[washingtonismoney]

I just don't believe that David Shaw, for all of his other absolutely great qualities, is an elite game strategizer or game play caller.  Further, I think his end game mojo is at best average.

Except he's somehow...12-5 in close games as Stanford coach.

[washingtonismoney]

I just don't believe that David Shaw, for all of his other absolutely great qualities, is an elite game strategizer or game play caller.  Further, I think his end game mojo is at best average.

Except he's somehow...12-5 in close games as Stanford coach.

[twgin]

Yes, WIM, we win more close ones than we lose.  Why are they close ?  I submit that more often than not, they are close because not because of what the other team is doing, but because of what we are (or are not) doing.  When we get ahead we go into a shell and try and run out the clock, because of superior talent we are successful most of the time.  We don't go for the throat anymore; can you imagine David Shaw replicating Harbaugh's antics against $C a few years back ?  Will anyone ever ask Shaw "What's your deal ?"

This doesn't address yesterday's game, $C is pretty good and was playing inspired in front of 90K screaming fans.  A very tough environment.  But my two points are: we need better game/end game strategy and we need to get meaner as a team.

[twgin]

Yes, WIM, we win more close ones than we lose.  Why are they close ?  I submit that more often than not, they are close because not because of what the other team is doing, but because of what we are (or are not) doing.  When we get ahead we go into a shell and try and run out the clock, because of superior talent we are successful most of the time.  We don't go for the throat anymore; can you imagine David Shaw replicating Harbaugh's antics against $C a few years back ?  Will anyone ever ask Shaw "What's your deal ?"

This doesn't address yesterday's game, $C is pretty good and was playing inspired in front of 90K screaming fans.  A very tough environment.  But my two points are: we need better game/end game strategy and we need to get meaner as a team.

[stupac2]

Will anyone ever ask Shaw "What's your deal ?"

Pretty sure this basically happened in the UCLA game, where we got that gratuitous TD instead of just taking knees.

[stupac2]

Will anyone ever ask Shaw "What's your deal ?"

Pretty sure this basically happened in the UCLA game, where we got that gratuitous TD instead of just taking knees.

[twgin]

Heavens, Stupac,  it was only 17-10 when the late interception occurred, a one score game.  We got the ball on UCLA's 30 or so and ran the ball every down; UCLA called three timeouts to try and stop us and get the ball back.  They still got the ball back after the TD with a minute and a half left...  You are saying we should have tried the kneel down ?

This is hardly any comparison to Harbaugh's $C antics.

[twgin]

Heavens, Stupac,  it was only 17-10 when the late interception occurred, a one score game.  We got the ball on UCLA's 30 or so and ran the ball every down; UCLA called three timeouts to try and stop us and get the ball back.  They still got the ball back after the TD with a minute and a half left...  You are saying we should have tried the kneel down ?

This is hardly any comparison to Harbaugh's $C antics.

[washingtonismoney]

Considering we set a record for consecutive 25+ point victories in 2011, I think it's probably more accurate to blame the offense than to play David Shaw psychoanalyst, though I can understand the appeal of making unfalsifiable yet emotionally satisfying claims.

[washingtonismoney]

Considering we set a record for consecutive 25+ point victories in 2011, I think it's probably more accurate to blame the offense than to play David Shaw psychoanalyst, though I can understand the appeal of making unfalsifiable yet emotionally satisfying claims.

[stupac2]

Heavens, Stupac,  it was only 17-10 when the late interception occurred, a one score game.  We got the ball on UCLA's 30 or so and ran the ball every down; UCLA called three timeouts to try and stop us and get the ball back.  They still got the ball back after the TD with a minute and a half left...  You are saying we should have tried the kneel down ?

This is hardly any comparison to Harbaugh's $C antics.

I meant the "what's your deal?" moment, I recall Mora being pissed. Because while UCLA did take their TOs, we got a first down after they were out. There was <2 minutes left. We could have taken 3 knees and walked into the locker room with the win. Going for the TD right then was pointless other than sheer ruthlessness.

It's not the same as going for 2 when you're up by 3 scores, but it's really not that far off either.

[stupac2]

Heavens, Stupac,  it was only 17-10 when the late interception occurred, a one score game.  We got the ball on UCLA's 30 or so and ran the ball every down; UCLA called three timeouts to try and stop us and get the ball back.  They still got the ball back after the TD with a minute and a half left...  You are saying we should have tried the kneel down ?

This is hardly any comparison to Harbaugh's $C antics.

I meant the "what's your deal?" moment, I recall Mora being pissed. Because while UCLA did take their TOs, we got a first down after they were out. There was <2 minutes left. We could have taken 3 knees and walked into the locker room with the win. Going for the TD right then was pointless other than sheer ruthlessness.

It's not the same as going for 2 when you're up by 3 scores, but it's really not that far off either.

[Rando]

I like Shaw a lot. I think his 4Q playcalling and playcalling in general can be predictable and I don't always agree with the calls, but I am glad he is our coach and I think he is a great coach to have. Do I wish he was as aggressive as he was vs Oregon in every game? Yes. Being ultra conservative and sitting on leads has cost us and has nearly cost us many times.

[Rando]

I like Shaw a lot. I think his 4Q playcalling and playcalling in general can be predictable and I don't always agree with the calls, but I am glad he is our coach and I think he is a great coach to have. Do I wish he was as aggressive as he was vs Oregon in every game? Yes. Being ultra conservative and sitting on leads has cost us and has nearly cost us many times.

[washingtonismoney]

I like Shaw a lot. I think his 4Q playcalling and playcalling in general can be predictable and I don't always agree with the calls, but I am glad he is our coach and I think he is a great coach to have. Do I wish he was as aggressive as he was vs Oregon in every game?

The main difference between Shaw's playcalls against Oregon as compared to all other games is...they worked. That's all; it was the same very-heavy-running approach, with some cute variations. It's a fine approach, in general. However, if this is the main evidence people cite to distinguish effective versus ineffective playcalling, I'm going to stick with my belief that playcalling is largely meaningless.

[washingtonismoney]

I like Shaw a lot. I think his 4Q playcalling and playcalling in general can be predictable and I don't always agree with the calls, but I am glad he is our coach and I think he is a great coach to have. Do I wish he was as aggressive as he was vs Oregon in every game?

The main difference between Shaw's playcalls against Oregon as compared to all other games is...they worked. That's all; it was the same very-heavy-running approach, with some cute variations. It's a fine approach, in general. However, if this is the main evidence people cite to distinguish effective versus ineffective playcalling, I'm going to stick with my belief that playcalling is largely meaningless.

[Rando]

The main difference between Shaw's playcalls against Oregon as compared to all other games is...they worked. That's all; it was the same very-heavy-running approach, with some cute variations. It's a fine approach, in general. However, if this is the main evidence people cite to distinguish effective versus ineffective playcalling, I'm going to stick with my belief that playcalling is largely meaningless.

Seemed like the playcalling was more aggressive in the Oregon game. Going for it on 4th down. Stuff like that. I wish I could dig into the numbers but this game was almost 2 weeks ago now. I just remember thinking, man, I wish Shaw was like this every game.

Not speaking on Run vs Pass, but more which plays at which times. Our gameplan was on point vs Oregon and it showed.

[Rando]

The main difference between Shaw's playcalls against Oregon as compared to all other games is...they worked. That's all; it was the same very-heavy-running approach, with some cute variations. It's a fine approach, in general. However, if this is the main evidence people cite to distinguish effective versus ineffective playcalling, I'm going to stick with my belief that playcalling is largely meaningless.

Seemed like the playcalling was more aggressive in the Oregon game. Going for it on 4th down. Stuff like that. I wish I could dig into the numbers but this game was almost 2 weeks ago now. I just remember thinking, man, I wish Shaw was like this every game.

Not speaking on Run vs Pass, but more which plays at which times. Our gameplan was on point vs Oregon and it showed.

[twgin]

Stupac, I guess Mora and I will have to disagree.  He obviously hadn't given up on the one score game else he wouldn't have called the time outs; now if we had scored and then went for two (!), different story perhaps...

WIM, average win margin in 2011 was 27 pts per game, throw out the worst blowout, still 25 pts per game

in 2012, average was 13 pts per game, throw out the worst blowout, 10 pts per game

this year 2013, average is 15 pts per game, throw out the worst blowout, 11 pts per game

I'm not sure what this all means or even if there is any point to it, but since your example year of 2011 our average win differential has been more than cut in half (better Pac 12 ?)

What does blame the offense mean ?  Blame Hogan or Montgomery ?  I think we have great talent on the offense; if it is not playing to it's potential the responsibility is on the coach(es).

[twgin]

Stupac, I guess Mora and I will have to disagree.  He obviously hadn't given up on the one score game else he wouldn't have called the time outs; now if we had scored and then went for two (!), different story perhaps...

WIM, average win margin in 2011 was 27 pts per game, throw out the worst blowout, still 25 pts per game

in 2012, average was 13 pts per game, throw out the worst blowout, 10 pts per game

this year 2013, average is 15 pts per game, throw out the worst blowout, 11 pts per game

I'm not sure what this all means or even if there is any point to it, but since your example year of 2011 our average win differential has been more than cut in half (better Pac 12 ?)

What does blame the offense mean ?  Blame Hogan or Montgomery ?  I think we have great talent on the offense; if it is not playing to it's potential the responsibility is on the coach(es).

[washingtonismoney]

I'm not sure what this all means or even if there is any point to it, but since your example year of 2011 our average win differential has been more than cut in half (better Pac 12 ?)

What does blame the offense mean ?  Blame Hogan or Montgomery ?  I think we have great talent on the offense; if it is not playing to it's potential the responsibility is on the coach(es).

I definitely think better Pac-12 plays a brobdingnagian role. IIRC our 2011 SOS was in the 40s, our 2012 schedule was in the 20s, and our 2013 schedule was, like, 9th or something according to Sagarin. So you're probably going to see some erosion of point differential no matter what.

I blame the offensive production -- is that clearer? I agree we have some excellent talent -- though not overwhelming -- and I think the coaching has not taken maximum advantage. But I don't blame playcalling, which I typically think is overrated. Instead, I think there are a couple offensive assumptions that handicap us:

1) in general, we don't run Hogan a lot against teams we expect we should beat. That's understandable -- we don't want to injure him and Crower and Lloyd appear (based on very limited sample sizes, to be fair) to be less than reliable. Still, it deprives him of reliable sources of positive yardage, which is very helpful for a guy who appears to be erratic, particularly on the road.

2) personnel-wise, we seem addicted to running in a thousand different personnel packages. Again, there's some logic here -- we have a lot of skill players with potential, and such personnel packages can disorient the defense. But I think it's carried too far, with two implications. First, a lot of players seem to have been written into a specific niche without much opportunity to do other stuff. Kelsey Young is the Fly Sweep Guy. Michael Rector is the Go Route Guy. Ryan Hewitt is Blocking Dude (but not, oddly Spider 2 Y Banana Dude or Versatile Swiss Army Knife Dude). That defeats the purpose of having so many personnel packages, in that players are easily identifiable and stopped. Additionally, it deprives players of showing their other skills. Rector got his first two intermediate catches of his career last night -- and surprise surprise, turns out he's good at it!

The other problem is that we play too  many players. I don't understand why a few of the offensive players get as many snaps as they do. And that interrelates with the other problem -- we could have a more limited, but simultaneously more varied offense if we streamlined and focused the offense on the players who are actually good.

(There are some other talent/performance issues -- Hogan's the biggest Jekyll/Hyde in the country; the Stanford offensive line mysteriously struggles on the road; no tight ends, etc.)

[washingtonismoney]

I'm not sure what this all means or even if there is any point to it, but since your example year of 2011 our average win differential has been more than cut in half (better Pac 12 ?)

What does blame the offense mean ?  Blame Hogan or Montgomery ?  I think we have great talent on the offense; if it is not playing to it's potential the responsibility is on the coach(es).

I definitely think better Pac-12 plays a brobdingnagian role. IIRC our 2011 SOS was in the 40s, our 2012 schedule was in the 20s, and our 2013 schedule was, like, 9th or something according to Sagarin. So you're probably going to see some erosion of point differential no matter what.

I blame the offensive production -- is that clearer? I agree we have some excellent talent -- though not overwhelming -- and I think the coaching has not taken maximum advantage. But I don't blame playcalling, which I typically think is overrated. Instead, I think there are a couple offensive assumptions that handicap us:

1) in general, we don't run Hogan a lot against teams we expect we should beat. That's understandable -- we don't want to injure him and Crower and Lloyd appear (based on very limited sample sizes, to be fair) to be less than reliable. Still, it deprives him of reliable sources of positive yardage, which is very helpful for a guy who appears to be erratic, particularly on the road.

2) personnel-wise, we seem addicted to running in a thousand different personnel packages. Again, there's some logic here -- we have a lot of skill players with potential, and such personnel packages can disorient the defense. But I think it's carried too far, with two implications. First, a lot of players seem to have been written into a specific niche without much opportunity to do other stuff. Kelsey Young is the Fly Sweep Guy. Michael Rector is the Go Route Guy. Ryan Hewitt is Blocking Dude (but not, oddly Spider 2 Y Banana Dude or Versatile Swiss Army Knife Dude). That defeats the purpose of having so many personnel packages, in that players are easily identifiable and stopped. Additionally, it deprives players of showing their other skills. Rector got his first two intermediate catches of his career last night -- and surprise surprise, turns out he's good at it!

The other problem is that we play too  many players. I don't understand why a few of the offensive players get as many snaps as they do. And that interrelates with the other problem -- we could have a more limited, but simultaneously more varied offense if we streamlined and focused the offense on the players who are actually good.

(There are some other talent/performance issues -- Hogan's the biggest Jekyll/Hyde in the country; the Stanford offensive line mysteriously struggles on the road; no tight ends, etc.)

[stupac2]

Stupac, I guess Mora and I will have to disagree.  He obviously hadn't given up on the one score game else he wouldn't have called the time outs; now if we had scored and then went for two (!), different story perhaps...

I don't think you're understanding the situation here. Mora was calling time outs when he was hoping to hold us to a FG and get the ball back. Here's the link on ESPN. If you look at it, we got an interception. We ran Gaffney for a short gain, Mora called TO. We ran Gaffney for a 1st, Mora called TO. We ran Gaffney for a good gain, Mora called his final TO with 2:23 left.

From this point, if we get a first down the game is over. Mora is hoping for a turnover or a FG so he can get the ball back, which gives them a slim chance to win (fast TD, recover onside kick, another fast score. Not impossible, but really unlikely).

Well, Gaffney ran for a 1st down. Since the clock was at 2:23, and 40 seconds come off after the play, that means we could have let the clock run down to ~1:40 after the first, and Mora is out of TOs. Play clock is 40 seconds, so we can easily just take 3 knees and go to the locker room. There is no reason whatsoever to run a play here. Running a play is a terrible idea for a few reasons:

1) Much higher chance of a turnover. The odds of turning the ball over on a run are low, but they're much higher than in a victory formation, where it basically never happens.

2) Much higher chance of injury. Not only because there's a much larger chance for injury on a run than a kneel, but because scoring leads to a kickoff and a number of defensive plays, whereas the kneel has basically no chance of injury.

3) It probably decreases your odds of winning. Not only because of the chance of a turnover mentioned above, but because the other team gets the ball back, whereas with 3 knees they don't (99+% of the time, anyway).

So after all that, do you see why running here was completely and utterly ruthless? The only reason to do it is to instill a sense of ruthlessness, of finishing, into the team, and doing it is a complete slap in the face to the opponent. As I said previously, this is not the same as going for two, but it's seriously not all that far away.

What does blame the offense mean ?  Blame Hogan or Montgomery ?  I think we have great talent on the offense; if it is not playing to it's potential the responsibility is on the coach(es).

It's not at all surprising that our offense took a pretty big hit after our once-in-a-generation QB graduated.

[stupac2]

Stupac, I guess Mora and I will have to disagree.  He obviously hadn't given up on the one score game else he wouldn't have called the time outs; now if we had scored and then went for two (!), different story perhaps...

I don't think you're understanding the situation here. Mora was calling time outs when he was hoping to hold us to a FG and get the ball back. Here's the link on ESPN. If you look at it, we got an interception. We ran Gaffney for a short gain, Mora called TO. We ran Gaffney for a 1st, Mora called TO. We ran Gaffney for a good gain, Mora called his final TO with 2:23 left.

From this point, if we get a first down the game is over. Mora is hoping for a turnover or a FG so he can get the ball back, which gives them a slim chance to win (fast TD, recover onside kick, another fast score. Not impossible, but really unlikely).

Well, Gaffney ran for a 1st down. Since the clock was at 2:23, and 40 seconds come off after the play, that means we could have let the clock run down to ~1:40 after the first, and Mora is out of TOs. Play clock is 40 seconds, so we can easily just take 3 knees and go to the locker room. There is no reason whatsoever to run a play here. Running a play is a terrible idea for a few reasons:

1) Much higher chance of a turnover. The odds of turning the ball over on a run are low, but they're much higher than in a victory formation, where it basically never happens.

2) Much higher chance of injury. Not only because there's a much larger chance for injury on a run than a kneel, but because scoring leads to a kickoff and a number of defensive plays, whereas the kneel has basically no chance of injury.

3) It probably decreases your odds of winning. Not only because of the chance of a turnover mentioned above, but because the other team gets the ball back, whereas with 3 knees they don't (99+% of the time, anyway).

So after all that, do you see why running here was completely and utterly ruthless? The only reason to do it is to instill a sense of ruthlessness, of finishing, into the team, and doing it is a complete slap in the face to the opponent. As I said previously, this is not the same as going for two, but it's seriously not all that far away.

What does blame the offense mean ?  Blame Hogan or Montgomery ?  I think we have great talent on the offense; if it is not playing to it's potential the responsibility is on the coach(es).

It's not at all surprising that our offense took a pretty big hit after our once-in-a-generation QB graduated.

[Hulk01]

[quote='Rando90 link' dateline='1384714568']
[quote]
Hogan ranks #32 in passing efficiency for the season and is playing in the #2 conference in football and has went up against the 5th toughest schedule in the nation.
[/quote]

Hogan currently ranks 45th in Pass Efficiency Ranking (according to cfbstats) and 28th in ESPN's QBR (quarterback ranking).  He's in the top ten for QBR at home, however. 

There may be four college quarterbacks who have contented fans: Mariota, Jameis Winston, Johnny Manziel, and Bryce Petty at Baylor.  LSU, Georgia, and Bama fans routinely complain about Mettenberger, Murray, and McCarron.  Not sure how Ohio State fans feel about Braxton Miller but once you get past those eight guys, you are talking about guys with lots of flaws and very questionable pro prospects (Bridgewater is horrid at eluding a rush and Hundley looks a lot better than he plays--a rich man's Keith Price, who had a great second half against us and has had other moments, but too damn few. 

It's hard to be a great college quarterback and some fans's idea of the "average" college quarterback comes from seeing too few average college quarterbacks.  Average is not pretty, ever.

[Hulk01]

[quote='Rando90 link' dateline='1384714568']
[quote]
Hogan ranks #32 in passing efficiency for the season and is playing in the #2 conference in football and has went up against the 5th toughest schedule in the nation.
[/quote]

Hogan currently ranks 45th in Pass Efficiency Ranking (according to cfbstats) and 28th in ESPN's QBR (quarterback ranking).  He's in the top ten for QBR at home, however. 

There may be four college quarterbacks who have contented fans: Mariota, Jameis Winston, Johnny Manziel, and Bryce Petty at Baylor.  LSU, Georgia, and Bama fans routinely complain about Mettenberger, Murray, and McCarron.  Not sure how Ohio State fans feel about Braxton Miller but once you get past those eight guys, you are talking about guys with lots of flaws and very questionable pro prospects (Bridgewater is horrid at eluding a rush and Hundley looks a lot better than he plays--a rich man's Keith Price, who had a great second half against us and has had other moments, but too damn few. 

It's hard to be a great college quarterback and some fans's idea of the "average" college quarterback comes from seeing too few average college quarterbacks.  Average is not pretty, ever.

[twgin]

WIM, Stupac beat us both to it !  No Luck after 2011 is probably worth 7 points of that reduced winning point differential ...

Stupac, I looked at the play by play of the UCLA game too and I understand your points.  I hate to fall back and cite my wife here, but she hates the kneel down with a passion, sees it as some sort of capitulation or wimpiness.  I think she's wrong about this most of the time.  I still like the last touchdown making it a two score game.

But in an awesome display of forum jiu jitsu,  I can use your argument to buttress my claim that Coach Shaw is at best average at end game management !

And WIM, I agree with all your observations.  One conclusion is that the team would be served well by better game strategy/play calling.

That only leaves my unfalsifiable yet emotionally satisfying claim that Coach Shaw lacks a killer instinct, I guess we'll have to disagree on that one !

[twgin]

WIM, Stupac beat us both to it !  No Luck after 2011 is probably worth 7 points of that reduced winning point differential ...

Stupac, I looked at the play by play of the UCLA game too and I understand your points.  I hate to fall back and cite my wife here, but she hates the kneel down with a passion, sees it as some sort of capitulation or wimpiness.  I think she's wrong about this most of the time.  I still like the last touchdown making it a two score game.

But in an awesome display of forum jiu jitsu,  I can use your argument to buttress my claim that Coach Shaw is at best average at end game management !

And WIM, I agree with all your observations.  One conclusion is that the team would be served well by better game strategy/play calling.

That only leaves my unfalsifiable yet emotionally satisfying claim that Coach Shaw lacks a killer instinct, I guess we'll have to disagree on that one !

[twgin]

And while we are talking about Jim Mora...

Sometime before the 2012 season began I flew a client down to San Luis Obispo for some reason.  Sitting on the ramp at the airport was a very nice jet with a UCLA logo and sitting in the pilot's lounge were three guys in various UCLA gear.  This was a small lounge; these three were sitting within 6 feet of me.  This fellow looked familiar to me but I couldn't place him, so I googled UCLA on my iPad.  About the time I realized that it was Jim Mora sitting across from me I smiled and looked up.  He had been watching me, obviously following along with my voyage of discovery and was smiling at me.  We were able to chat for a bit, he was in SLO on a recruiting trip.  I told him I was a Stanford grad, had a son at Berkeley and a nephew graduated from Oregon State, so the best I could do was root fourth for UCLA !  His ride arrived and he was off to convince some SLO linebacker to try UCLA.

[twgin]

And while we are talking about Jim Mora...

Sometime before the 2012 season began I flew a client down to San Luis Obispo for some reason.  Sitting on the ramp at the airport was a very nice jet with a UCLA logo and sitting in the pilot's lounge were three guys in various UCLA gear.  This was a small lounge; these three were sitting within 6 feet of me.  This fellow looked familiar to me but I couldn't place him, so I googled UCLA on my iPad.  About the time I realized that it was Jim Mora sitting across from me I smiled and looked up.  He had been watching me, obviously following along with my voyage of discovery and was smiling at me.  We were able to chat for a bit, he was in SLO on a recruiting trip.  I told him I was a Stanford grad, had a son at Berkeley and a nephew graduated from Oregon State, so the best I could do was root fourth for UCLA !  His ride arrived and he was off to convince some SLO linebacker to try UCLA.

[stupac2]

I still like the last touchdown making it a two score game.

I never said I didn't like it, I said that it was needlessly ruthless. I was just trying to point out that Shaw, contrary to a lot of his detractors, really does have a killer instinct and doesn't just play conservatively. That's one example where he really did go for the jugular in a sort of bizarre way, and most fans loved it! The problem is that most fans also don't remember it, but they do remember the end of the Fiesta Bowl. I think that a lot of the fan narrative around Shaw is just confirmation bias, confirmation bias, confirmation bias.

But in an awesome display of forum jiu jitsu,  I can use your argument to buttress my claim that Coach Shaw is at best average at end game management !

Yeah he does do some bizarre things sometimes. I have no idea why we were running at the end of the Oregon game, for example. But he tends to be pretty aware of clock management, which some coaches can really screw up. Did you see Green Bay a few weeks ago? McCarthy's use of TOs at the end of the game was outright baffling. Les Miles has a pretty bad reputation for end-game clock management too, and he's one of the more successful college coaches. Shaw, for all his faults, has never completely screwed up the clock, as far as I can remember.

I generally subscribe to the WIM/Hank theory that Shaw's (and Bloomgren's, though it's hard to know who's doing what) main fault this year is trying to get too cute with personnel. But it's not 100% obvious to me how big of a difference that makes, even (for instance, Pratt and Trojan had some pretty key catches last night). It seems clear that we have some kind of problem, but I'm not sure what it is.

Then again, a WIM has been pointing out all year (and I have too, to a lesser extent), football is an inherently probabilistic game, and even really good, truly elite teams can drop a game or two to good opposition. What makes accepting that conclusion difficult is that our two losses were so damn winnable, it feels like we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. But, before the season, who would've bet the house on us going better than 10-2? Two losses with our schedule is really not that bad! Going undefeated takes massive amounts of luck!

I don't really know how to square those two feelings.

[stupac2]

I still like the last touchdown making it a two score game.

I never said I didn't like it, I said that it was needlessly ruthless. I was just trying to point out that Shaw, contrary to a lot of his detractors, really does have a killer instinct and doesn't just play conservatively. That's one example where he really did go for the jugular in a sort of bizarre way, and most fans loved it! The problem is that most fans also don't remember it, but they do remember the end of the Fiesta Bowl. I think that a lot of the fan narrative around Shaw is just confirmation bias, confirmation bias, confirmation bias.

But in an awesome display of forum jiu jitsu,  I can use your argument to buttress my claim that Coach Shaw is at best average at end game management !

Yeah he does do some bizarre things sometimes. I have no idea why we were running at the end of the Oregon game, for example. But he tends to be pretty aware of clock management, which some coaches can really screw up. Did you see Green Bay a few weeks ago? McCarthy's use of TOs at the end of the game was outright baffling. Les Miles has a pretty bad reputation for end-game clock management too, and he's one of the more successful college coaches. Shaw, for all his faults, has never completely screwed up the clock, as far as I can remember.

I generally subscribe to the WIM/Hank theory that Shaw's (and Bloomgren's, though it's hard to know who's doing what) main fault this year is trying to get too cute with personnel. But it's not 100% obvious to me how big of a difference that makes, even (for instance, Pratt and Trojan had some pretty key catches last night). It seems clear that we have some kind of problem, but I'm not sure what it is.

Then again, a WIM has been pointing out all year (and I have too, to a lesser extent), football is an inherently probabilistic game, and even really good, truly elite teams can drop a game or two to good opposition. What makes accepting that conclusion difficult is that our two losses were so damn winnable, it feels like we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. But, before the season, who would've bet the house on us going better than 10-2? Two losses with our schedule is really not that bad! Going undefeated takes massive amounts of luck!

I don't really know how to square those two feelings.

[twgin]

Getting further off topic, your comments about how hard it is to go undefeated...

I looked at Alabama's schedule and basically concluded that it was three mini seasons with bye weeks built in.  Chattanooga upcoming is one of the byes or course; scheduling a game like this basically gives Bama the opportunity to heal up, get experience for players who might not otherwise play, and take two weeks to scheme for Auburn.  Shaw commented on the "cupcakes", others have pointed out how many difficult road games a Pac 12 team has to play with 9 conference games vs. the eight for SEC teams.  In our case we play $C and UCLA year in and year out in addition to all the North schools.  It is very hard for me to believe that any of the undefeateds could have managed it playing Stanford's (or almost any Pac 12 team's) schedule.  Lots of computers love even lowly Utah because of how well it has done with an incredibly difficult schedule.

All of these factors (fewer league games, fewer away games, cupcake games) reduce opportunities to lose; speaking probabilistically it would take a very special year for a Pac 12 team to overcome all those opportunities to lose.  Not so for some other teams, and hence you have the SEC in the championship game year end and year out.  This seems obvious to me but is largely ignored by most, especially our Lord and Master ESPN.  Hopefully the new format will iron some of this out;  certainly a one loss team with a schedule like ours will have a better chance to get into the playoff and perhaps the Natty also.  I'm cautiously optimistic until my cynicism kicks in; there will be alot of one loss teams...

[twgin]

Getting further off topic, your comments about how hard it is to go undefeated...

I looked at Alabama's schedule and basically concluded that it was three mini seasons with bye weeks built in.  Chattanooga upcoming is one of the byes or course; scheduling a game like this basically gives Bama the opportunity to heal up, get experience for players who might not otherwise play, and take two weeks to scheme for Auburn.  Shaw commented on the "cupcakes", others have pointed out how many difficult road games a Pac 12 team has to play with 9 conference games vs. the eight for SEC teams.  In our case we play $C and UCLA year in and year out in addition to all the North schools.  It is very hard for me to believe that any of the undefeateds could have managed it playing Stanford's (or almost any Pac 12 team's) schedule.  Lots of computers love even lowly Utah because of how well it has done with an incredibly difficult schedule.

All of these factors (fewer league games, fewer away games, cupcake games) reduce opportunities to lose; speaking probabilistically it would take a very special year for a Pac 12 team to overcome all those opportunities to lose.  Not so for some other teams, and hence you have the SEC in the championship game year end and year out.  This seems obvious to me but is largely ignored by most, especially our Lord and Master ESPN.  Hopefully the new format will iron some of this out;  certainly a one loss team with a schedule like ours will have a better chance to get into the playoff and perhaps the Natty also.  I'm cautiously optimistic until my cynicism kicks in; there will be alot of one loss teams...

[fullmetal]

Can't bench Hogan.  His playbook knowledge, running ability, and continuity are worth his undependable passing.  Having said that, his passing needs work.  I believe if he can improve his throwing mechanics, he'll become a vastly more confident QB and make his reads with far less hesitation.  If any of you have played fast-twitch, reaction-based sports, you'll know that you have to play ahead of the game and see things before they happen.  Hogan's not doing that right now, which leads him to throw behind his man, be more hesitant about his decision-making, etc.  Not sure why the ball sails on him--that's something else, and hopefully it's not an arm strength issue.

Hogan's the only realistic option.  Now, having said that, how often do you see an upperclass QB make the jump to the next talent tier over one off-season?  By the time most football players reach their jr/sr years, the book is written on them, and they either have or haven't taken that next step.  Hogan's got a finite amount of time to re-establish his passing game.

[fullmetal]

Can't bench Hogan.  His playbook knowledge, running ability, and continuity are worth his undependable passing.  Having said that, his passing needs work.  I believe if he can improve his throwing mechanics, he'll become a vastly more confident QB and make his reads with far less hesitation.  If any of you have played fast-twitch, reaction-based sports, you'll know that you have to play ahead of the game and see things before they happen.  Hogan's not doing that right now, which leads him to throw behind his man, be more hesitant about his decision-making, etc.  Not sure why the ball sails on him--that's something else, and hopefully it's not an arm strength issue.

Hogan's the only realistic option.  Now, having said that, how often do you see an upperclass QB make the jump to the next talent tier over one off-season?  By the time most football players reach their jr/sr years, the book is written on them, and they either have or haven't taken that next step.  Hogan's got a finite amount of time to re-establish his passing game.