[StanFan88]

The other losses in the Shaw era all featured bad playcalling and most were sketchy offense as well, but nowhere near the extent to which they failed yesterday.  Add in Williamson's worst performance since the Fiesta Bowl.  Only bright spot was the defense, but despite being absolutely dominant in the first half they gave up 200 yds in the second half and Allen ran for 150+ and 6+ ypc.  I can't give that an A.

Defense: B
Offense: D.  Good up to the USC 30 yard line, F triple minus after that
Special teams: D.  Rhyne had one bad punt, but if Williamson wasn't so awful he wouldn't have been in there on that 4th down
Playcalling: F

[StanFan88]

The other losses in the Shaw era all featured bad playcalling and most were sketchy offense as well, but nowhere near the extent to which they failed yesterday.  Add in Williamson's worst performance since the Fiesta Bowl.  Only bright spot was the defense, but despite being absolutely dominant in the first half they gave up 200 yds in the second half and Allen ran for 150+ and 6+ ypc.  I can't give that an A.

Defense: B
Offense: D.  Good up to the USC 30 yard line, F triple minus after that
Special teams: D.  Rhyne had one bad punt, but if Williamson wasn't so awful he wouldn't have been in there on that 4th down
Playcalling: F

[fullmetal]

Getting to the redzone five times and coming away with 10 points certainly fits that description.

[fullmetal]

Getting to the redzone five times and coming away with 10 points certainly fits that description.

[Ronnietrader]

Losing by a field goal and dominating a team statistically that will be ranked in the top 10 definitely qualifies as the worst overall team performance of the Shaw era.  Bench the players and fire the coaching staff for sure.

[Ronnietrader]

Losing by a field goal and dominating a team statistically that will be ranked in the top 10 definitely qualifies as the worst overall team performance of the Shaw era.  Bench the players and fire the coaching staff for sure.

[81alum]

People seem to be quite down on StanFan for the harshness of his assessment.  But what he has to say does not seem too far out of line with what journalists are saying:

"...the most disturbing and uncharacteristic loss of coach David Shaw's tenure at Stanford..."

"This felt like three losses in one day, and it just might have been in the grander scheme of things."

"The Trojans are decent now, but a year from now, look out. Stanford may have just handed them the keys to dominance of the Pac-12. Getting them back could prove problematic."

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_264...urbing-and

We may choose to disagree with Steward's column, but it is a reasoned presentation.  Besides, analyzing the causes of losses  seems to be cathartic for some fans.  I do not view it as an unwholesome activity.  Players and coaches can actually do something with their disappointment--they can scheme and practice and improve.  We fans do not have that productive outlet--and so public expressions of grief and disappointment seem inevitable.

[81alum]

People seem to be quite down on StanFan for the harshness of his assessment.  But what he has to say does not seem too far out of line with what journalists are saying:

"...the most disturbing and uncharacteristic loss of coach David Shaw's tenure at Stanford..."

"This felt like three losses in one day, and it just might have been in the grander scheme of things."

"The Trojans are decent now, but a year from now, look out. Stanford may have just handed them the keys to dominance of the Pac-12. Getting them back could prove problematic."

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_264...urbing-and

We may choose to disagree with Steward's column, but it is a reasoned presentation.  Besides, analyzing the causes of losses  seems to be cathartic for some fans.  I do not view it as an unwholesome activity.  Players and coaches can actually do something with their disappointment--they can scheme and practice and improve.  We fans do not have that productive outlet--and so public expressions of grief and disappointment seem inevitable.

[StanFan88]

Losing by a field goal and dominating a team statistically that will be ranked in the top 10 definitely qualifies as the worst overall team performance of the Shaw era.  Bench the players and fire the coaching staff for sure.

Did I say anything like that?  Nope.  I just said it was the worst this team has performed in the last four seasons.

I don't see USC as a Top 10 team.

[StanFan88]

Losing by a field goal and dominating a team statistically that will be ranked in the top 10 definitely qualifies as the worst overall team performance of the Shaw era.  Bench the players and fire the coaching staff for sure.

Did I say anything like that?  Nope.  I just said it was the worst this team has performed in the last four seasons.

I don't see USC as a Top 10 team.

[thunder_chik]

U-S*C not a top 10 team.  Prediction: They might go to #12 if they're lucky; we will fall in the ratings at least 5 slots (#18).

[thunder_chik]

U-S*C not a top 10 team.  Prediction: They might go to #12 if they're lucky; we will fall in the ratings at least 5 slots (#18).

[Ronnietrader]

Although the coaching staff is completely incompetent, there's amazingly only 7 other losses to compare yesterday too.  I would rank Oregon '11, Washington in '12 and Utah last year as much worse.

[Ronnietrader]

Although the coaching staff is completely incompetent, there's amazingly only 7 other losses to compare yesterday too.  I would rank Oregon '11, Washington in '12 and Utah last year as much worse.

[StanFan88]

Although the coaching staff is completely incompetent, there's amazingly only 7 other losses to compare yesterday too.  I would rank Oregon '11, Washington in '12 and Utah last year as much worse.

The coaching staff is far from incompetent.  The players are talented and superbly conditioned.  What is incompetent is the a) playcalling when the going gets tough - the end of close games and in the red zone, and b) adjusting the gameplan mid-game when Plan A isn't working.

Oregon '11 - Stanford lost to a better team
Washington '12 - The breakdown was on offense, and largely due to Nunes who was not a quality QB.  Williamson was 2/2 that game, and I don't recall major playcalling issues
Utah '13 - The main breakdown was in playcalling down the stretch and failing to make adequate adjustments to the gameplan at halftime.

Yesterday there were major breakdowns in coaching, offense, and special teams.  They were much more substantial than any of those other losses, and they were present through the entire game.

What makes yesterday more frustrating for me is:
- It was at home
- Stanford was clearly the better team statistically
- The failures happened throughout the game, not just in crunch time

[StanFan88]

Although the coaching staff is completely incompetent, there's amazingly only 7 other losses to compare yesterday too.  I would rank Oregon '11, Washington in '12 and Utah last year as much worse.

The coaching staff is far from incompetent.  The players are talented and superbly conditioned.  What is incompetent is the a) playcalling when the going gets tough - the end of close games and in the red zone, and b) adjusting the gameplan mid-game when Plan A isn't working.

Oregon '11 - Stanford lost to a better team
Washington '12 - The breakdown was on offense, and largely due to Nunes who was not a quality QB.  Williamson was 2/2 that game, and I don't recall major playcalling issues
Utah '13 - The main breakdown was in playcalling down the stretch and failing to make adequate adjustments to the gameplan at halftime.

Yesterday there were major breakdowns in coaching, offense, and special teams.  They were much more substantial than any of those other losses, and they were present through the entire game.

What makes yesterday more frustrating for me is:
- It was at home
- Stanford was clearly the better team statistically
- The failures happened throughout the game, not just in crunch time

[BostonCard]

By breakdowns in special teams, I assume you mean two missed field goals.

Williamson is now 2/5 on field goals this year, and 6/6 for extra points.  He has made field goals of 32 and 33 yards and missed field goals of 26, 37, and 49 yards.

Last year he was 18/22, the year before 17/27, and his freshman year 13/19.  He's a career 70% field goal kicker; sometimes 70% field goal kickers go through 2 for 5 stretches.  In fact, Williamson has had three two-game stretches in his career where he's gone 2/5 or worse: 2011 against Notre Dame (0/1) and Oklahoma St. (1/4); 2012 against USC (0/3) and Washington (2/2); and this year against Davis (1/2) and USC (1/3).

It hurts that he missed a chip shot, and it hurts that the margin was a field goal, and obviously the contrast to Andre Hidari, who went 2/2 hitting a 53 yard field goal to win it.

I'm not sure if Jordan's struggles are a sign that something is wrong with him (injury, confidence, etc) or just statistical variance.  The fact that twice Shaw elected to punt from within field goal distance suggests that he might know something we don't (or Shaw has lost confidence).  We punted from the 29 yard line (a 46 yard field goal) and from the 32 (a 49 yard field goal).  Heidari made a 53 yard field goal (ball was snapped at the Stanford 35).  On the other hand, Williamson's kickoffs were fine.

But in other aspects of the game, our special teams shined.  Our return game (helped no doubt by USC penalties gave us starting positions at the 31, 35, 36, USC 30, and USC 15.  We had two touchbacks, and one fair catch.  Our average starting position was at our 38.  USC's average starting position was at their own 20.

BC

[BostonCard]

By breakdowns in special teams, I assume you mean two missed field goals.

Williamson is now 2/5 on field goals this year, and 6/6 for extra points.  He has made field goals of 32 and 33 yards and missed field goals of 26, 37, and 49 yards.

Last year he was 18/22, the year before 17/27, and his freshman year 13/19.  He's a career 70% field goal kicker; sometimes 70% field goal kickers go through 2 for 5 stretches.  In fact, Williamson has had three two-game stretches in his career where he's gone 2/5 or worse: 2011 against Notre Dame (0/1) and Oklahoma St. (1/4); 2012 against USC (0/3) and Washington (2/2); and this year against Davis (1/2) and USC (1/3).

It hurts that he missed a chip shot, and it hurts that the margin was a field goal, and obviously the contrast to Andre Hidari, who went 2/2 hitting a 53 yard field goal to win it.

I'm not sure if Jordan's struggles are a sign that something is wrong with him (injury, confidence, etc) or just statistical variance.  The fact that twice Shaw elected to punt from within field goal distance suggests that he might know something we don't (or Shaw has lost confidence).  We punted from the 29 yard line (a 46 yard field goal) and from the 32 (a 49 yard field goal).  Heidari made a 53 yard field goal (ball was snapped at the Stanford 35).  On the other hand, Williamson's kickoffs were fine.

But in other aspects of the game, our special teams shined.  Our return game (helped no doubt by USC penalties gave us starting positions at the 31, 35, 36, USC 30, and USC 15.  We had two touchbacks, and one fair catch.  Our average starting position was at our 38.  USC's average starting position was at their own 20.

BC

[doubledub]

I am not in the know, but it would seem to me that - at least on Saturday - the coaching staff lost total confidence in him and the entire placekicking game, or Williamson is injured and the backup is terrible, or both are injured.  Passing up field goals with the ball at the 29 and 32 is pretty much unheard of in serious D-1 football.  Given that Williamson's kickoffs looked normal, I think injury is the unlikely explanation.  He is just not that good.  Even Shaw said that the FGs should have been made - he would have used the injury excuse in a heartbeat. 

If Williamson had shaky confidence before Saturday, look out now....

[doubledub]

I am not in the know, but it would seem to me that - at least on Saturday - the coaching staff lost total confidence in him and the entire placekicking game, or Williamson is injured and the backup is terrible, or both are injured.  Passing up field goals with the ball at the 29 and 32 is pretty much unheard of in serious D-1 football.  Given that Williamson's kickoffs looked normal, I think injury is the unlikely explanation.  He is just not that good.  Even Shaw said that the FGs should have been made - he would have used the injury excuse in a heartbeat. 

If Williamson had shaky confidence before Saturday, look out now....

[AtlantaBadger]

You give the defense a B.    I am biased but I think they deserve an A, or maybe an A-.  OK, they did not shut out SC.  But after the first drive they held them to two lousy field goals.  If that is a B effort, then you have pretty high standards. 

As for run defense, yes, we did give up some yards, but a lot of that was due to Lance Anderson calling for us to play nickel a ton of the time, particularly in second half.  Kessler, no dummy, quite frequently saw that and checked into a run play, leaving only two DL to defend the run.  I think this is Lance picking the run poison over the pass poison -- not wanting Aghalor and Farmer and others to beat us with big plays.  And it worked.  We held them to two field goals. 

So yes, if an "A" effort is a shutout, we did not do that, but this loss is NOT on the D.

Eric

[AtlantaBadger]

You give the defense a B.    I am biased but I think they deserve an A, or maybe an A-.  OK, they did not shut out SC.  But after the first drive they held them to two lousy field goals.  If that is a B effort, then you have pretty high standards. 

As for run defense, yes, we did give up some yards, but a lot of that was due to Lance Anderson calling for us to play nickel a ton of the time, particularly in second half.  Kessler, no dummy, quite frequently saw that and checked into a run play, leaving only two DL to defend the run.  I think this is Lance picking the run poison over the pass poison -- not wanting Aghalor and Farmer and others to beat us with big plays.  And it worked.  We held them to two field goals. 

So yes, if an "A" effort is a shutout, we did not do that, but this loss is NOT on the D.

Eric

[PrinceLightfoot]

The worst overall team performance of the Shaw era was at Washington in 2012. Memories are short.

There were a few VERY bad things that happened yesterday like OL issues, FG kicking, and decisions in redzone and that completely overshadows our outstanding defense...just watch USC score 40+ points on every other team the rest of the season. On offense, the receivers were making plays! Hogan receives credit obviously for throwing the pass but he needs to lead the receiver a tad bit more.

The OL will get it together. I hope Williamson will find his confidence because we all know he is capable, but 2/5 on the season while all misses were not in a situation where the game was on his shoulders is very troubling. Shaw needs more killer instinct in the redzone. He needs to be hungry! Playing for the FG is not hungry playcalling.

The wildcat wasn't an issue. The one time it failed yesterday, the snap went way over Ty's head.

[PrinceLightfoot]

The worst overall team performance of the Shaw era was at Washington in 2012. Memories are short.

There were a few VERY bad things that happened yesterday like OL issues, FG kicking, and decisions in redzone and that completely overshadows our outstanding defense...just watch USC score 40+ points on every other team the rest of the season. On offense, the receivers were making plays! Hogan receives credit obviously for throwing the pass but he needs to lead the receiver a tad bit more.

The OL will get it together. I hope Williamson will find his confidence because we all know he is capable, but 2/5 on the season while all misses were not in a situation where the game was on his shoulders is very troubling. Shaw needs more killer instinct in the redzone. He needs to be hungry! Playing for the FG is not hungry playcalling.

The wildcat wasn't an issue. The one time it failed yesterday, the snap went way over Ty's head.

[81alum]

The wildcat wasn't an issue. The one time it failed yesterday, the snap went way over Ty's head.

Against Davis in the wildcat the snap nearly went over Ty's head.  Ty was able to jump and reach it.  At the time I thought  we really need to work on the snap in the wildcat or it would come back to bite us. 

We had full warning and did not get the problem fixed.

[81alum]

The wildcat wasn't an issue. The one time it failed yesterday, the snap went way over Ty's head.

Against Davis in the wildcat the snap nearly went over Ty's head.  Ty was able to jump and reach it.  At the time I thought  we really need to work on the snap in the wildcat or it would come back to bite us. 

We had full warning and did not get the problem fixed.

[washingtonismoney]

Actually, I think the worst performance of the Shaw era just might have been against Washington State in 2012.

[washingtonismoney]

Actually, I think the worst performance of the Shaw era just might have been against Washington State in 2012.

[StanFan88]

I am not in the know, but it would seem to me that - at least on Saturday - the coaching staff lost total confidence in him and the entire placekicking game, or Williamson is injured and the backup is terrible, or both are injured.  Passing up field goals with the ball at the 29 and 32 is pretty much unheard of in serious D-1 football.  Given that Williamson's kickoffs looked normal, I think injury is the unlikely explanation.  He is just not that good.  Even Shaw said that the FGs should have been made - he would have used the injury excuse in a heartbeat. 

If Williamson had shaky confidence before Saturday, look out now....

If you're not going to send the kicker out, then you go for the first down.  Punting inside the opponents' 35 is the dumbest decision, especially when you have THAT good a defense.

[StanFan88]

I am not in the know, but it would seem to me that - at least on Saturday - the coaching staff lost total confidence in him and the entire placekicking game, or Williamson is injured and the backup is terrible, or both are injured.  Passing up field goals with the ball at the 29 and 32 is pretty much unheard of in serious D-1 football.  Given that Williamson's kickoffs looked normal, I think injury is the unlikely explanation.  He is just not that good.  Even Shaw said that the FGs should have been made - he would have used the injury excuse in a heartbeat. 

If Williamson had shaky confidence before Saturday, look out now....

If you're not going to send the kicker out, then you go for the first down.  Punting inside the opponents' 35 is the dumbest decision, especially when you have THAT good a defense.

[StanFan88]

You give the defense a B.    I am biased but I think they deserve an A, or maybe an A-.  OK, they did not shut out SC.  But after the first drive they held them to two lousy field goals.  If that is a B effort, then you have pretty high standards. 

As for run defense, yes, we did give up some yards, but a lot of that was due to Lance Anderson calling for us to play nickel a ton of the time, particularly in second half.  Kessler, no dummy, quite frequently saw that and checked into a run play, leaving only two DL to defend the run.  I think this is Lance picking the run poison over the pass poison -- not wanting Aghalor and Farmer and others to beat us with big plays.  And it worked.  We held them to two field goals. 

So yes, if an "A" effort is a shutout, we did not do that, but this loss is NOT on the D.

Eric

I cannot give an A to a defense that gives up 200 yards in the second half and and RB who ran for 150+ with a 6+ ypc average, unless they deliver at least one TD themselves.

[StanFan88]

You give the defense a B.    I am biased but I think they deserve an A, or maybe an A-.  OK, they did not shut out SC.  But after the first drive they held them to two lousy field goals.  If that is a B effort, then you have pretty high standards. 

As for run defense, yes, we did give up some yards, but a lot of that was due to Lance Anderson calling for us to play nickel a ton of the time, particularly in second half.  Kessler, no dummy, quite frequently saw that and checked into a run play, leaving only two DL to defend the run.  I think this is Lance picking the run poison over the pass poison -- not wanting Aghalor and Farmer and others to beat us with big plays.  And it worked.  We held them to two field goals. 

So yes, if an "A" effort is a shutout, we did not do that, but this loss is NOT on the D.

Eric

I cannot give an A to a defense that gives up 200 yards in the second half and and RB who ran for 150+ with a 6+ ypc average, unless they deliver at least one TD themselves.

[dabigv13]

[quote author=double e dub link=topic=10572.msg97290#msg97290 date=1410118090]
I am not in the know, but it would seem to me that - at least on Saturday - the coaching staff lost total confidence in him and the entire placekicking game, or Williamson is injured and the backup is terrible, or both are injured.  Passing up field goals with the ball at the 29 and 32 is pretty much unheard of in serious D-1 football.  Given that Williamson's kickoffs looked normal, I think injury is the unlikely explanation.  He is just not that good.  Even Shaw said that the FGs should have been made - he would have used the injury excuse in a heartbeat. 

If Williamson had shaky confidence before Saturday, look out now....

If you're not going to send the kicker out, then you go for the first down.  Punting inside the opponents' 35 is the dumbest decision, especially when you have THAT good a defense.
[/quote]

Completely agreed, perhaps the most puzzling decisions of the game. Field position meant diddly squat in the game up to that point, taking away chances to put points on the board was insane.

[dabigv13]

[quote author=double e dub link=topic=10572.msg97290#msg97290 date=1410118090]
I am not in the know, but it would seem to me that - at least on Saturday - the coaching staff lost total confidence in him and the entire placekicking game, or Williamson is injured and the backup is terrible, or both are injured.  Passing up field goals with the ball at the 29 and 32 is pretty much unheard of in serious D-1 football.  Given that Williamson's kickoffs looked normal, I think injury is the unlikely explanation.  He is just not that good.  Even Shaw said that the FGs should have been made - he would have used the injury excuse in a heartbeat. 

If Williamson had shaky confidence before Saturday, look out now....

If you're not going to send the kicker out, then you go for the first down.  Punting inside the opponents' 35 is the dumbest decision, especially when you have THAT good a defense.
[/quote]

Completely agreed, perhaps the most puzzling decisions of the game. Field position meant diddly squat in the game up to that point, taking away chances to put points on the board was insane.

[81alum]

We punted from the 29 in the 2nd quarter--would have been a 46 yard fg attempt.  At this point we had missed one 49 yard field goal attempt.
We went for it on 4th and 1 in the 3rd quarter.  Would have been a 20 yard attempt.  At this point we were 1 of 2 on field goal attempts, having missed the 49 and made a 37.
We punted from the 32 in the 4th quarter--would have been a 49 yard attempt.  At this point we were 1 of 3 on field goals, having also missed a 26 yarder.

Williamson is historically a very good kicker whose achievements may be misremembered because of a few key let-downs. 

When it comes to short FG attempts, last year he was 7/7 on tries < 30 yards.  Two years ago he was 5/7 on short tries.  Three years ago he was 4/4.  The two short tries he missed in 2012 included a 23 yarder against USC (ironic) and a 25 yarder against Notre Dame that was blocked.  Other than those two, he had been perfect on tries less than 30 yards for his career. 

Historically, Williamson has been about 50/50 on FG tries between 40 and 49 yards.

For his career he is 6th all-time at Stanford in percentage-- ahead of such luminaries as Ken Neighbor and John Hopkins.

When asked about the punts Shaw said he was thinking about field position, that he trusted his defense, and that he would do it again.  He said nothing about lacking confidence in his kicker.  Given that Shaw passed up two FG attempts before Williamson missed the chippie, I think we should take Shaw at his word.  I don't agree with his decisions on this, but there was no reason to lose confidence in Williamson that early in the game, before the 26 yard miss in the third quarter.  Only the last punt might be explained in this way, and at 49 yards it was on the absolute edge of Williamson's range.

[81alum]

We punted from the 29 in the 2nd quarter--would have been a 46 yard fg attempt.  At this point we had missed one 49 yard field goal attempt.
We went for it on 4th and 1 in the 3rd quarter.  Would have been a 20 yard attempt.  At this point we were 1 of 2 on field goal attempts, having missed the 49 and made a 37.
We punted from the 32 in the 4th quarter--would have been a 49 yard attempt.  At this point we were 1 of 3 on field goals, having also missed a 26 yarder.

Williamson is historically a very good kicker whose achievements may be misremembered because of a few key let-downs. 

When it comes to short FG attempts, last year he was 7/7 on tries < 30 yards.  Two years ago he was 5/7 on short tries.  Three years ago he was 4/4.  The two short tries he missed in 2012 included a 23 yarder against USC (ironic) and a 25 yarder against Notre Dame that was blocked.  Other than those two, he had been perfect on tries less than 30 yards for his career. 

Historically, Williamson has been about 50/50 on FG tries between 40 and 49 yards.

For his career he is 6th all-time at Stanford in percentage-- ahead of such luminaries as Ken Neighbor and John Hopkins.

When asked about the punts Shaw said he was thinking about field position, that he trusted his defense, and that he would do it again.  He said nothing about lacking confidence in his kicker.  Given that Shaw passed up two FG attempts before Williamson missed the chippie, I think we should take Shaw at his word.  I don't agree with his decisions on this, but there was no reason to lose confidence in Williamson that early in the game, before the 26 yard miss in the third quarter.  Only the last punt might be explained in this way, and at 49 yards it was on the absolute edge of Williamson's range.

[StanFan88]

When asked about the punts Shaw said he was thinking about field position, that he trusted his defense, and that he would do it again.  He said nothing about lacking confidence in his kicker.  Given that Shaw passed up two FG attempts before Williamson missed the chippie, I think we should take Shaw at his word.  I don't agree with his decisions on this, but there was no reason to lose confidence in Williamson that early in the game, before the 26 yard miss in the third quarter.  Only the last punt might be explained in this way, and at 49 yards it was on the absolute edge of Williamson's range.

Triple BS on Shaw.  If you have confidence in your kicker, you send him out when you're inside 50.  If you have confidence in your defense, and your defense is playing that well - especially in the first half - you either kick or go for the first down because it doesn't matter whether USC gets the ball at the 15 or the 35.

In tight games, Shaw has consistently shown to be overly conservative.  From the Fiesta Bowl all the way to Saturday.  Even when he does decide to go for it, he doesn't trust a 3rd year starter who came into Stanford as an option QB to run a naked bootleg.

[StanFan88]

When asked about the punts Shaw said he was thinking about field position, that he trusted his defense, and that he would do it again.  He said nothing about lacking confidence in his kicker.  Given that Shaw passed up two FG attempts before Williamson missed the chippie, I think we should take Shaw at his word.  I don't agree with his decisions on this, but there was no reason to lose confidence in Williamson that early in the game, before the 26 yard miss in the third quarter.  Only the last punt might be explained in this way, and at 49 yards it was on the absolute edge of Williamson's range.

Triple BS on Shaw.  If you have confidence in your kicker, you send him out when you're inside 50.  If you have confidence in your defense, and your defense is playing that well - especially in the first half - you either kick or go for the first down because it doesn't matter whether USC gets the ball at the 15 or the 35.

In tight games, Shaw has consistently shown to be overly conservative.  From the Fiesta Bowl all the way to Saturday.  Even when he does decide to go for it, he doesn't trust a 3rd year starter who came into Stanford as an option QB to run a naked bootleg.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=10572.msg97364#msg97364 date=1410156213]
When asked about the punts Shaw said he was thinking about field position, that he trusted his defense, and that he would do it again.  He said nothing about lacking confidence in his kicker.  Given that Shaw passed up two FG attempts before Williamson missed the chippie, I think we should take Shaw at his word.  I don't agree with his decisions on this, but there was no reason to lose confidence in Williamson that early in the game, before the 26 yard miss in the third quarter.  Only the last punt might be explained in this way, and at 49 yards it was on the absolute edge of Williamson's range.

Triple BS on Shaw.  If you have confidence in your kicker, you send him out when you're inside 50.  If you have confidence in your defense, and your defense is playing that well - especially in the first half - you either kick or go for the first down because it doesn't matter whether Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans gets the ball at the 15 or the 35.

In tight games, Shaw has consistently shown to be overly conservative.  From the Fiesta Bowl all the way to Saturday.  Even when he does decide to go for it, he doesn't trust a 3rd year starter who came into Stanford as an option QB to run a naked bootleg.
[/quote]

I'm not happy with his decisions on field goals, either, but I don't think "conservative" is quite the right word for passing up a 20 yard field goal to go for a TD on 4th and 1.  The conservative thing to do would have been to kick that field goal.  In that particular case, I wish he had been more conservative.  I agree with you on the punts, however--unless Shaw had information that we all lack about Williamson and/or Ukropina.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=10572.msg97364#msg97364 date=1410156213]
When asked about the punts Shaw said he was thinking about field position, that he trusted his defense, and that he would do it again.  He said nothing about lacking confidence in his kicker.  Given that Shaw passed up two FG attempts before Williamson missed the chippie, I think we should take Shaw at his word.  I don't agree with his decisions on this, but there was no reason to lose confidence in Williamson that early in the game, before the 26 yard miss in the third quarter.  Only the last punt might be explained in this way, and at 49 yards it was on the absolute edge of Williamson's range.

Triple BS on Shaw.  If you have confidence in your kicker, you send him out when you're inside 50.  If you have confidence in your defense, and your defense is playing that well - especially in the first half - you either kick or go for the first down because it doesn't matter whether Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans gets the ball at the 15 or the 35.

In tight games, Shaw has consistently shown to be overly conservative.  From the Fiesta Bowl all the way to Saturday.  Even when he does decide to go for it, he doesn't trust a 3rd year starter who came into Stanford as an option QB to run a naked bootleg.
[/quote]

I'm not happy with his decisions on field goals, either, but I don't think "conservative" is quite the right word for passing up a 20 yard field goal to go for a TD on 4th and 1.  The conservative thing to do would have been to kick that field goal.  In that particular case, I wish he had been more conservative.  I agree with you on the punts, however--unless Shaw had information that we all lack about Williamson and/or Ukropina.