[OutsiderFan]

Shaw said that the second-guessing of his late-game, conservative play calls doesn't faze him.

"I'm fine with that because typically they lead to wins," Shaw said. "I don't get enamored with what things look like. I don't get enamored with, 'Hey, maybe if we can try this we can try that.' They also had a lot of corner blitzes, they also had a guy named (Anthony Barr) that we kept under wraps for the most part. I was not going to give that guy an opportunity to get after us and rush the passer on a 3rd and 6 with the game on the line. I'd rather run the clock, punt, and put the ball on our defense. It's not sexy football but it's smart football." -

See more at: http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1565374

This just isn't true.  Possession is what wins games.  Clock time hardly matters.  This is why it makes so much sense to forego punting as much as possible.  As Stanford saw against Washington in "the Curtis Williams game," it can only take 30 seconds and three plays to go 80 yards with no timeouts.  I just don't buy the notion that running clock is more important than possession, because possession keeps the other team from having the ball.  In other words, maybe you run the ball more often in the late stages of a game with a lead, or don't throw as many downfield passes, but don't call plays at the expense of the highest percentage plays that can lead to maintaining possession.  Running the ball up the middle in to 8+ man fronts is not a high percentage play to maintain possession. 

If a defense is threatened with the pass, it won't load up to stop the run.  But the only way it doesn't load up to stop the run in late game situations is if the offense demonstrates it will pass the ball.  Stanford's offense has become far too one-dimensional in late game situations to effectively maintain possession.  This is a fact, not an opinion.  The one-dimensional play calling hasn't cost the team a win yet, but almost did against Washington, and made things more interesting than they should have been against ASU and UCLA. 

The best defense is an offense that maintains possession.  For proof, look at Alabama.  Their defense has defended against over 100 fewer snaps than Stanford has.

ED: Copied content reduced and quoted.

[OutsiderFan]

Shaw said that the second-guessing of his late-game, conservative play calls doesn't faze him.

"I'm fine with that because typically they lead to wins," Shaw said. "I don't get enamored with what things look like. I don't get enamored with, 'Hey, maybe if we can try this we can try that.' They also had a lot of corner blitzes, they also had a guy named (Anthony Barr) that we kept under wraps for the most part. I was not going to give that guy an opportunity to get after us and rush the passer on a 3rd and 6 with the game on the line. I'd rather run the clock, punt, and put the ball on our defense. It's not sexy football but it's smart football." -

See more at: http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1565374

This just isn't true.  Possession is what wins games.  Clock time hardly matters.  This is why it makes so much sense to forego punting as much as possible.  As Stanford saw against Washington in "the Curtis Williams game," it can only take 30 seconds and three plays to go 80 yards with no timeouts.  I just don't buy the notion that running clock is more important than possession, because possession keeps the other team from having the ball.  In other words, maybe you run the ball more often in the late stages of a game with a lead, or don't throw as many downfield passes, but don't call plays at the expense of the highest percentage plays that can lead to maintaining possession.  Running the ball up the middle in to 8+ man fronts is not a high percentage play to maintain possession. 

If a defense is threatened with the pass, it won't load up to stop the run.  But the only way it doesn't load up to stop the run in late game situations is if the offense demonstrates it will pass the ball.  Stanford's offense has become far too one-dimensional in late game situations to effectively maintain possession.  This is a fact, not an opinion.  The one-dimensional play calling hasn't cost the team a win yet, but almost did against Washington, and made things more interesting than they should have been against ASU and UCLA. 

The best defense is an offense that maintains possession.  For proof, look at Alabama.  Their defense has defended against over 100 fewer snaps than Stanford has.

ED: Copied content reduced and quoted.

[washingtonismoney]

The best defense is an offense that maintains possession.  For proof, look at Alabama.  Their defense has defended against over 100 fewer snaps than Stanford has.

I don't think that's because of a lack of possession. That's because of the opposition, which has been predominantly hurry-up no-huddle types. The guys who are interested in running a lot of plays typically don't care about time of possession at all -- Chip Kelly was particularly vocal about this.

This doesn't detract from your overall point, which is accurate. I think it's fine to be run-oriented, especially when Stanford was, indeed, gashing UCLA for much of the fourth quarter with the run. But doing it in formations that tip off the intentions of the offense is pretty silly.

[washingtonismoney]

The best defense is an offense that maintains possession.  For proof, look at Alabama.  Their defense has defended against over 100 fewer snaps than Stanford has.

I don't think that's because of a lack of possession. That's because of the opposition, which has been predominantly hurry-up no-huddle types. The guys who are interested in running a lot of plays typically don't care about time of possession at all -- Chip Kelly was particularly vocal about this.

This doesn't detract from your overall point, which is accurate. I think it's fine to be run-oriented, especially when Stanford was, indeed, gashing UCLA for much of the fourth quarter with the run. But doing it in formations that tip off the intentions of the offense is pretty silly.

[dabigv13]

Shaw is a stubborn guy. I wonder if deep down he realizes how dumb his playcalling was at the end of Utah game, or that 3rd and 6 call against UCLA, and he just doesn't cop to it publicly. More likely he'd do the exact same thing again.

[dabigv13]

Shaw is a stubborn guy. I wonder if deep down he realizes how dumb his playcalling was at the end of Utah game, or that 3rd and 6 call against UCLA, and he just doesn't cop to it publicly. More likely he'd do the exact same thing again.

[washingtonismoney]

Shaw is a stubborn guy. I wonder if deep down he realizes how dumb his playcalling was at the end of Utah game, or that 3rd and 6 call against UCLA, and he just doesn't cop to it publicly. More likely he'd do the exact same thing again.

Shaw is stubborn...publicly. But I've never understood why people apply this meme to his actual actions. I think his actions reveal a fairly flexible coach -- one who's willing to, say, shuffle off his special teams coach after one season on the job; switch his starting TE over to defense in the middle of the season; transition his offense from dink-and-dunk to bombs away in the space of a year. These don't suggest a man who is irreversibly stuck in his ways.

Now, there's no question that admitting a mistake does not come easily, but I personally don't really care.

[washingtonismoney]

Shaw is a stubborn guy. I wonder if deep down he realizes how dumb his playcalling was at the end of Utah game, or that 3rd and 6 call against UCLA, and he just doesn't cop to it publicly. More likely he'd do the exact same thing again.

Shaw is stubborn...publicly. But I've never understood why people apply this meme to his actual actions. I think his actions reveal a fairly flexible coach -- one who's willing to, say, shuffle off his special teams coach after one season on the job; switch his starting TE over to defense in the middle of the season; transition his offense from dink-and-dunk to bombs away in the space of a year. These don't suggest a man who is irreversibly stuck in his ways.

Now, there's no question that admitting a mistake does not come easily, but I personally don't really care.

[CowboyIndian]

.... to forego punting as much as possible.

[CowboyIndian]

.... to forego punting as much as possible.

[Farm93]

Shaw is a stubborn guy. I wonder if deep down he realizes how dumb his playcalling was at the end of Utah game, or that 3rd and 6 call against UCLA, and he just doesn't cop to it publicly. More likely he'd do the exact same thing again.

Shaw must be BRILLIANT.  He can win 80+% of his games and he can convince 4 and 5 star recruits to come to a program with a rather thin record of football excellence all while doing "dumb" and "stubborn" things.

He must be very clever to be able to win so consistently despite this playcalling predictability and stupidity.

And yeah, I think he has learned over 40+ years that running teams win more than pass happy teams, or at a minimum Stanford's odds of winning are better recruiting and playing power running rather than spread oriented trickery.  BTW - For those that love the spread there are plenty of tickets available for games at CMS.  Not a lot of winning but a variety of brilliant and creative incomplete passes. 

[Farm93]

Shaw is a stubborn guy. I wonder if deep down he realizes how dumb his playcalling was at the end of Utah game, or that 3rd and 6 call against UCLA, and he just doesn't cop to it publicly. More likely he'd do the exact same thing again.

Shaw must be BRILLIANT.  He can win 80+% of his games and he can convince 4 and 5 star recruits to come to a program with a rather thin record of football excellence all while doing "dumb" and "stubborn" things.

He must be very clever to be able to win so consistently despite this playcalling predictability and stupidity.

And yeah, I think he has learned over 40+ years that running teams win more than pass happy teams, or at a minimum Stanford's odds of winning are better recruiting and playing power running rather than spread oriented trickery.  BTW - For those that love the spread there are plenty of tickets available for games at CMS.  Not a lot of winning but a variety of brilliant and creative incomplete passes. 

[fullmetal]

Most of Shaw's playcalling is smart money.  The ones that are questionable...maybe those are just the disastrous, high-risk ones.  We'll see about OSU and UO...

[fullmetal]

Most of Shaw's playcalling is smart money.  The ones that are questionable...maybe those are just the disastrous, high-risk ones.  We'll see about OSU and UO...

[Kathy]

This is why it makes so much sense to forego punting as much as possible.

So you like quick kicks?

[Kathy]

This is why it makes so much sense to forego punting as much as possible.

So you like quick kicks?

[george]

See more at: http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1565374

Enjoyed the Tyler Gaffney video at the top of the article as well.  To me the best part is when he corrects the interviewer's statement that he said, "I ain't coming out."

"I actually said, 'I ain't tired.' I would never tell him I ain't coming out."

I have often scratched my head at the play calling or when we choose to attempt field goals.  But remarks like this extinguish any thoughts of Shaw not being a great coach.  Here's a guy that most likely would've won the game for us in Utah if Shaw had just given him the ball on 3rd & 2, and yet he goes out of his way to underscore that he trusts his coach implicitly.

[george]

See more at: http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1565374

Enjoyed the Tyler Gaffney video at the top of the article as well.  To me the best part is when he corrects the interviewer's statement that he said, "I ain't coming out."

"I actually said, 'I ain't tired.' I would never tell him I ain't coming out."

I have often scratched my head at the play calling or when we choose to attempt field goals.  But remarks like this extinguish any thoughts of Shaw not being a great coach.  Here's a guy that most likely would've won the game for us in Utah if Shaw had just given him the ball on 3rd & 2, and yet he goes out of his way to underscore that he trusts his coach implicitly.

[Griffins78]

Keep in mind that Mike Bloomberg is the Offensive and OL and run coordinator. In his first year as Offensive Coordinator for us, the OL and the offense has been slower to develop than we would have liked. Shaw trusts his coaches.

Half-way through the season I hope we're starting to function the way we'd hoped.

The development of our WRs has and will make it easier for our running game by establishing a credible option. Unfortunately, it seems like Hogan has been a little more nervous this year in the pocket and that has limited our ability in critical situations.

Everything is connected. So as the OL settles in and provides better blocking and protection, Hogan settles in and goes through his progressions and makes better passes, I think our play calling will be more effective and difficult to defend.

[Griffins78]

Keep in mind that Mike Bloomberg is the Offensive and OL and run coordinator. In his first year as Offensive Coordinator for us, the OL and the offense has been slower to develop than we would have liked. Shaw trusts his coaches.

Half-way through the season I hope we're starting to function the way we'd hoped.

The development of our WRs has and will make it easier for our running game by establishing a credible option. Unfortunately, it seems like Hogan has been a little more nervous this year in the pocket and that has limited our ability in critical situations.

Everything is connected. So as the OL settles in and provides better blocking and protection, Hogan settles in and goes through his progressions and makes better passes, I think our play calling will be more effective and difficult to defend.

[washingtonismoney]

... Hogan has been a little more nervous this year in the pocket and that has limited our ability in critical situations.

I'm not sure I would use the word nervous. But Hogan last year was definitely happier -- and more decisive -- in using short and mid-range routes. That was by necessity -- there were zero effective deep options by the time Hogan took control. Now that he's got deep options he seems to want to use them at every available opportunity.

I thought the UCLA game was an advance in that regard. For most of the season Hogan's accuracy has hovered between high fifties and mid sixties in completion percentage, but with a high YPA, reflecting very good explosiveness, but with a step back in efficiency.

Against UCLA, Hogan completed 72% of his passes, a season high. Unlike last year, however, the passing offense still delivered big plays -- 4 20+ plays (5 if you lump in a 19 yard completion to Cajuste.) 16% of our passing attempts were explosive plays (20% if you count the 19 yard Cajuste completion), as compared to 15% over the entire season.

(Interestingly, the stats reflect the new offensive emphasis. Stanford ranks 42nd in 20+ passing plays, but 89th in 10+ passing plays. I wouldn't take the exact rankings too literally, though: because Stanford plays at a slow pace and doesn't pass the ball terribly much at that, it will have fewer total explosive plays in any case. Still, I think it's descriptive about how the offense works.) 

[washingtonismoney]

... Hogan has been a little more nervous this year in the pocket and that has limited our ability in critical situations.

I'm not sure I would use the word nervous. But Hogan last year was definitely happier -- and more decisive -- in using short and mid-range routes. That was by necessity -- there were zero effective deep options by the time Hogan took control. Now that he's got deep options he seems to want to use them at every available opportunity.

I thought the UCLA game was an advance in that regard. For most of the season Hogan's accuracy has hovered between high fifties and mid sixties in completion percentage, but with a high YPA, reflecting very good explosiveness, but with a step back in efficiency.

Against UCLA, Hogan completed 72% of his passes, a season high. Unlike last year, however, the passing offense still delivered big plays -- 4 20+ plays (5 if you lump in a 19 yard completion to Cajuste.) 16% of our passing attempts were explosive plays (20% if you count the 19 yard Cajuste completion), as compared to 15% over the entire season.

(Interestingly, the stats reflect the new offensive emphasis. Stanford ranks 42nd in 20+ passing plays, but 89th in 10+ passing plays. I wouldn't take the exact rankings too literally, though: because Stanford plays at a slow pace and doesn't pass the ball terribly much at that, it will have fewer total explosive plays in any case. Still, I think it's descriptive about how the offense works.)