[CardinalSagehen]

In some respects, Leach's MO also cost his team the game against Stanford in 2015 (though it took a missed WSU FG as time expired for Stanford to escape Pullman with the W).  Leading 28-27 with 3:33 to go in the 4th quarter, WSU had 1st and 10 at their own 45.  Instead of running to bleed time off the clock, the Cougs continued to pass; and the second pass of that series was intercepted by Quenton Meeks, which set up Stanford's game-winning FG.  

When asked by a journalist during the post-game presser whether clock-management had been an issue in the 4th quarter, Leach replied: "What are you, an idiot or something?  Next question".

I totally agree with you about 2015 @ WSU.  I think all of us can agree that Shaw would have been turtling in that situation. We can guess that a turtling approach would have left Stanford with ~1:30 left on the clock and ~40 more yards to cover, or perhaps more time but no timeouts. Or WSU could have made a first down on the ground and it's game over. 

More generally, regarding pace of play, my layman's opinion is that truly great teams ought to be interested in playing at a high tempo for most of the game. This is true regardless of whether you assume that the tempo style has any intrinsic benefits. Oregon's teams in the Chip Kelly days had a massive advantage in Net Yards per Play, so it was to their advantage to have more plays, thereby reducing the impact of chance (turnovers, other randomness) and maximizing the odds that the better team would win. 

But when they would go up big, Kelly's teams knew how to slow down the game, too. They would line up right away, preventing substitutions, and then they'd milk the play clock at the line. They were run-heavy teams in the first place, so the clock would roll. Mike Leach's pass-happy anti-turtling dogma is completely different and less rational.  

I have no problem with Shaw's turtling - the proof is in the pudding. Over the years, I've had a much bigger problem with our slow pace of play and lack of aggressiveness when trailing in the 2nd half, particularly when trailing by two scores. This year, we're doing a little better at this, and we probably owe the Oregon win to it.

In short, people are whining about turtling to protect leads, when they ought to be most concerned about moving too slowly in come-from-behind situations. We seem to have multiple speeds of play this year, which is a step in the right direction.

[CardinalSagehen]

In some respects, Leach's MO also cost his team the game against Stanford in 2015 (though it took a missed WSU FG as time expired for Stanford to escape Pullman with the W).  Leading 28-27 with 3:33 to go in the 4th quarter, WSU had 1st and 10 at their own 45.  Instead of running to bleed time off the clock, the Cougs continued to pass; and the second pass of that series was intercepted by Quenton Meeks, which set up Stanford's game-winning FG.  

When asked by a journalist during the post-game presser whether clock-management had been an issue in the 4th quarter, Leach replied: "What are you, an idiot or something?  Next question".

I totally agree with you about 2015 @ WSU.  I think all of us can agree that Shaw would have been turtling in that situation. We can guess that a turtling approach would have left Stanford with ~1:30 left on the clock and ~40 more yards to cover, or perhaps more time but no timeouts. Or WSU could have made a first down on the ground and it's game over. 

More generally, regarding pace of play, my layman's opinion is that truly great teams ought to be interested in playing at a high tempo for most of the game. This is true regardless of whether you assume that the tempo style has any intrinsic benefits. Oregon's teams in the Chip Kelly days had a massive advantage in Net Yards per Play, so it was to their advantage to have more plays, thereby reducing the impact of chance (turnovers, other randomness) and maximizing the odds that the better team would win. 

But when they would go up big, Kelly's teams knew how to slow down the game, too. They would line up right away, preventing substitutions, and then they'd milk the play clock at the line. They were run-heavy teams in the first place, so the clock would roll. Mike Leach's pass-happy anti-turtling dogma is completely different and less rational.  

I have no problem with Shaw's turtling - the proof is in the pudding. Over the years, I've had a much bigger problem with our slow pace of play and lack of aggressiveness when trailing in the 2nd half, particularly when trailing by two scores. This year, we're doing a little better at this, and we probably owe the Oregon win to it.

In short, people are whining about turtling to protect leads, when they ought to be most concerned about moving too slowly in come-from-behind situations. We seem to have multiple speeds of play this year, which is a step in the right direction.

[Goose]

As an interesting counterpoint to this discussion, I recall watching the Oregon-Nebraska game in Helfrich's final season.  Maybe some of this decision-making led to his demise at the end of 2016.  Oregon and Nebraska each scored five TDs.  Helfrich went for two after each TD, while Nebraska always kicked the extra point.  Oregon converted 1 out of 5 (very poor percentage conversion), while Nebraska made all their kicks.  The logical result: Nebraska 35 -- Oregon 32.  Oregon needed a FG to tie, but could not get into range in the final 2:29 of the game.

I agree this is an interesting example. It shows that "the right thing to do" cannot always be classified as aggressive or as conservative. As I recall, Oregon had real kicking issues that year. The PAT was not by any means a "sure thing". Helfrich decided that the "expected value" of a two-point conversion was greater than the "expected value" of attempting a kick. Was he wrong? Possibly, but also possibly not. One problem with probability is that it "works" over a large number of attempts, but not necessarily over a small number, like 5. If Oregon converts on 3 out of 5, Helfrich is a genius. It may be that NOT kicking was more "conservative" if you can't kick worth a darn.
Similarly, Leach continuing to pass when he has the lead may not be "aggressive". It may just be that those are the plays they execute well. Running the ball just isn't in their skill set (at least in the past.). The coach will do what he feels is the "safest" course of action, even if that appears to be aggressive. That is the "conservative bias" we see in most "successful" coaches. It doesn't always work, but that is what most "successful" coaches do.

[Goose]

As an interesting counterpoint to this discussion, I recall watching the Oregon-Nebraska game in Helfrich's final season.  Maybe some of this decision-making led to his demise at the end of 2016.  Oregon and Nebraska each scored five TDs.  Helfrich went for two after each TD, while Nebraska always kicked the extra point.  Oregon converted 1 out of 5 (very poor percentage conversion), while Nebraska made all their kicks.  The logical result: Nebraska 35 -- Oregon 32.  Oregon needed a FG to tie, but could not get into range in the final 2:29 of the game.

I agree this is an interesting example. It shows that "the right thing to do" cannot always be classified as aggressive or as conservative. As I recall, Oregon had real kicking issues that year. The PAT was not by any means a "sure thing". Helfrich decided that the "expected value" of a two-point conversion was greater than the "expected value" of attempting a kick. Was he wrong? Possibly, but also possibly not. One problem with probability is that it "works" over a large number of attempts, but not necessarily over a small number, like 5. If Oregon converts on 3 out of 5, Helfrich is a genius. It may be that NOT kicking was more "conservative" if you can't kick worth a darn.
Similarly, Leach continuing to pass when he has the lead may not be "aggressive". It may just be that those are the plays they execute well. Running the ball just isn't in their skill set (at least in the past.). The coach will do what he feels is the "safest" course of action, even if that appears to be aggressive. That is the "conservative bias" we see in most "successful" coaches. It doesn't always work, but that is what most "successful" coaches do.

[Austroturf]

Here's that legendary press conference by Leach after the Stanford-WSU game in 2015.  First question of the video.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH8-uFmxBZc

---

As an interesting counterpoint to this discussion, I recall watching the Oregon-Nebraska game in Helfrich's final season.  Maybe some of this decision-making led to his demise at the end of 2016.  Oregon and Nebraska each scored five TDs.  Helfrich went for two after each TD, while Nebraska always kicked the extra point.  Oregon converted 1 out of 5 (very poor percentage conversion), while Nebraska made all their kicks.  The logical result: Nebraska 35 -- Oregon 32.  Oregon needed a FG to tie, but could not get into range in the final 2:29 of the game.

I agree this is an interesting example. It shows that "the right thing to do" cannot always be classified as aggressive or as conservative. As I recall, Oregon had real kicking issues that year. The PAT was not by any means a "sure thing". Helfrich decided that the "expected value" of a two-point conversion was greater than the "expected value" of attempting a kick. Was he wrong? Possibly, but also possibly not. One problem with probability is that it "works" over a large number of attempts, but not necessarily over a small number, like 5. If Oregon converts on 3 out of 5, Helfrich is a genius. It may be that NOT kicking was more "conservative" if you can't kick worth a darn.
Similarly, Leach continuing to pass when he has the lead may not be "aggressive". It may just be that those are the plays they execute well. Running the ball just isn't in their skill set (at least in the past.). The coach will do what he feels is the "safest" course of action, even if that appears to be aggressive. That is the "conservative bias" we see in most "successful" coaches. It doesn't always work, but that is what most "successful" coaches do.

Yes, and it might also be worth noting that Helfrich succeeded on his first 2 pt attempt in the game, which must have emboldened him to continue trying.  And once he got behind the 7-point average per TD (after the third attempt), he probably felt he had to keep going for it to make up for the lost points.  He went make-miss-miss-miss-miss.

[Austroturf]

Here's that legendary press conference by Leach after the Stanford-WSU game in 2015.  First question of the video.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH8-uFmxBZc

---

As an interesting counterpoint to this discussion, I recall watching the Oregon-Nebraska game in Helfrich's final season.  Maybe some of this decision-making led to his demise at the end of 2016.  Oregon and Nebraska each scored five TDs.  Helfrich went for two after each TD, while Nebraska always kicked the extra point.  Oregon converted 1 out of 5 (very poor percentage conversion), while Nebraska made all their kicks.  The logical result: Nebraska 35 -- Oregon 32.  Oregon needed a FG to tie, but could not get into range in the final 2:29 of the game.

I agree this is an interesting example. It shows that "the right thing to do" cannot always be classified as aggressive or as conservative. As I recall, Oregon had real kicking issues that year. The PAT was not by any means a "sure thing". Helfrich decided that the "expected value" of a two-point conversion was greater than the "expected value" of attempting a kick. Was he wrong? Possibly, but also possibly not. One problem with probability is that it "works" over a large number of attempts, but not necessarily over a small number, like 5. If Oregon converts on 3 out of 5, Helfrich is a genius. It may be that NOT kicking was more "conservative" if you can't kick worth a darn.
Similarly, Leach continuing to pass when he has the lead may not be "aggressive". It may just be that those are the plays they execute well. Running the ball just isn't in their skill set (at least in the past.). The coach will do what he feels is the "safest" course of action, even if that appears to be aggressive. That is the "conservative bias" we see in most "successful" coaches. It doesn't always work, but that is what most "successful" coaches do.

Yes, and it might also be worth noting that Helfrich succeeded on his first 2 pt attempt in the game, which must have emboldened him to continue trying.  And once he got behind the 7-point average per TD (after the third attempt), he probably felt he had to keep going for it to make up for the lost points.  He went make-miss-miss-miss-miss.

[Hulk01]

I think fans, like almost all humans, fear too much. 

We give the ball up to ASU and envision them marching down the field twice to tie the game. Loss is vivid to us--more than twice as salient as gain, if your trust the studies--and surrendering the football ball makes the possibility of loss appear more vivid to us. 

I'm a perfect example,  With 3 minutes left in a game, say, and us with the ball and a ten point lead, I imagine us puntng the ball, the other team marching down the field to score a touchdown, then recovering an onside kick and scoring again to tie the game, or even win it. 

Sound familiar?

[Hulk01]

I think fans, like almost all humans, fear too much. 

We give the ball up to ASU and envision them marching down the field twice to tie the game. Loss is vivid to us--more than twice as salient as gain, if your trust the studies--and surrendering the football ball makes the possibility of loss appear more vivid to us. 

I'm a perfect example,  With 3 minutes left in a game, say, and us with the ball and a ten point lead, I imagine us puntng the ball, the other team marching down the field to score a touchdown, then recovering an onside kick and scoring again to tie the game, or even win it. 

Sound familiar?

[CardinalSagehen]

Here's that legendary press conference by Leach after the Stanford-WSU game in 2015.  First question of the video.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH8-uFmxBZc

Classic! Never gets old. Leach is a real stand-up guy here. He blames the reporter for being a moron, and his kicker for missing the kick, but takes no responsibility for the possibility that he made the wrong calls in crunch time.

I love this exchange about the WSU kicker at 2:11.  

Q: Does that take anything away from him, what he did do, because he did have 5 field goals and kept you guys in the game throughout? 
A: Well yeah, it takes one game-winning field goal away from what he did do. Because 100% is better than one short of 100%.

Shaw would never have said anything like this about an individual player like, say, Jordan Williamson.

[CardinalSagehen]

Here's that legendary press conference by Leach after the Stanford-WSU game in 2015.  First question of the video.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH8-uFmxBZc

Classic! Never gets old. Leach is a real stand-up guy here. He blames the reporter for being a moron, and his kicker for missing the kick, but takes no responsibility for the possibility that he made the wrong calls in crunch time.

I love this exchange about the WSU kicker at 2:11.  

Q: Does that take anything away from him, what he did do, because he did have 5 field goals and kept you guys in the game throughout? 
A: Well yeah, it takes one game-winning field goal away from what he did do. Because 100% is better than one short of 100%.

Shaw would never have said anything like this about an individual player like, say, Jordan Williamson.

[Austroturf]

Here's that legendary press conference by Leach after the Stanford-WSU game in 2015.  First question of the video.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH8-uFmxBZc

Classic! Never gets old. Leach is a real stand-up guy here. He blames the reporter for being a moron, and his kicker for missing the kick, but takes no responsibility for the possibility that he made the wrong calls in crunch time.

I love this exchange about the WSU kicker at 2:11.  

Q: Does that take anything away from him, what he did do, because he did have 5 field goals and kept you guys in the game throughout? 
A: Well yeah, it takes one game-winning field goal away from what he did do. Because 100% is better than one short of 100%.

Shaw would never have said anything like this about an individual player like, say, Jordan Williamson.

Yes, I remember thinking that it was not very classy the way he threw his kicker under the bus in that exchange.  Bottom-line: he was livid about the loss and could not contain himself in the heat of the moment.

[Austroturf]

Here's that legendary press conference by Leach after the Stanford-WSU game in 2015.  First question of the video.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH8-uFmxBZc

Classic! Never gets old. Leach is a real stand-up guy here. He blames the reporter for being a moron, and his kicker for missing the kick, but takes no responsibility for the possibility that he made the wrong calls in crunch time.

I love this exchange about the WSU kicker at 2:11.  

Q: Does that take anything away from him, what he did do, because he did have 5 field goals and kept you guys in the game throughout? 
A: Well yeah, it takes one game-winning field goal away from what he did do. Because 100% is better than one short of 100%.

Shaw would never have said anything like this about an individual player like, say, Jordan Williamson.

Yes, I remember thinking that it was not very classy the way he threw his kicker under the bus in that exchange.  Bottom-line: he was livid about the loss and could not contain himself in the heat of the moment.

[d4cohn]

Yes, I remember thinking that it was not very classy the way he threw his kicker under the bus in that exchange.  Bottom-line: he was livid about the loss and could not contain himself in the heat of the moment.

I am in no way defending Leach's responses to either the question from the reporter, or his commentary regarding his kicker. However, that kick, and that game, cost them a Pac-12 North division title, and given how the North has dominated the South in all but last year, a Pac-12 title and a trip to the Rose Bowl.

Leach knew it then, and we know it now.

[d4cohn]

Yes, I remember thinking that it was not very classy the way he threw his kicker under the bus in that exchange.  Bottom-line: he was livid about the loss and could not contain himself in the heat of the moment.

I am in no way defending Leach's responses to either the question from the reporter, or his commentary regarding his kicker. However, that kick, and that game, cost them a Pac-12 North division title, and given how the North has dominated the South in all but last year, a Pac-12 title and a trip to the Rose Bowl.

Leach knew it then, and we know it now.

[Austroturf]

Yes, I remember thinking that it was not very classy the way he threw his kicker under the bus in that exchange.  Bottom-line: he was livid about the loss and could not contain himself in the heat of the moment.

I am in no way defending Leach's responses to either the question from the reporter, or his commentary regarding his kicker. However, that kick, and that game, cost them a Pac-12 North division title, and given how the North has dominated the South in all but last year, a Pac-12 title and a trip to the Rose Bowl.

Leach knew it then, and we know it now.

O yes, that game turned out to be truly significant (though it wasn't yet clear at the time: Stanford got its lone conference loss of the season vs. Oregon two weeks later, while the Cougars truly couged it in the Apple Cup).  Leach was visibly upset and did not try to hide his anger.  This was WSU's eighth straight defeat vs. the Cardinal and was Leach's fourth straight.  Stanford was ranked #8 in the nation; and beating Stanford would have been a signature win for Leach and his ascendant program.  

All that said, I have also seen David Shaw visibly angry at press conferences after tough losses; and, at least to date, he has always retained his composure.  Yes, he sometimes bristles when journalists pose the obvious critical questions.  But his tone and his answers are always professional.  

Leach and Shaw are truly polar opposites; and unfortunately, I think Leach has a personal vendetta against Shaw and sees beating Stanford as particularly savory.  Leach has gone on record stating that it is easy to recruit at Stanford (vs. WSU) and made some critical comments about Shaw and his coaching acumen; and last season, when Love was tearing up the football field, he dissed Stanford's star and actually said that Ryan Nall from OSU was really the best back in the conference.  When Leach entered the Pac-12 back in 2012, Stanford and Shaw were riding high with an anti-air-raid type of football; and I am convinced Leach quickly set his sights on Shaw and vowed to take his program down a notch.  Frankly, Shaw is simply too professional to get into such petty personal duels.  Or maybe he just hides it brilliantly.  I would really like to see a David Shaw so angry that today's date is circled in bright Cardinal red and that beating Leach and giving him a bit of comeuppance for his brusque demeanor would be just as satisfying as the W itself.  For better or for worse, Harbaugh had that kind of dueling personality (see Carroll and the What's Your Deal game); so far, Shaw has always been the master gentleman, paying compliments to his colleagues in the business and always behaving respectful to opposing teams.  That makes him such a great representative for the university.  But can he instill the killer instinct in his team when it counts?  I really want to see it today.  Not sure I will.

[Austroturf]

Yes, I remember thinking that it was not very classy the way he threw his kicker under the bus in that exchange.  Bottom-line: he was livid about the loss and could not contain himself in the heat of the moment.

I am in no way defending Leach's responses to either the question from the reporter, or his commentary regarding his kicker. However, that kick, and that game, cost them a Pac-12 North division title, and given how the North has dominated the South in all but last year, a Pac-12 title and a trip to the Rose Bowl.

Leach knew it then, and we know it now.

O yes, that game turned out to be truly significant (though it wasn't yet clear at the time: Stanford got its lone conference loss of the season vs. Oregon two weeks later, while the Cougars truly couged it in the Apple Cup).  Leach was visibly upset and did not try to hide his anger.  This was WSU's eighth straight defeat vs. the Cardinal and was Leach's fourth straight.  Stanford was ranked #8 in the nation; and beating Stanford would have been a signature win for Leach and his ascendant program.  

All that said, I have also seen David Shaw visibly angry at press conferences after tough losses; and, at least to date, he has always retained his composure.  Yes, he sometimes bristles when journalists pose the obvious critical questions.  But his tone and his answers are always professional.  

Leach and Shaw are truly polar opposites; and unfortunately, I think Leach has a personal vendetta against Shaw and sees beating Stanford as particularly savory.  Leach has gone on record stating that it is easy to recruit at Stanford (vs. WSU) and made some critical comments about Shaw and his coaching acumen; and last season, when Love was tearing up the football field, he dissed Stanford's star and actually said that Ryan Nall from OSU was really the best back in the conference.  When Leach entered the Pac-12 back in 2012, Stanford and Shaw were riding high with an anti-air-raid type of football; and I am convinced Leach quickly set his sights on Shaw and vowed to take his program down a notch.  Frankly, Shaw is simply too professional to get into such petty personal duels.  Or maybe he just hides it brilliantly.  I would really like to see a David Shaw so angry that today's date is circled in bright Cardinal red and that beating Leach and giving him a bit of comeuppance for his brusque demeanor would be just as satisfying as the W itself.  For better or for worse, Harbaugh had that kind of dueling personality (see Carroll and the What's Your Deal game); so far, Shaw has always been the master gentleman, paying compliments to his colleagues in the business and always behaving respectful to opposing teams.  That makes him such a great representative for the university.  But can he instill the killer instinct in his team when it counts?  I really want to see it today.  Not sure I will.

[ChicagoCard]

That's interesting, and for some reason my mind went to: What type of relationship does Leach have with Petersen? I notice UW has won all four of Petersen's Apple Cup matchups. (Leach won his first Apple Cup in 2012 and lost the next five.)

P.s. John Canzano of the Oregonian writes, speculates, about the 2015 Stanford-WSU game. Personally, I think the overrule of the would-be pick-6 was the obvious right call, the pass having bounced off of the turf.

[ChicagoCard]

That's interesting, and for some reason my mind went to: What type of relationship does Leach have with Petersen? I notice UW has won all four of Petersen's Apple Cup matchups. (Leach won his first Apple Cup in 2012 and lost the next five.)

P.s. John Canzano of the Oregonian writes, speculates, about the 2015 Stanford-WSU game. Personally, I think the overrule of the would-be pick-6 was the obvious right call, the pass having bounced off of the turf.

[Austroturf]

That's interesting, and for some reason my mind went to: What type of relationship does Leach have with Petersen? I notice UW has won all four of Petersen's Apple Cup matchups. (Leach won his first Apple Cup in 2012 and lost the next five.)

P.s. John Canzano of the Oregonian writes, speculates, about the 2015 Stanford-WSU game. Personally, I think the overrule of the would-be pick-6 was the obvious right call, the pass having bounced off of the turf.

Here's the article from the SF Chronicle quoting Leach's comments in 2017.  https://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/art...318920.php

Regarding Leach and Petersen, I have no insight into that relationship.  But Coug fans have complained that Leach does not "get" the Husky-Cougar rivalry the way Washington natives do and just considers it another game.  That may be changing, but the Cougar faithful are tired of getting their clocks cleaned in the final game of the regular season.  Since 2013, the scores have been:
UW 27-17, UW 31-13, UW 45-10, UW 45-17, UW 41-14.  Maybe Petersen is now in Leach's cross-hairs.

[Austroturf]

That's interesting, and for some reason my mind went to: What type of relationship does Leach have with Petersen? I notice UW has won all four of Petersen's Apple Cup matchups. (Leach won his first Apple Cup in 2012 and lost the next five.)

P.s. John Canzano of the Oregonian writes, speculates, about the 2015 Stanford-WSU game. Personally, I think the overrule of the would-be pick-6 was the obvious right call, the pass having bounced off of the turf.

Here's the article from the SF Chronicle quoting Leach's comments in 2017.  https://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/art...318920.php

Regarding Leach and Petersen, I have no insight into that relationship.  But Coug fans have complained that Leach does not "get" the Husky-Cougar rivalry the way Washington natives do and just considers it another game.  That may be changing, but the Cougar faithful are tired of getting their clocks cleaned in the final game of the regular season.  Since 2013, the scores have been:
UW 27-17, UW 31-13, UW 45-10, UW 45-17, UW 41-14.  Maybe Petersen is now in Leach's cross-hairs.

[JPR36]

I think we have all heard the saying "you show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."
I don't necessarily subscribe to that, but Leach clearly is not a good loser. He also has done quite well at Wazzu, where doing well is not an easy task.
IIRC, Bill Walsh wasn't a good loser in his final games at Stanford.

[JPR36]

I think we have all heard the saying "you show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."
I don't necessarily subscribe to that, but Leach clearly is not a good loser. He also has done quite well at Wazzu, where doing well is not an easy task.
IIRC, Bill Walsh wasn't a good loser in his final games at Stanford.

[lex24]

I have always defended Shaw versus the “turtling” charge. And I had researched before to see if they had ever lost a game in his tenure up more than 7 going into the 4th. I don’t think he has. So the bottom line is it has consistently worked. But I couldn’t defend ASU. Reason being this is not a great defensive team. He at least called the back to back pass plays on second and long and third and about seven. Got the one first down. Then ran three times. Flem was very critical saying that forcing ASU to use all three TOS wasn’t critical. They still had plenty of time. He was right. Until he wasn’t. They in fact ran out of time. So once again it technically worked.

Someone else said this- the more viable criticism is the inability to pick up tempo when behind.

[lex24]

I have always defended Shaw versus the “turtling” charge. And I had researched before to see if they had ever lost a game in his tenure up more than 7 going into the 4th. I don’t think he has. So the bottom line is it has consistently worked. But I couldn’t defend ASU. Reason being this is not a great defensive team. He at least called the back to back pass plays on second and long and third and about seven. Got the one first down. Then ran three times. Flem was very critical saying that forcing ASU to use all three TOS wasn’t critical. They still had plenty of time. He was right. Until he wasn’t. They in fact ran out of time. So once again it technically worked.

Someone else said this- the more viable criticism is the inability to pick up tempo when behind.

[JPR36]

I have always defended Shaw versus the “turtling” charge. And I had researched before to see if they had ever lost a game in his tenure up more than 7 going into the 4th. I don’t think he has. So the bottom line is it has consistently worked. But I couldn’t defend ASU. Reason being this is not a great defensive team.  He at least called the back to back pass plays on second and lond and third and about seven. Got the one first down. Then ran three times. Flem was very critical saying that forcing ASU to use all three TOS wasn’t critical. They still had plenty of time. He was right. Until he wasn’t. They in fact ran out of time.

Someone else said this- the more viable criticism is the inability to pick up tempo when behind.

The "turtling" makes more sense to me when we have a stronger running game and a better defense. It worked against ASU, though, albeit not by much.

[JPR36]

I have always defended Shaw versus the “turtling” charge. And I had researched before to see if they had ever lost a game in his tenure up more than 7 going into the 4th. I don’t think he has. So the bottom line is it has consistently worked. But I couldn’t defend ASU. Reason being this is not a great defensive team.  He at least called the back to back pass plays on second and lond and third and about seven. Got the one first down. Then ran three times. Flem was very critical saying that forcing ASU to use all three TOS wasn’t critical. They still had plenty of time. He was right. Until he wasn’t. They in fact ran out of time.

Someone else said this- the more viable criticism is the inability to pick up tempo when behind.

The "turtling" makes more sense to me when we have a stronger running game and a better defense. It worked against ASU, though, albeit not by much.

[ADPinWDC]

After Thursday's win over Arizona State, I spent a fair amount of time "discussing" this issue on Twitter. You know how the argument went -- if Shaw hadn't gone into turtle mode, things wouldn't have been so close in the end. My response was that he had played the percentages and won. I also wondered whether or not this philosophy had ever bitten him. Had he ever been too conservative with a lead and then ended up losing? I honestly didn't know the answer, so last night I spent in inordinate amount of time looking at every loss of Shaw's career. The short answer -- No, he hasn't. For the long answer, click below.

https://www.gomightycard.com/2018/10/ris...-game.html

SUPERB Marksmanship on the history -- BEST analysis I have seen, but we WATCH the games. We do not want to WATCH Turtle mode, even if we win, unless the Defense is sacking a QB for a 90 yard Scoop-and-Score at Autzen. That is OK. 
You have to look at the team YOU HAVE. This is the best receiving corp (WRs + TEs) Stanford has EVER laced up, and Costello can throw. 
In 2018, we have 1840 yards passing and 650 yards rushing thru 7 games; our 3.1 per rush is LAST in the Pac12, a complete reversal from 2017.  Coach the TEAM YOU HAVE.

[ADPinWDC]

After Thursday's win over Arizona State, I spent a fair amount of time "discussing" this issue on Twitter. You know how the argument went -- if Shaw hadn't gone into turtle mode, things wouldn't have been so close in the end. My response was that he had played the percentages and won. I also wondered whether or not this philosophy had ever bitten him. Had he ever been too conservative with a lead and then ended up losing? I honestly didn't know the answer, so last night I spent in inordinate amount of time looking at every loss of Shaw's career. The short answer -- No, he hasn't. For the long answer, click below.

https://www.gomightycard.com/2018/10/ris...-game.html

SUPERB Marksmanship on the history -- BEST analysis I have seen, but we WATCH the games. We do not want to WATCH Turtle mode, even if we win, unless the Defense is sacking a QB for a 90 yard Scoop-and-Score at Autzen. That is OK. 
You have to look at the team YOU HAVE. This is the best receiving corp (WRs + TEs) Stanford has EVER laced up, and Costello can throw. 
In 2018, we have 1840 yards passing and 650 yards rushing thru 7 games; our 3.1 per rush is LAST in the Pac12, a complete reversal from 2017.  Coach the TEAM YOU HAVE.

[CornFed]

I think Harbaugh's style modeled a form of toughness that resonated with the players.  Fearlessness.  His comments about USC prior to the "greatest upset ever", were audacious.  Poked the beast.  Then we beat them.  More about being tough guys.

[CornFed]

I think Harbaugh's style modeled a form of toughness that resonated with the players.  Fearlessness.  His comments about USC prior to the "greatest upset ever", were audacious.  Poked the beast.  Then we beat them.  More about being tough guys.

[Austroturf]

I think Harbaugh's style modeled a form of toughness that resonated with the players.  Fearlessness.  His comments about USC prior to the "greatest upset ever", were audacious.  Poked the beast.  Then we beat them.  More about being tough guys.

Yes, I agree.  In the interim, that culture of toughness has gone missing.  When I consider that period, I always think of Shayne Skov and Co. partying in the backfield of multiple opponents.

[Austroturf]

I think Harbaugh's style modeled a form of toughness that resonated with the players.  Fearlessness.  His comments about USC prior to the "greatest upset ever", were audacious.  Poked the beast.  Then we beat them.  More about being tough guys.

Yes, I agree.  In the interim, that culture of toughness has gone missing.  When I consider that period, I always think of Shayne Skov and Co. partying in the backfield of multiple opponents.

[BostonCard]

After Thursday's win over Arizona State, I spent a fair amount of time "discussing" this issue on Twitter. You know how the argument went -- if Shaw hadn't gone into turtle mode, things wouldn't have been so close in the end. My response was that he had played the percentages and won. I also wondered whether or not this philosophy had ever bitten him. Had he ever been too conservative with a lead and then ended up losing? I honestly didn't know the answer, so last night I spent in inordinate amount of time looking at every loss of Shaw's career. The short answer -- No, he hasn't. For the long answer, click below.

https://www.gomightycard.com/2018/10/ris...-game.html

SUPERB Marksmanship on the history -- BEST analysis I have seen, but we WATCH the games. We do not want to WATCH Turtle mode, even if we win, unless the Defense is sacking a QB for a 90 yard Scoop-and-Score at Autzen. That is OK. 
You have to look at the team YOU HAVE. This is the best receiving corp (WRs + TEs) Stanford has EVER laced up, and Costello can throw. 
In 2018, we have 1840 yards passing and 650 yards rushing thru 7 games; our 3.1 per rush is LAST in the Pac12, a complete reversal from 2017.  Coach the TEAM YOU HAVE.

That's why we pass more than we run.  WE have 216 passes and have run 209 times (if you change sacks to passes, the ratio is 223 to 202).  I haven't checked in a while, but that is one of the heaviest pass ratios of non air-raid teams in the country, and we were one of the few teams in the country to pass more than we ran.  So, Shaw is, in fact, coaching the team he has.

BC

[BostonCard]

After Thursday's win over Arizona State, I spent a fair amount of time "discussing" this issue on Twitter. You know how the argument went -- if Shaw hadn't gone into turtle mode, things wouldn't have been so close in the end. My response was that he had played the percentages and won. I also wondered whether or not this philosophy had ever bitten him. Had he ever been too conservative with a lead and then ended up losing? I honestly didn't know the answer, so last night I spent in inordinate amount of time looking at every loss of Shaw's career. The short answer -- No, he hasn't. For the long answer, click below.

https://www.gomightycard.com/2018/10/ris...-game.html

SUPERB Marksmanship on the history -- BEST analysis I have seen, but we WATCH the games. We do not want to WATCH Turtle mode, even if we win, unless the Defense is sacking a QB for a 90 yard Scoop-and-Score at Autzen. That is OK. 
You have to look at the team YOU HAVE. This is the best receiving corp (WRs + TEs) Stanford has EVER laced up, and Costello can throw. 
In 2018, we have 1840 yards passing and 650 yards rushing thru 7 games; our 3.1 per rush is LAST in the Pac12, a complete reversal from 2017.  Coach the TEAM YOU HAVE.

That's why we pass more than we run.  WE have 216 passes and have run 209 times (if you change sacks to passes, the ratio is 223 to 202).  I haven't checked in a while, but that is one of the heaviest pass ratios of non air-raid teams in the country, and we were one of the few teams in the country to pass more than we ran.  So, Shaw is, in fact, coaching the team he has.

BC

[martyup]

After the WSU game, never mind. 

[martyup]

After the WSU game, never mind.