[washingtonismoney]

Of course defense matters. I did not ever say it didn't. Is that really what you understood my post to say?

No. But you're not considering it. It's hard to take the position that Shaw in some way plays not to lose when you look at the defense, which is highly aggressive, disruptive, and prone to try to make plays (even at the cost of making mistakes). In fact, you could make an argument that, on the final drives of the regulation, such a playmaking, aggressive spirit cost the defense-- Amanam's roughing of Golson was, while perhaps a questionable call, probably unnecessary anyway; Terrence Brown's pass interference was aggression, etc. etc.

And the defense has often valued talent over experience: Ed Reynolds had basically never played a snap and was elevated over Devon Carrington, while James Vaughters got boosted over two experienced, quality players in AJ Tarpley and Jarek Lancaster. These aren't the actions of someone who only wants experienced, mistake-free players.

And, in fact, such a position doesn't really hold true for Shaw's personnel decisions on offense either. He played two redshirt freshmen on the line last year, and was perfectly comfortable giving Ty Montgomery more and more touches as the year went on, to the point that he was probably the primary option at wideout by the end of the year (again, over seemingly more mistake-free, conservative options below him).

Basically, the position that Shaw is somehow blind to the virtues of talent and/or aggression is only tenable if you take a highly limited view of the situation. Shaw, like most coaches, is aggressive when he has the personnel and not-so-aggressive when he doesn't have the personnel.

Has the offense been conservative? Probably, yes. Would it be more successful aggressive? I would guess, probably no -- although I suppose it might make people happier to have a quarterback who can't throw accurately aggressively miss a pass to a wide receiver who aggressively doesn't make the catch. Aggression!

[washingtonismoney]

Of course defense matters. I did not ever say it didn't. Is that really what you understood my post to say?

No. But you're not considering it. It's hard to take the position that Shaw in some way plays not to lose when you look at the defense, which is highly aggressive, disruptive, and prone to try to make plays (even at the cost of making mistakes). In fact, you could make an argument that, on the final drives of the regulation, such a playmaking, aggressive spirit cost the defense-- Amanam's roughing of Golson was, while perhaps a questionable call, probably unnecessary anyway; Terrence Brown's pass interference was aggression, etc. etc.

And the defense has often valued talent over experience: Ed Reynolds had basically never played a snap and was elevated over Devon Carrington, while James Vaughters got boosted over two experienced, quality players in AJ Tarpley and Jarek Lancaster. These aren't the actions of someone who only wants experienced, mistake-free players.

And, in fact, such a position doesn't really hold true for Shaw's personnel decisions on offense either. He played two redshirt freshmen on the line last year, and was perfectly comfortable giving Ty Montgomery more and more touches as the year went on, to the point that he was probably the primary option at wideout by the end of the year (again, over seemingly more mistake-free, conservative options below him).

Basically, the position that Shaw is somehow blind to the virtues of talent and/or aggression is only tenable if you take a highly limited view of the situation. Shaw, like most coaches, is aggressive when he has the personnel and not-so-aggressive when he doesn't have the personnel.

Has the offense been conservative? Probably, yes. Would it be more successful aggressive? I would guess, probably no -- although I suppose it might make people happier to have a quarterback who can't throw accurately aggressively miss a pass to a wide receiver who aggressively doesn't make the catch. Aggression!

[jayasena]

Nunes has been bad, but the wideouts have been worse. It's kind of baffling to me people have such high expectations for Nunes and such nonexistent expectations for the wideouts.

I completely agree with this and have been wondering the same. Clearly, JN is not an elite QB. But aside from the SJSU game (his first ever start) and UW game (his first road start), JN seems to be an average D1 starting QB. But we don't seem to have anyone that could come close to being considered an average D1 starting WR. Montgomery was supposed to be the savior in this department after the flashes he showed last year but has been a complete non-factor so far this year (even when healthy). JN's stats, and our third-down conversions, would look a lot better if we had at least one reliable receiver -- even a so-called "possession" receiver like the ones we relied on heavily in the Luck years (e.g. the Whalens).

Speaking of WRs, why haven't any of our fairly-well-regarded recruits panned out? Montgomery, JRP, Roberts et.al. were all 4-star recruits. Richards and Terrell were 3-stars. Statistically, what's the probability of them all being near-complete busts (yes, I realize it's not zero)? Or is there something lacking with WR coaching in the Harbough-Shaw era?

It's really depressing that our OL's strength right now seems to be pass blocking and we just don't have the QB and receiver(s) to make use of that.

[jayasena]

Nunes has been bad, but the wideouts have been worse. It's kind of baffling to me people have such high expectations for Nunes and such nonexistent expectations for the wideouts.

I completely agree with this and have been wondering the same. Clearly, JN is not an elite QB. But aside from the SJSU game (his first ever start) and UW game (his first road start), JN seems to be an average D1 starting QB. But we don't seem to have anyone that could come close to being considered an average D1 starting WR. Montgomery was supposed to be the savior in this department after the flashes he showed last year but has been a complete non-factor so far this year (even when healthy). JN's stats, and our third-down conversions, would look a lot better if we had at least one reliable receiver -- even a so-called "possession" receiver like the ones we relied on heavily in the Luck years (e.g. the Whalens).

Speaking of WRs, why haven't any of our fairly-well-regarded recruits panned out? Montgomery, JRP, Roberts et.al. were all 4-star recruits. Richards and Terrell were 3-stars. Statistically, what's the probability of them all being near-complete busts (yes, I realize it's not zero)? Or is there something lacking with WR coaching in the Harbough-Shaw era?

It's really depressing that our OL's strength right now seems to be pass blocking and we just don't have the QB and receiver(s) to make use of that.

[doug]

It's not that I'm not considering the defense, rather the problems we've had are on offense. The defense has certainly played closer to its potential than the offense.

I agree the defense has been aggressive, and I have liked that. I also think it is a big reason why we've had the success we've had on defense. I also agree that at least at safety, Ed Reynolds has been a pleasant surprise, as I thought DC made critical mistakes last year (he's been better this year, but Reynolds has earned the right to start). Perhaps Shaw is  responsible for the defensive aggression, and if so, that is a good point against my theory. But I attribute the approach on defense to Mason, but at least Shaw has allowed Mason to be aggressive.

I would like to see more aggression from the offense, but unlike you, my guess is that we would have had more success, rather than less, had we done so. I attribute the offensive approach to Shaw, since he's been on the offensive side of the ball since joining up with Harbaugh at USD. Maybe Hamilton is equally or more responsible for the offensive approach.

But perhaps even more than the "aggression" you discuss, I would definitely like to see more imagination and creativity in the offense. Even while running power, Harbaugh's teams were throwing wrinkles at the defense to confuse and disrupt. I see very little of that this year (though maybe I am not sophisticated enough to recognize it -- the commentator showed a schematic wrinkle in Taylor's winning TD in OT I had not recognized). I would also like more use of the guys Shaw has praised (at times even raved about) play-makers.

[doug]

It's not that I'm not considering the defense, rather the problems we've had are on offense. The defense has certainly played closer to its potential than the offense.

I agree the defense has been aggressive, and I have liked that. I also think it is a big reason why we've had the success we've had on defense. I also agree that at least at safety, Ed Reynolds has been a pleasant surprise, as I thought DC made critical mistakes last year (he's been better this year, but Reynolds has earned the right to start). Perhaps Shaw is  responsible for the defensive aggression, and if so, that is a good point against my theory. But I attribute the approach on defense to Mason, but at least Shaw has allowed Mason to be aggressive.

I would like to see more aggression from the offense, but unlike you, my guess is that we would have had more success, rather than less, had we done so. I attribute the offensive approach to Shaw, since he's been on the offensive side of the ball since joining up with Harbaugh at USD. Maybe Hamilton is equally or more responsible for the offensive approach.

But perhaps even more than the "aggression" you discuss, I would definitely like to see more imagination and creativity in the offense. Even while running power, Harbaugh's teams were throwing wrinkles at the defense to confuse and disrupt. I see very little of that this year (though maybe I am not sophisticated enough to recognize it -- the commentator showed a schematic wrinkle in Taylor's winning TD in OT I had not recognized). I would also like more use of the guys Shaw has praised (at times even raved about) play-makers.

[76lsjumb]

Has the offense been conservative? Probably, yes. Would it be more successful aggressive? I would guess, probably no -- although I suppose it might make people happier to have a quarterback who can't throw accurately aggressively miss a pass to a wide receiver who aggressively doesn't make the catch. Aggression!

I think there is a little bit of a definitional problem here.  In this context, I don't think the opposite of "conservative" is "aggressive."  I think the opposite of "conservative" is "creative," and, in fact, I think that, on a few occasions, some of the play-calling even this year proves that.  I just wish there had been a few MORE such occasions.  My recollection is that hardly a game went by with Harbaugh [even late in the season] where there weren't 2 or 3 plays that had people saying, "Huh?  We've never done THAT before...!"  It's halfway thru the season this year and, at least to me, that thought has only come up 2 or 3 times in total.  Of course, we've had so many 3-and-outs that there haven't been as many opportunities to get creative, but that's sort of a chicken-and-egg problem in itself. 

On the bright side, Zychlinski's turned out to be a pretty good punter, so we've got that going for us.  [And, no, kicking on third down isn't the kind of creativity I'm looking for...]

[76lsjumb]

Has the offense been conservative? Probably, yes. Would it be more successful aggressive? I would guess, probably no -- although I suppose it might make people happier to have a quarterback who can't throw accurately aggressively miss a pass to a wide receiver who aggressively doesn't make the catch. Aggression!

I think there is a little bit of a definitional problem here.  In this context, I don't think the opposite of "conservative" is "aggressive."  I think the opposite of "conservative" is "creative," and, in fact, I think that, on a few occasions, some of the play-calling even this year proves that.  I just wish there had been a few MORE such occasions.  My recollection is that hardly a game went by with Harbaugh [even late in the season] where there weren't 2 or 3 plays that had people saying, "Huh?  We've never done THAT before...!"  It's halfway thru the season this year and, at least to me, that thought has only come up 2 or 3 times in total.  Of course, we've had so many 3-and-outs that there haven't been as many opportunities to get creative, but that's sort of a chicken-and-egg problem in itself. 

On the bright side, Zychlinski's turned out to be a pretty good punter, so we've got that going for us.  [And, no, kicking on third down isn't the kind of creativity I'm looking for...]

[76lsjumb]

But perhaps even more than the "aggression" you discuss, I would definitely like to see more imagination and creativity in the offense. Even while running power, Harbaugh's teams were throwing wrinkles at the defense to confuse and disrupt. I see very little of that this year (though maybe I am not sophisticated enough to recognize it -- the commentator showed a schematic wrinkle in Taylor's winning TD in OT I had not recognized). I would also like more use of the guys Shaw has praised (at times even raved about) play-makers.

Yeah, what he said...

[76lsjumb]

But perhaps even more than the "aggression" you discuss, I would definitely like to see more imagination and creativity in the offense. Even while running power, Harbaugh's teams were throwing wrinkles at the defense to confuse and disrupt. I see very little of that this year (though maybe I am not sophisticated enough to recognize it -- the commentator showed a schematic wrinkle in Taylor's winning TD in OT I had not recognized). I would also like more use of the guys Shaw has praised (at times even raved about) play-makers.

Yeah, what he said...

[fullmetal]

Conservative = unsophisticated.  The Madden 2013 playbook has some pretty great plays, to start.  Also, plays live and die by their situational context.  You can run a simple fullback dive with great success if the defense is not stacking the box, for instance.

[fullmetal]

Conservative = unsophisticated.  The Madden 2013 playbook has some pretty great plays, to start.  Also, plays live and die by their situational context.  You can run a simple fullback dive with great success if the defense is not stacking the box, for instance.

[doug]

I left out a reference in my earlier post:
"I see very little of that this year (though maybe I am not sophisticated enough to recognize it -- the commentator showed a schematic wrinkle in Taylor's winning TD in OT I had not recognized)."

I was referring to Taylor's game-winning TD in OT against Arizona -- there was a schematic wrinkle in that play that really worked, assuming the commentator was correct (and he looked to be). I only realized upon re-reading that my comment could have been misinterpreted as referring to OT vs. ND where I definitely did not see anything creative or imaginative. In fact, it couldn't have been less creative or imaginative.

[doug]

I left out a reference in my earlier post:
"I see very little of that this year (though maybe I am not sophisticated enough to recognize it -- the commentator showed a schematic wrinkle in Taylor's winning TD in OT I had not recognized)."

I was referring to Taylor's game-winning TD in OT against Arizona -- there was a schematic wrinkle in that play that really worked, assuming the commentator was correct (and he looked to be). I only realized upon re-reading that my comment could have been misinterpreted as referring to OT vs. ND where I definitely did not see anything creative or imaginative. In fact, it couldn't have been less creative or imaginative.

[yvonne]

We lost.

[yvonne]

We lost.

[76lsjumb]

Before drifting, this thread was about polls. And I'm surprised nobody complained. I don't see how we play the No. 7 team in the country on their home field, take them to overtime before losing on a disputed call, and beat the spread....then drop five spots in the polls. We played much, much better than almost any non-Stanford fan expected, yet somehow we're considered worse. It's inexplicable.

Perhaps it's because we have standards. 

When we played U.S.C., I couldn't help thinking that they were the worst #2 team in the country I had ever seen.  Ditto with N.D. -- they have got to be the worst #7 team in the country in a long time. 

As for us, I'm happy we're ranked as highly as we are -- and, this year, there may, indeed, be only 21 teams better than us.  I just can't help feeling that various past Stanford teams that weren't ranked as highly still could have matched, if not handled, this year's team without much trouble. 

[76lsjumb]

Before drifting, this thread was about polls. And I'm surprised nobody complained. I don't see how we play the No. 7 team in the country on their home field, take them to overtime before losing on a disputed call, and beat the spread....then drop five spots in the polls. We played much, much better than almost any non-Stanford fan expected, yet somehow we're considered worse. It's inexplicable.

Perhaps it's because we have standards. 

When we played U.S.C., I couldn't help thinking that they were the worst #2 team in the country I had ever seen.  Ditto with N.D. -- they have got to be the worst #7 team in the country in a long time. 

As for us, I'm happy we're ranked as highly as we are -- and, this year, there may, indeed, be only 21 teams better than us.  I just can't help feeling that various past Stanford teams that weren't ranked as highly still could have matched, if not handled, this year's team without much trouble. 

[yvonne]

Expanding on my post above, I think that football doesn't give style points in losses the way basketball does. It's win or drop.

[yvonne]

Expanding on my post above, I think that football doesn't give style points in losses the way basketball does. It's win or drop.

[Farm93]

Yes and no on the style points.

The computer formulas only get to look at wins and losses, but even there the opponent matters.  So losing to Notre Dame in South Bend is much better than losing to SJSU at Stanford.

For the people polls it definitely matters how you lose.  Just ask Alabama.  Last year they lost a very close game to LSU, and that close loss enabled them to get into the BCS CG.  If 'Bama had lost by 25 or 30 points they would not have been able to jump into the BCS CG as team #2.  The style of their loss enabled them to get, and win, the BCS CG.

Then, for the lesser bowl games, the selection committee types want entertaining teams that are unlikely to get blown off the field by their opponent.  So a team with 4 losses by 3 or 4 points each might be selected ahead of a team with 4 losses by 20+ points each.

In the NFL style points don't matter, but in FBS style points are sometimes in play.

The style points are clearly relevant for the BCS polls used for CG and at-large BCS bowl consideration.  Once those slots are filled, the style points are probably below W-L record, fan base willingness to travel, and established loyal TV audience.  But style of play and general competitiveness sometimes are noted by those bowl committee types when they defend their choices. 

[Farm93]

Yes and no on the style points.

The computer formulas only get to look at wins and losses, but even there the opponent matters.  So losing to Notre Dame in South Bend is much better than losing to SJSU at Stanford.

For the people polls it definitely matters how you lose.  Just ask Alabama.  Last year they lost a very close game to LSU, and that close loss enabled them to get into the BCS CG.  If 'Bama had lost by 25 or 30 points they would not have been able to jump into the BCS CG as team #2.  The style of their loss enabled them to get, and win, the BCS CG.

Then, for the lesser bowl games, the selection committee types want entertaining teams that are unlikely to get blown off the field by their opponent.  So a team with 4 losses by 3 or 4 points each might be selected ahead of a team with 4 losses by 20+ points each.

In the NFL style points don't matter, but in FBS style points are sometimes in play.

The style points are clearly relevant for the BCS polls used for CG and at-large BCS bowl consideration.  Once those slots are filled, the style points are probably below W-L record, fan base willingness to travel, and established loyal TV audience.  But style of play and general competitiveness sometimes are noted by those bowl committee types when they defend their choices.