a team with a defense like ours. We are thin up the middle at full strength. We have injuries so we are not at full strength. If our offense can't control the tempo, we get tired and play even worse. Some of Garbers scrambles worked because our defense couldn't finish the sack or just missed him as he ran out of the pocket. Fresh legs on the DL and maybe that doesn't happen.

The delay of game penalties were mostly on Mills. The play came in on time. The QB was trying to make adjustments and ran out of time. His recognition was a bit late, and/or he needed to realize it was just too late to change the play. That isn't always the problem, but yesterday it was.

[lex24]

Delay of game and last second play clock time outs happen essentially to all teams. If anybody has any proof that happens more to Stanford than fine submit it. But I don’t think so. That’s one of those criticisms that I think is a fiction.

---

Agree 100%. 

Yes, the defense didn't have an answer for Garbers running the ball. That is certainly due to several factors, the most important being weakness at ILB and Safety. However, the coaches didn't resort to a "spy" on Garbers. I suspect that was because they really had nobody they trusted to do that, and that the inexperienced Corners needed all the help they could get in coverage. Not a good situation.

The factor that worries me even more than the injuries (S&C or not) is our total inability to run the ball. Many have suggested that Shaw needs to "reinvent" himself. IMHO, he has reinvented himself too much, probably out of necessity. The last four years have shown a steady decline in our ability to play "smash-mouth" football. Is that intentional or just what happened? I don't know. I had hoped that it was the OL Coach, and that we would be improving in this area. That doesn't seem to be true. On Saturday, we couldn't make a fourth and two with the game on the line. It wasn't close. That isn't "Stanford Football". Yes, there was a freshman guard on the right side of the formation, but there was a senior center and a junior tackle. It may make sense to change the approach and become more of a "spread" team. However, we seem to be stuck in a "can't do either" state. One thing I am pretty sure of is that any team that rushes for 60 yards (not counting Mills ) isn't going to win many games, unless you are WSU.

This is especially true of a team with a defense like ours. We are thin up the middle at full strength. We have injuries so we are not at full strength. If our offense can't control the tempo, we get tired and play even worse. Some of Garbers scrambles worked because our defense couldn't finish the sack or just missed him as he ran out of the pocket. Fresh legs on the DL and maybe that doesn't happen.

The delay of game penalties were mostly on Mills. The play came in on time. The QB was trying to make adjustments and ran out of time. His recognition was a bit late, and/or he needed to realize it was just too late to change the play. That isn't always the problem, but yesterday it was.

[teejers1]

But if this is about, Shaw should have called a run when he passed or vice versa, yeah that wouldn’t have made a damned bit of difference.

BC

I disagree.  At 2nd and 4 on Stanford's penultimate drive, run there.  Let's say you gain 2-3 yards.  Does Cal burn a TO there?  I bet not because they'll need all 3 TOs if Stanford makes a first down on third down.  Or fourth and short.  

But these are all things that Shaw has shown no vision to think about/consider.  Instead, it's "we were always going to take our shot on 2nd down and then run on third down to burn 30 seconds."  That's essentially what he said in the post-game presser. That just shows a complete lack of game management skills.  [And btw, did you hear the radio guys on the 2nd and 4?  This just isn't one disgruntled fan talking - again, it's pretty basic].

But of course, if it makes you feel better to think "it wouldn't have made a difference," you're free to do that.  I have no idea how you can believe that with any conviction.

[teejers1]

But if this is about, Shaw should have called a run when he passed or vice versa, yeah that wouldn’t have made a damned bit of difference.

BC

I disagree.  At 2nd and 4 on Stanford's penultimate drive, run there.  Let's say you gain 2-3 yards.  Does Cal burn a TO there?  I bet not because they'll need all 3 TOs if Stanford makes a first down on third down.  Or fourth and short.  

But these are all things that Shaw has shown no vision to think about/consider.  Instead, it's "we were always going to take our shot on 2nd down and then run on third down to burn 30 seconds."  That's essentially what he said in the post-game presser. That just shows a complete lack of game management skills.  [And btw, did you hear the radio guys on the 2nd and 4?  This just isn't one disgruntled fan talking - again, it's pretty basic].

But of course, if it makes you feel better to think "it wouldn't have made a difference," you're free to do that.  I have no idea how you can believe that with any conviction.

[Goose]

But these are all things that Shaw has shown no vision to think about/consider.  Instead, it's "we were always going to take our shot on 2nd down and then run on third down to burn 30 seconds."  That's essentially what he said in the post-game presser. That just shows a complete lack of game management skills.  [And btw, did you hear the radio guys on the 2nd and 4?  This just isn't one disgruntled fan talking - again, it's pretty basic].

What is actually pretty basic is that you believe that Shaw's formula is wrong, and he doesn't. For better or worse, AFAIK there is no way to prove that your formula is better than his in general, and certainly not in any particular game. As it happens, I agree with you. I would have run twice. It burns up more time and you kick the same field goal. However, if the pass on second down works, game over. YMMV. The difference is, I believe that there isn't an objective "right answer" here, and you appear to believe there is.

[Goose]

But these are all things that Shaw has shown no vision to think about/consider.  Instead, it's "we were always going to take our shot on 2nd down and then run on third down to burn 30 seconds."  That's essentially what he said in the post-game presser. That just shows a complete lack of game management skills.  [And btw, did you hear the radio guys on the 2nd and 4?  This just isn't one disgruntled fan talking - again, it's pretty basic].

What is actually pretty basic is that you believe that Shaw's formula is wrong, and he doesn't. For better or worse, AFAIK there is no way to prove that your formula is better than his in general, and certainly not in any particular game. As it happens, I agree with you. I would have run twice. It burns up more time and you kick the same field goal. However, if the pass on second down works, game over. YMMV. The difference is, I believe that there isn't an objective "right answer" here, and you appear to believe there is.

[teejers1]

What is actually pretty basic is that you believe that Shaw's formula is wrong, and he doesn't. For better or worse, AFAIK there is no way to prove that your formula is better than his in general, and certainly not in any particular game. As it happens, I agree with you. I would have run twice. It burns up more time and you kick the same field goal. However, if the pass on second down works, game over.

Why do you say "game over?"  is there some reason Cal wouldn't have scored the TD it did with more time on the clock to do so?

[teejers1]

What is actually pretty basic is that you believe that Shaw's formula is wrong, and he doesn't. For better or worse, AFAIK there is no way to prove that your formula is better than his in general, and certainly not in any particular game. As it happens, I agree with you. I would have run twice. It burns up more time and you kick the same field goal. However, if the pass on second down works, game over.

Why do you say "game over?"  is there some reason Cal wouldn't have scored the TD it did with more time on the clock to do so?

[winflop]

Delay of game and last second play clock time outs happen essentially to all teams. If anybody has any proof that happens more to Stanford than fine submit it. But I don’t think so. That’s one of those criticisms that I think is a fiction.

On Saturday - two delays of game in the first half, and a timeout burned in the second half to avoid one. That's excessive.

Don't know about how Stanford compares over the season but I remember very few of these being called on our opponents not only this year but in past couple of years. Some of that is due to running spread offenses which almost never take them.

[winflop]

Delay of game and last second play clock time outs happen essentially to all teams. If anybody has any proof that happens more to Stanford than fine submit it. But I don’t think so. That’s one of those criticisms that I think is a fiction.

On Saturday - two delays of game in the first half, and a timeout burned in the second half to avoid one. That's excessive.

Don't know about how Stanford compares over the season but I remember very few of these being called on our opponents not only this year but in past couple of years. Some of that is due to running spread offenses which almost never take them.

[Goose]

Why do you say "game over?"  is there some reason Cal wouldn't have scored the TD it did with more time on the clock to do so?

You are right, they could do what they did and then the question would have been do they go for the tie and play OT, or go for the win. I do think that needing a TD instead of a FG could have made a difference, in that it would have put more pressure on them, but that is certainly unknown. Still, I think Shaw's choice is reasonable, even if that is not what I would have done.

If one wants to look at a more extreme example, consider Jonathon Swift's decision against WSU.
https://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/2019/...aways.html

I don't agree with the decision or with the articles take on it. I say you punt the ball, but going for it is reasonable. Reasonable decision, bad outcome for both Stanford and Oregon State.

[Goose]

Why do you say "game over?"  is there some reason Cal wouldn't have scored the TD it did with more time on the clock to do so?

You are right, they could do what they did and then the question would have been do they go for the tie and play OT, or go for the win. I do think that needing a TD instead of a FG could have made a difference, in that it would have put more pressure on them, but that is certainly unknown. Still, I think Shaw's choice is reasonable, even if that is not what I would have done.

If one wants to look at a more extreme example, consider Jonathon Swift's decision against WSU.
https://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/2019/...aways.html

I don't agree with the decision or with the articles take on it. I say you punt the ball, but going for it is reasonable. Reasonable decision, bad outcome for both Stanford and Oregon State.

[BostonCard]

But if this is about, Shaw should have called a run when he passed or vice versa, yeah that wouldn’t have made a damned bit of difference.



BC

I disagree.  At 2nd and 4 on Stanford's penultimate drive, run there.  Let's say you gain 2-3 yards.  Does Cal burn a TO there?  I bet not because they'll need all 3 TOs if Stanford makes a first down on third down.  Or fourth and short.  



But these are all things that Shaw has shown no vision to think about/consider.  Instead, it's "we were always going to take our shot on 2nd down and then run on third down to burn 30 seconds."  That's essentially what he said in the post-game presser. That just shows a complete lack of game management skills.  [And btw, did you hear the radio guys on the 2nd and 4?  This just isn't one disgruntled fan talking - again, it's pretty basic].



But of course, if it makes you feel better to think "it wouldn't have made a difference," you're free to do that.  I have no idea how you can believe that with any conviction.

It doesn't matter. Passing once and running once, we gave Cal the ball back with 2:23 and three time outs.  They scored in 1 minute 4 seconds having used only one of their time outs.  Had we run twice, we would have given them the ball back with 1:43 instead of 2:23, which means we would have gotten the ball back with 39 seconds left instead of 1:10 (or, more likely, Cal would have taken a time out).  The only thing that would have made a difference was getting first down.

Reasonable minds can differ on whether the best strategy for getting a first down from second and four would have been to run or pass.  For the game, excluding Mills' stats because of sacks, we gained 58 yards on 19 caries (3 yards per carry).  On the flip side Mills was 26/35 for 283 yards (8.1 yards per attempt).  We were certainly more successful passing the football than rushing, so it is by no means a given that running the ball twice was more likely to be successful than not.

What frustrates me about the whole "Shaw should have zigged when in fact he zagged" is that it takes the entire rest of the drive as a given; your analysis starts at 2nd and 4 from the Cal 27th, not first and 10 from our own 35, and it can neither be proven nor disproven that an alternative approach would not have had us going three and out and punting from our 35 instead of kicking a field goal to put us ahead.

I would much rather we focus on how we got a defense that held Cal to 10 points through the first 50 minutes of the game, and then allowed a five play, 84 yard drive to in 2:25 and a 6 play 75 yard drive in 1:04.  One stop and we win the game.  Even holding them to a field goal one time and we go to overtime.  But we weren't even close; we forced one third down in two drives.

l has one of the best defenses in the Pac-12 (only Washington, Oregon, and Utah are better), and the 20 points not much less than Cal typically gives up (22.5).  On the other hand, Cal is dead last in the conference in points scored per game.  They scored 14 points in their last two drives; they average 19 points per game.  Our defense let Garbers look like Lamar Jackson out there.

As I've said before, ultimately the buck stops at the coach. But I find the playcalling "analyses" facile and non-disproveable so they don't really add much to the discussion other than as a chance to vent, and in this case it doesn't even hold up to scrutiny.

BC

[BostonCard]

But if this is about, Shaw should have called a run when he passed or vice versa, yeah that wouldn’t have made a damned bit of difference.



BC

I disagree.  At 2nd and 4 on Stanford's penultimate drive, run there.  Let's say you gain 2-3 yards.  Does Cal burn a TO there?  I bet not because they'll need all 3 TOs if Stanford makes a first down on third down.  Or fourth and short.  



But these are all things that Shaw has shown no vision to think about/consider.  Instead, it's "we were always going to take our shot on 2nd down and then run on third down to burn 30 seconds."  That's essentially what he said in the post-game presser. That just shows a complete lack of game management skills.  [And btw, did you hear the radio guys on the 2nd and 4?  This just isn't one disgruntled fan talking - again, it's pretty basic].



But of course, if it makes you feel better to think "it wouldn't have made a difference," you're free to do that.  I have no idea how you can believe that with any conviction.

It doesn't matter. Passing once and running once, we gave Cal the ball back with 2:23 and three time outs.  They scored in 1 minute 4 seconds having used only one of their time outs.  Had we run twice, we would have given them the ball back with 1:43 instead of 2:23, which means we would have gotten the ball back with 39 seconds left instead of 1:10 (or, more likely, Cal would have taken a time out).  The only thing that would have made a difference was getting first down.

Reasonable minds can differ on whether the best strategy for getting a first down from second and four would have been to run or pass.  For the game, excluding Mills' stats because of sacks, we gained 58 yards on 19 caries (3 yards per carry).  On the flip side Mills was 26/35 for 283 yards (8.1 yards per attempt).  We were certainly more successful passing the football than rushing, so it is by no means a given that running the ball twice was more likely to be successful than not.

What frustrates me about the whole "Shaw should have zigged when in fact he zagged" is that it takes the entire rest of the drive as a given; your analysis starts at 2nd and 4 from the Cal 27th, not first and 10 from our own 35, and it can neither be proven nor disproven that an alternative approach would not have had us going three and out and punting from our 35 instead of kicking a field goal to put us ahead.

I would much rather we focus on how we got a defense that held Cal to 10 points through the first 50 minutes of the game, and then allowed a five play, 84 yard drive to in 2:25 and a 6 play 75 yard drive in 1:04.  One stop and we win the game.  Even holding them to a field goal one time and we go to overtime.  But we weren't even close; we forced one third down in two drives.

l has one of the best defenses in the Pac-12 (only Washington, Oregon, and Utah are better), and the 20 points not much less than Cal typically gives up (22.5).  On the other hand, Cal is dead last in the conference in points scored per game.  They scored 14 points in their last two drives; they average 19 points per game.  Our defense let Garbers look like Lamar Jackson out there.

As I've said before, ultimately the buck stops at the coach. But I find the playcalling "analyses" facile and non-disproveable so they don't really add much to the discussion other than as a chance to vent, and in this case it doesn't even hold up to scrutiny.

BC

[Goose]

As I've said before, ultimately the buck stops at the coach. But I find the playcalling "analyses" facile and non-disproveable so they don't really add much to the discussion other than as a chance to vent, and in this case it doesn't even hold up to scrutiny.

BC

+1.

[Goose]

As I've said before, ultimately the buck stops at the coach. But I find the playcalling "analyses" facile and non-disproveable so they don't really add much to the discussion other than as a chance to vent, and in this case it doesn't even hold up to scrutiny.

BC

+1.

[teejers1]

As I've said before, ultimately the buck stops at the coach. But I find the playcalling "analyses" facile and non-disproveable so they don't really add much to the discussion other than as a chance to vent, and in this case it doesn't even hold up to scrutiny.

BC

+1.

Well, I actually don't think I second-guess much of what Shaw does offensively . . . only the most basic AYFKM stuff.

But let's try it this way:

Best outcome on Stanford's penultimate drive:  score TD, with little/no time on the clock;
Next best outcome:  score FG with little/no time on the clock;
Next best outcome:  score TD w/o using up much clock;
Next best outcome:  score FG w/o using up much clock; 
Next "best" outcome:  not scoring but burning most of time on clock; and
Worst outcome:  not scoring and burning little clock.

Throwing to end zone on second and goal - even if the play was "successful" - gives you, at best, the third best outcome.  This is exactly why I thought Harbaugh's decision to have Luck throw for the end zone on first down in the last Big Game Cal won (prior to Saturday) was the wrong decision, even putting aside that Toby was on the sideline (catching some rest after just having gashed Cal's D with a huuge catch and run).  Even if you score a TD there, you give Cal way too much time to respond with the winning (Luck's game) or tying (Saturday's game) score.

Lastly, I agree with BC that the D failed to make stops at end of game and that was brutal.  But did you have any confidence in this D at any time this season?  It clearly is a step (or three) down from the really good Ds Stanford had in early years of Shaw's tenure.  This actually magnifies the importance of making the right decisions on O, where your roster talent is.

But enough.  We'll never convince each other on this point.

P.S.  Someone on the other board posted a very interesting nugget:  A few years ago Stanford beat ND, leaving the Domers with a 4-8 season record.  After that season, the AD met with Brian Kelley and changes were made at both coordinator positions, and Kelly gave up calling plays.  Since then ND has had 3 very good seasons (records of 9 wins, 11 wins, and 10 wins (after Saturday), IIRC.  What are the chances . . .

[teejers1]

As I've said before, ultimately the buck stops at the coach. But I find the playcalling "analyses" facile and non-disproveable so they don't really add much to the discussion other than as a chance to vent, and in this case it doesn't even hold up to scrutiny.

BC

+1.

Well, I actually don't think I second-guess much of what Shaw does offensively . . . only the most basic AYFKM stuff.

But let's try it this way:

Best outcome on Stanford's penultimate drive:  score TD, with little/no time on the clock;
Next best outcome:  score FG with little/no time on the clock;
Next best outcome:  score TD w/o using up much clock;
Next best outcome:  score FG w/o using up much clock; 
Next "best" outcome:  not scoring but burning most of time on clock; and
Worst outcome:  not scoring and burning little clock.

Throwing to end zone on second and goal - even if the play was "successful" - gives you, at best, the third best outcome.  This is exactly why I thought Harbaugh's decision to have Luck throw for the end zone on first down in the last Big Game Cal won (prior to Saturday) was the wrong decision, even putting aside that Toby was on the sideline (catching some rest after just having gashed Cal's D with a huuge catch and run).  Even if you score a TD there, you give Cal way too much time to respond with the winning (Luck's game) or tying (Saturday's game) score.

Lastly, I agree with BC that the D failed to make stops at end of game and that was brutal.  But did you have any confidence in this D at any time this season?  It clearly is a step (or three) down from the really good Ds Stanford had in early years of Shaw's tenure.  This actually magnifies the importance of making the right decisions on O, where your roster talent is.

But enough.  We'll never convince each other on this point.

P.S.  Someone on the other board posted a very interesting nugget:  A few years ago Stanford beat ND, leaving the Domers with a 4-8 season record.  After that season, the AD met with Brian Kelley and changes were made at both coordinator positions, and Kelly gave up calling plays.  Since then ND has had 3 very good seasons (records of 9 wins, 11 wins, and 10 wins (after Saturday), IIRC.  What are the chances . . .

[Phogge]

No chance. Muir is CS.

[Phogge]

No chance. Muir is CS.

[BostonCard]

Well, I actually don't think I second-guess much of what Shaw does offensively . . . only the most basic AYFKM stuff.

But let's try it this way:

Best outcome on Stanford's penultimate drive:  score TD, with little/no time on the clock;
Next best outcome:  score FG with little/no time on the clock;
Next best outcome:  score TD w/o using up much clock;
Next best outcome:  score FG w/o using up much clock; 
Next "best" outcome:  not scoring but burning most of time on clock; and
Worst outcome:  not scoring and burning little clock.

Throwing to end zone on second and goal - even if the play was "successful" - gives you, at best, the third best outcome.  This is exactly why I thought Harbaugh's decision to have Luck throw for the end zone on first down in the last Big Game Cal won (prior to Saturday) was the wrong decision, even putting aside that Toby was on the sideline (catching some rest after just having gashed Cal's D with a huuge catch and run).  Even if you score a TD there, you give Cal way too much time to respond with the winning (Luck's game) or tying (Saturday's game) score.

Lastly, I agree with BC that the D failed to make stops at end of game and that was brutal.  But did you have any confidence in this D at any time this season?  It clearly is a step (or three) down from the really good Ds Stanford had in early years of Shaw's tenure.  This actually magnifies the importance of making the right decisions on O, where your roster talent is.

But enough.  We'll never convince each other on this point.

P.S.  Someone on the other board posted a very interesting nugget:  A few years ago Stanford beat ND, leaving the Domers with a 4-8 season record.  After that season, the AD met with Brian Kelley and changes were made at both coordinator positions, and Kelly gave up calling plays.  Since then ND has had 3 very good seasons (records of 9 wins, 11 wins, and 10 wins (after Saturday), IIRC.  What are the chances . . .

But, you have to start that analysis with first and ten at our own 35.  A ten play 5 minute drive that ends in a field goal is pretty good for this offense.  With our defense, there really wasn't much difference between giving Cal the ball back with 2:20 and three time outs or 2:20 and two time outs (likely outcome if we run twice) or 1:40 and three time outs (outcome if Cal doesn't call a time out).  To really consider it "not much time on the clock", we would have had to score (TD or field goal) with less than a minute left and 0 or 1 time outs, and running twice doesn't accomplish that.  Running twice and getting a first down would have, but we were averaging about 3 yards per carry.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, I actually don't think I second-guess much of what Shaw does offensively . . . only the most basic AYFKM stuff.

But let's try it this way:

Best outcome on Stanford's penultimate drive:  score TD, with little/no time on the clock;
Next best outcome:  score FG with little/no time on the clock;
Next best outcome:  score TD w/o using up much clock;
Next best outcome:  score FG w/o using up much clock; 
Next "best" outcome:  not scoring but burning most of time on clock; and
Worst outcome:  not scoring and burning little clock.

Throwing to end zone on second and goal - even if the play was "successful" - gives you, at best, the third best outcome.  This is exactly why I thought Harbaugh's decision to have Luck throw for the end zone on first down in the last Big Game Cal won (prior to Saturday) was the wrong decision, even putting aside that Toby was on the sideline (catching some rest after just having gashed Cal's D with a huuge catch and run).  Even if you score a TD there, you give Cal way too much time to respond with the winning (Luck's game) or tying (Saturday's game) score.

Lastly, I agree with BC that the D failed to make stops at end of game and that was brutal.  But did you have any confidence in this D at any time this season?  It clearly is a step (or three) down from the really good Ds Stanford had in early years of Shaw's tenure.  This actually magnifies the importance of making the right decisions on O, where your roster talent is.

But enough.  We'll never convince each other on this point.

P.S.  Someone on the other board posted a very interesting nugget:  A few years ago Stanford beat ND, leaving the Domers with a 4-8 season record.  After that season, the AD met with Brian Kelley and changes were made at both coordinator positions, and Kelly gave up calling plays.  Since then ND has had 3 very good seasons (records of 9 wins, 11 wins, and 10 wins (after Saturday), IIRC.  What are the chances . . .

But, you have to start that analysis with first and ten at our own 35.  A ten play 5 minute drive that ends in a field goal is pretty good for this offense.  With our defense, there really wasn't much difference between giving Cal the ball back with 2:20 and three time outs or 2:20 and two time outs (likely outcome if we run twice) or 1:40 and three time outs (outcome if Cal doesn't call a time out).  To really consider it "not much time on the clock", we would have had to score (TD or field goal) with less than a minute left and 0 or 1 time outs, and running twice doesn't accomplish that.  Running twice and getting a first down would have, but we were averaging about 3 yards per carry.

BC