[CardinalSagehen]

Has anyone sent Shaw this handy guide?

While I have no particular complaint with the recommendations of that chart overall, it somehow bothers me that people create these charts then describe them with statements like "the math says you should go for it on fourth down here".
The math presented says that under certain sets of assumptions one should go for it on fourth down with a certain confidence level.
That set of assumptions may or may not be true for analyzing averages across entire leagues and game situations, but by definition not so for a particular team for a particular situation.
It is a useful exercise to understand what these models say under various assumptions, but the chart-for-all is not necessarily the best approach.

Note none of this is a comment on what Stanford should do differently on fourth downs. I don't think these mathematical/statistical limitations have anything to do with Shaw's approach to fourth down situations, and it seems fairly clear to me Stanford would do better with more attempts to complete first downs.

I think the issue is that Shaw is probably aware of the general math, but he overvalues his gut based on the game flow. We know as much from his own comments. His gut is conservative and calibrated to our ~2012 era teams that could actually stop people after a punt.

I am a staunch Shawpologist and think he's fantastic - I have even defended other forms of turtling. But there's a point at which the game situation doesn't matter and the math is so overwhelming that it indicates a clear decision.  If it is 4th and less than 5 from the opponent's 37 yard-line, it ought to be a no-brainer.  

By the way, the other less obvious observation from the chart is that field goals are overvalued - in general, you should consider going for it on 4th and less than 3 even if you're inside the 30. According to the chart, it's even true from the 10 or 20 yard-line.  Of course, this depends on the quality of your kicker, but again, at some point the general math should win.  

Ideally, each team should have it's own real-time, automated chart up in the booth, based on offensive and defensive yards-per-play by both teams for the current game and the season.  I know nothing about football coaching, but that would be my inclination.  Someone might say, sure, but do you have a great play for 4th-and-4, and have they been stopping that kind of play today?  You can always question the math with "feel" or a couple counter-examples from the current game, but there ought to be a limit.

[CardinalSagehen]

Has anyone sent Shaw this handy guide?

While I have no particular complaint with the recommendations of that chart overall, it somehow bothers me that people create these charts then describe them with statements like "the math says you should go for it on fourth down here".
The math presented says that under certain sets of assumptions one should go for it on fourth down with a certain confidence level.
That set of assumptions may or may not be true for analyzing averages across entire leagues and game situations, but by definition not so for a particular team for a particular situation.
It is a useful exercise to understand what these models say under various assumptions, but the chart-for-all is not necessarily the best approach.

Note none of this is a comment on what Stanford should do differently on fourth downs. I don't think these mathematical/statistical limitations have anything to do with Shaw's approach to fourth down situations, and it seems fairly clear to me Stanford would do better with more attempts to complete first downs.

I think the issue is that Shaw is probably aware of the general math, but he overvalues his gut based on the game flow. We know as much from his own comments. His gut is conservative and calibrated to our ~2012 era teams that could actually stop people after a punt.

I am a staunch Shawpologist and think he's fantastic - I have even defended other forms of turtling. But there's a point at which the game situation doesn't matter and the math is so overwhelming that it indicates a clear decision.  If it is 4th and less than 5 from the opponent's 37 yard-line, it ought to be a no-brainer.  

By the way, the other less obvious observation from the chart is that field goals are overvalued - in general, you should consider going for it on 4th and less than 3 even if you're inside the 30. According to the chart, it's even true from the 10 or 20 yard-line.  Of course, this depends on the quality of your kicker, but again, at some point the general math should win.  

Ideally, each team should have it's own real-time, automated chart up in the booth, based on offensive and defensive yards-per-play by both teams for the current game and the season.  I know nothing about football coaching, but that would be my inclination.  Someone might say, sure, but do you have a great play for 4th-and-4, and have they been stopping that kind of play today?  You can always question the math with "feel" or a couple counter-examples from the current game, but there ought to be a limit.

[bl82]

Has anyone sent Shaw this handy guide?

While I have no particular complaint with the recommendations of that chart overall, it somehow bothers me that people create these charts then describe them with statements like "the math says you should go for it on fourth down here".
The math presented says that under certain sets of assumptions one should go for it on fourth down with a certain confidence level.
That set of assumptions may or may not be true for analyzing averages across entire leagues and game situations, but by definition not so for a particular team for a particular situation.
It is a useful exercise to understand what these models say under various assumptions, but the chart-for-all is not necessarily the best approach.

Note none of this is a comment on what Stanford should do differently on fourth downs. I don't think these mathematical/statistical limitations have anything to do with Shaw's approach to fourth down situations, and it seems fairly clear to me Stanford would do better with more attempts to complete first downs.

I think the issue is that Shaw is probably aware of the general math, but he overvalues his gut based on the game flow. We know as much from his own comments. His gut is conservative and calibrated to our ~2012 era teams that could actually stop people after a punt.

I am a staunch Shawpologist and think he's fantastic - I have even defended other forms of turtling. But there's a point at which the game situation doesn't matter and the math is so overwhelming that it indicates a clear decision.  If it is 4th and less than 5 from the opponent's 37 yard-line, it ought to be a no-brainer.  

By the way, the other less obvious observation from the chart is that field goals are overvalued - in general, you should consider going for it on 4th and less than 3 even if you're inside the 30. According to the chart, it's even true from the 10 or 20 yard-line.  Of course, this depends on the quality of your kicker, but again, at some point the general math should win.  

Ideally, each team should have it's own real-time, automated chart up in the booth, based on offensive and defensive yards-per-play by both teams for the current game and the season.  I know nothing about football coaching, but that would be my inclination.  Someone might say, sure, but do you have a great play for 4th-and-4, and have they been stopping that kind of play today?  You can always question the math with "feel" or a couple counter-examples from the current game, but there ought to be a limit.

Excellent comments across the board. I also think Shaw has lost track of what the expected points per possession is in CFB and how that number has increased over the years. Similarly, expected points per opponent possession vs. a team like Oregon is something I don’t think Shaw has internalized. You can almost never punt to the Ducks if they are going to average 3-4 points per possession unless you have very long odds to make a first down. And with that type of explosive offense, their starting field position is not as big if a deal as Shaw might think. Even with great punters (perhaps because of), Shaw overvalues field position.

On offense, if you are predisposed to punt and not go for it on fourth down, this affects play calling on third down and even second down. Ironically, sometimes a more conservative play call on third down makes sense if you are prepared to go for it on fourth down. A check down pass may have very little chance of making a first down, but not only does it inceprease the odds of a fourth down conversion, it might also remove the temptation to try to thread something through tight coverage down the field. To have more realistic fourth down opportunities you need to look at third down not just as a binary first-or-punt down, but a chance to drastically reduce the distance on make a first down on fourth and whatever.

There is also the issue of total possessions and if Shaw wants to play ball control, win the time of possession battle and use up as much of the time as possible, he is actually reducing the odds of winning against an inferior team, not to mention making a comeback against any team.

[bl82]

Has anyone sent Shaw this handy guide?

While I have no particular complaint with the recommendations of that chart overall, it somehow bothers me that people create these charts then describe them with statements like "the math says you should go for it on fourth down here".
The math presented says that under certain sets of assumptions one should go for it on fourth down with a certain confidence level.
That set of assumptions may or may not be true for analyzing averages across entire leagues and game situations, but by definition not so for a particular team for a particular situation.
It is a useful exercise to understand what these models say under various assumptions, but the chart-for-all is not necessarily the best approach.

Note none of this is a comment on what Stanford should do differently on fourth downs. I don't think these mathematical/statistical limitations have anything to do with Shaw's approach to fourth down situations, and it seems fairly clear to me Stanford would do better with more attempts to complete first downs.

I think the issue is that Shaw is probably aware of the general math, but he overvalues his gut based on the game flow. We know as much from his own comments. His gut is conservative and calibrated to our ~2012 era teams that could actually stop people after a punt.

I am a staunch Shawpologist and think he's fantastic - I have even defended other forms of turtling. But there's a point at which the game situation doesn't matter and the math is so overwhelming that it indicates a clear decision.  If it is 4th and less than 5 from the opponent's 37 yard-line, it ought to be a no-brainer.  

By the way, the other less obvious observation from the chart is that field goals are overvalued - in general, you should consider going for it on 4th and less than 3 even if you're inside the 30. According to the chart, it's even true from the 10 or 20 yard-line.  Of course, this depends on the quality of your kicker, but again, at some point the general math should win.  

Ideally, each team should have it's own real-time, automated chart up in the booth, based on offensive and defensive yards-per-play by both teams for the current game and the season.  I know nothing about football coaching, but that would be my inclination.  Someone might say, sure, but do you have a great play for 4th-and-4, and have they been stopping that kind of play today?  You can always question the math with "feel" or a couple counter-examples from the current game, but there ought to be a limit.

Excellent comments across the board. I also think Shaw has lost track of what the expected points per possession is in CFB and how that number has increased over the years. Similarly, expected points per opponent possession vs. a team like Oregon is something I don’t think Shaw has internalized. You can almost never punt to the Ducks if they are going to average 3-4 points per possession unless you have very long odds to make a first down. And with that type of explosive offense, their starting field position is not as big if a deal as Shaw might think. Even with great punters (perhaps because of), Shaw overvalues field position.

On offense, if you are predisposed to punt and not go for it on fourth down, this affects play calling on third down and even second down. Ironically, sometimes a more conservative play call on third down makes sense if you are prepared to go for it on fourth down. A check down pass may have very little chance of making a first down, but not only does it inceprease the odds of a fourth down conversion, it might also remove the temptation to try to thread something through tight coverage down the field. To have more realistic fourth down opportunities you need to look at third down not just as a binary first-or-punt down, but a chance to drastically reduce the distance on make a first down on fourth and whatever.

There is also the issue of total possessions and if Shaw wants to play ball control, win the time of possession battle and use up as much of the time as possible, he is actually reducing the odds of winning against an inferior team, not to mention making a comeback against any team.

[teejers1]

On offense, if you are predisposed to punt and not go for it on fourth down, this affects play calling on third down and even second down.  Ironically, sometimes a more conservative play call on third down makes sense if you are prepared to go for it on fourth down.  A check down pass may have very little chance of making a first down, but not only does it increase the odds of a fourth down conversion, it might also remove the temptation to try to thread something through tight coverage down the field.  To have more realistic fourth down opportunities you need to look at third down not just as a binary first-or-punt down, but a chance to drastically reduce the distance on make a first down on fourth and whatever.

This x1000.  Foresight - and specifically knowing what you're going to do (or at least want to do, barring catastrophic third down call) on fourth down - is absolutely critical to good play calling and game management.

[teejers1]

On offense, if you are predisposed to punt and not go for it on fourth down, this affects play calling on third down and even second down.  Ironically, sometimes a more conservative play call on third down makes sense if you are prepared to go for it on fourth down.  A check down pass may have very little chance of making a first down, but not only does it increase the odds of a fourth down conversion, it might also remove the temptation to try to thread something through tight coverage down the field.  To have more realistic fourth down opportunities you need to look at third down not just as a binary first-or-punt down, but a chance to drastically reduce the distance on make a first down on fourth and whatever.

This x1000.  Foresight - and specifically knowing what you're going to do (or at least want to do, barring catastrophic third down call) on fourth down - is absolutely critical to good play calling and game management.

[norcard]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

[norcard]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

[gailtate]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

[gailtate]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

[Brickcity]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

Indeed. I really like Shaw as a human being and recognize he has strong suits as a coach. But, he has a few clear weaknesses in the latter regard I wish he would shore up. At least he does seem to be addressing the biggest one: a lack of aggressiveness in recruiting.

[Brickcity]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

Indeed. I really like Shaw as a human being and recognize he has strong suits as a coach. But, he has a few clear weaknesses in the latter regard I wish he would shore up. At least he does seem to be addressing the biggest one: a lack of aggressiveness in recruiting.

[norcard]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

No need to take things so literally. Hater vs hate has different connotations in today's world.  Perhaps this hasn't transcended generations effectively.

[norcard]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

No need to take things so literally. Hater vs hate has different connotations in today's world.  Perhaps this hasn't transcended generations effectively.

[lex24]

Has anyone sent Shaw this handy guide?

While I have no particular complaint with the recommendations of that chart overall, it somehow bothers me that people create these charts then describe them with statements like "the math says you should go for it on fourth down here".
The math presented says that under certain sets of assumptions one should go for it on fourth down with a certain confidence level.
That set of assumptions may or may not be true for analyzing averages across entire leagues and game situations, but by definition not so for a particular team for a particular situation.
It is a useful exercise to understand what these models say under various assumptions, but the chart-for-all is not necessarily the best approach.

Note none of this is a comment on what Stanford should do differently on fourth downs. I don't think these mathematical/statistical limitations have anything to do with Shaw's approach to fourth down situations, and it seems fairly clear to me Stanford would do better with more attempts to complete first downs.

I think the issue is that Shaw is probably aware of the general math, but he overvalues his gut based on the game flow. We know as much from his own comments. His gut is conservative and calibrated to our ~2012 era teams that could actually stop people after a punt.

I am a staunch Shawpologist and think he's fantastic - I have even defended other forms of turtling. But there's a point at which the game situation doesn't matter and the math is so overwhelming that it indicates a clear decision.  If it is 4th and less than 5 from the opponent's 37 yard-line, it ought to be a no-brainer.  

By the way, the other less obvious observation from the chart is that field goals are overvalued - in general, you should consider going for it on 4th and less than 3 even if you're inside the 30. According to the chart, it's even true from the 10 or 20 yard-line.  Of course, this depends on the quality of your kicker, but again, at some point the general math should win.  

Ideally, each team should have it's own real-time, automated chart up in the booth, based on offensive and defensive yards-per-play by both teams for the current game and the season.  I know nothing about football coaching, but that would be my inclination.  Someone might say, sure, but do you have a great play for 4th-and-4, and have they been stopping that kind of play today?  You can always question the math with "feel" or a couple counter-examples from the current game, but there ought to be a limit.

Excellent comments across the board.  I also think Shaw has lost track of what the expected points per possession is in CFB and how that number has increased over the years.  Similarly, expected points per opponent possession vs. a team like Oregon is something I don’t think Shaw has internalized.  You can almost never punt to the Ducks if they are going to average 3-4 points per possession unless you have very long odds to make a first down.  And with that type of explosive offense, their starting field position is not as big if a deal as Shaw might think.  Even with great punters (perhaps because of), Shaw overvalues field position. 

On offense, if you are predisposed to punt and not go for it on fourth down, this affects play calling on third down and even second down.  Ironically, sometimes a more conservative play call on third down makes sense if you are prepared to go for it on fourth down.  A check down pass may have very little chance of making a first down, but not only does it inceprease the odds of a fourth down conversion, it might also remove the temptation to try to thread something through tight coverage down the field.  To have more realistic fourth down opportunities you need to look at third down not just as a binary first-or-punt down, but a chance to drastically reduce the distance on make a first down on fourth and whatever.

There is also the issue of total possessions and if Shaw wants to play ball control, win the time of possession battle and use up as much of the time as possible, he is actually reducing the odds of winning against an inferior team, not to mention making a comeback against any team.

Yes, but playing ball control and limiting possessions protects your defense. When Stanford has won conference championships under Shaw, that was the formula. They aren’t going to be successful playing shoot outs.  Just ask Sonny Dykes how that worked.

[lex24]

Has anyone sent Shaw this handy guide?

While I have no particular complaint with the recommendations of that chart overall, it somehow bothers me that people create these charts then describe them with statements like "the math says you should go for it on fourth down here".
The math presented says that under certain sets of assumptions one should go for it on fourth down with a certain confidence level.
That set of assumptions may or may not be true for analyzing averages across entire leagues and game situations, but by definition not so for a particular team for a particular situation.
It is a useful exercise to understand what these models say under various assumptions, but the chart-for-all is not necessarily the best approach.

Note none of this is a comment on what Stanford should do differently on fourth downs. I don't think these mathematical/statistical limitations have anything to do with Shaw's approach to fourth down situations, and it seems fairly clear to me Stanford would do better with more attempts to complete first downs.

I think the issue is that Shaw is probably aware of the general math, but he overvalues his gut based on the game flow. We know as much from his own comments. His gut is conservative and calibrated to our ~2012 era teams that could actually stop people after a punt.

I am a staunch Shawpologist and think he's fantastic - I have even defended other forms of turtling. But there's a point at which the game situation doesn't matter and the math is so overwhelming that it indicates a clear decision.  If it is 4th and less than 5 from the opponent's 37 yard-line, it ought to be a no-brainer.  

By the way, the other less obvious observation from the chart is that field goals are overvalued - in general, you should consider going for it on 4th and less than 3 even if you're inside the 30. According to the chart, it's even true from the 10 or 20 yard-line.  Of course, this depends on the quality of your kicker, but again, at some point the general math should win.  

Ideally, each team should have it's own real-time, automated chart up in the booth, based on offensive and defensive yards-per-play by both teams for the current game and the season.  I know nothing about football coaching, but that would be my inclination.  Someone might say, sure, but do you have a great play for 4th-and-4, and have they been stopping that kind of play today?  You can always question the math with "feel" or a couple counter-examples from the current game, but there ought to be a limit.

Excellent comments across the board.  I also think Shaw has lost track of what the expected points per possession is in CFB and how that number has increased over the years.  Similarly, expected points per opponent possession vs. a team like Oregon is something I don’t think Shaw has internalized.  You can almost never punt to the Ducks if they are going to average 3-4 points per possession unless you have very long odds to make a first down.  And with that type of explosive offense, their starting field position is not as big if a deal as Shaw might think.  Even with great punters (perhaps because of), Shaw overvalues field position. 

On offense, if you are predisposed to punt and not go for it on fourth down, this affects play calling on third down and even second down.  Ironically, sometimes a more conservative play call on third down makes sense if you are prepared to go for it on fourth down.  A check down pass may have very little chance of making a first down, but not only does it inceprease the odds of a fourth down conversion, it might also remove the temptation to try to thread something through tight coverage down the field.  To have more realistic fourth down opportunities you need to look at third down not just as a binary first-or-punt down, but a chance to drastically reduce the distance on make a first down on fourth and whatever.

There is also the issue of total possessions and if Shaw wants to play ball control, win the time of possession battle and use up as much of the time as possible, he is actually reducing the odds of winning against an inferior team, not to mention making a comeback against any team.

Yes, but playing ball control and limiting possessions protects your defense. When Stanford has won conference championships under Shaw, that was the formula. They aren’t going to be successful playing shoot outs.  Just ask Sonny Dykes how that worked.

[teejers1]

Yes, but playing ball control and limiting possessions protects your defense. When Stanford has won conference championships under Shaw, that was the formula. They aren’t going to be successful playing shoot outs.  Just ask Sonny Dykes how that worked.

What about Oregon's offenses that were scoring machines?  What about SC's offenses?  Hell, Stanford has won big with balanced, pro-style offenses - see Husak Rose Bowl, Seattle Bowl, Luck years, and yes, 2015.  It is not a requirement for Stanford to win only by taking the air out of the ball on offense.  Not sure why you cling to that when Stanford has had plenty of winning teams that have had very high-powered offenses.  

But I agree that Shaw always tries to play ball control offense.  He did it when he had great defenses, good defenses, and mediocre defenses.  The only time he doesn't do it is when he has tried multiple times, failed, and it is thus futile to ground and pound - though even then he might try and still pound it (see MSU Rose Bowl fourth and 3 play).  That's my impression anyway.

[teejers1]

Yes, but playing ball control and limiting possessions protects your defense. When Stanford has won conference championships under Shaw, that was the formula. They aren’t going to be successful playing shoot outs.  Just ask Sonny Dykes how that worked.

What about Oregon's offenses that were scoring machines?  What about SC's offenses?  Hell, Stanford has won big with balanced, pro-style offenses - see Husak Rose Bowl, Seattle Bowl, Luck years, and yes, 2015.  It is not a requirement for Stanford to win only by taking the air out of the ball on offense.  Not sure why you cling to that when Stanford has had plenty of winning teams that have had very high-powered offenses.  

But I agree that Shaw always tries to play ball control offense.  He did it when he had great defenses, good defenses, and mediocre defenses.  The only time he doesn't do it is when he has tried multiple times, failed, and it is thus futile to ground and pound - though even then he might try and still pound it (see MSU Rose Bowl fourth and 3 play).  That's my impression anyway.

[CardinalSagehen]

Yes, but playing ball control and limiting possessions protects your defense. When Stanford has won conference championships under Shaw, that was the formula. They aren’t going to be successful playing shoot outs.  Just ask Sonny Dykes how that worked.

What about Oregon's offenses that were scoring machines?  What about SC's offenses?  Hell, Stanford has won big with balanced, pro-style offenses - see Husak Rose Bowl, Seattle Bowl, Luck years, and yes, 2015.  It is not a requirement for Stanford to win only by taking the air out of the ball on offense.  Not sure why you cling to that when Stanford has had plenty of winning teams that have had very high-powered offenses.  

But I agree that Shaw always tries to play ball control offense.  He did it when he had great defenses, good defenses, and mediocre defenses.  The only time he doesn't do it is when he has tried multiple times, failed, and it is thus futile to ground and pound - though even then he might try and still pound it (see MSU Rose Bowl fourth and 3 play).  That's my impression anyway.

The terminology "ball control offense" strikes me as a bit ironic, because obviously the best way to control the ball would be not to willingly give it away to the opponent on 4th down.  You guys are using it in the way everyone does, but maybe the term ought to be rethought.  

To me, letting the clock roll and being willing to pound the ball methodically down the field is a different decision than whether to go for it on 4th down.  It can be both/and rather than either/or.

[CardinalSagehen]

Yes, but playing ball control and limiting possessions protects your defense. When Stanford has won conference championships under Shaw, that was the formula. They aren’t going to be successful playing shoot outs.  Just ask Sonny Dykes how that worked.

What about Oregon's offenses that were scoring machines?  What about SC's offenses?  Hell, Stanford has won big with balanced, pro-style offenses - see Husak Rose Bowl, Seattle Bowl, Luck years, and yes, 2015.  It is not a requirement for Stanford to win only by taking the air out of the ball on offense.  Not sure why you cling to that when Stanford has had plenty of winning teams that have had very high-powered offenses.  

But I agree that Shaw always tries to play ball control offense.  He did it when he had great defenses, good defenses, and mediocre defenses.  The only time he doesn't do it is when he has tried multiple times, failed, and it is thus futile to ground and pound - though even then he might try and still pound it (see MSU Rose Bowl fourth and 3 play).  That's my impression anyway.

The terminology "ball control offense" strikes me as a bit ironic, because obviously the best way to control the ball would be not to willingly give it away to the opponent on 4th down.  You guys are using it in the way everyone does, but maybe the term ought to be rethought.  

To me, letting the clock roll and being willing to pound the ball methodically down the field is a different decision than whether to go for it on 4th down.  It can be both/and rather than either/or.

[Phogge]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

No need to take things so literally. Hater vs hate has different connotations in today's world.  Perhaps this hasn't transcended generations effectively.

Aegist.

[Phogge]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

No need to take things so literally. Hater vs hate has different connotations in today's world.  Perhaps this hasn't transcended generations effectively.

Aegist.

[gailtate]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

No need to take things so literally. Hater vs hate has different connotations in today's world.  Perhaps this hasn't transcended generations effectively.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about the semi-literate "haters gotta hate", "He Hate Me" generation.  It's another sign of the imminent apocalypse. Language and words matter. Using words the way hookers use makeup is nothing new. But hookers still confine themselves to "discrete" neighborhoods. Semi-literates, not unlike like cockroaches, are omnipresent thanks in large part to social-media saturation. If only they could be exterminated as easily.

Aegist.

[gailtate]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

No need to take things so literally. Hater vs hate has different connotations in today's world.  Perhaps this hasn't transcended generations effectively.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about the semi-literate "haters gotta hate", "He Hate Me" generation.  It's another sign of the imminent apocalypse. Language and words matter. Using words the way hookers use makeup is nothing new. But hookers still confine themselves to "discrete" neighborhoods. Semi-literates, not unlike like cockroaches, are omnipresent thanks in large part to social-media saturation. If only they could be exterminated as easily.

Aegist.

[CTcard]

The terminology "ball control offense" strikes me as a bit ironic, because obviously the best way to control the ball would be not to willingly give it away to the opponent on 4th down.  You guys are using it in the way everyone does, but maybe the term ought to be rethought.  


To me, letting the clock roll and being willing to pound the ball methodically down the field is a different decision than whether to go for it on 4th down.  It can be both/and rather than either/or.

To me the term "ball control offense" also strikes me as odd as Stanford hasn't been the kind of team most people mean by that for at least three, really four years now.

The one element of that traditional definition that still applies is Stanford generally huddles and runs the play clock. Thus, they tend to have fewer plays per game than most. (though last year for the first time in a while, Stanford didn't have the fewest plays per game in the Pac 12)

Stanford throws the ball a high percentage of the time now. The last time Stanford attempted run plays over 50% of the time was 2017, the last time 60% of the time was 2016. In 2018 through 2020 Stanford was second or third in the conference in pass attempts per game, on a team that runs fewer plays overall.

Stanford also doesn't run a WSU-type (Leach) short-pass, ball-control passing offense. Stanford's been near the top of the conference in yds/att and yds/completion - though in 2019 when everything was awful they were in the bottom half there.

As we all surmise, Stanford is typically towards the bottom of the conference in fourth down attempts. I was surprised to see that Stanford has been pretty good at it when they did try. Tops in the conference in fourth down conversion rate in 2020, typically pretty high, and only dismal in 2019 when everything was dismal. I suppose that means Stanford only tries when its relatively easy, though I might have thought it would mean Stanford would have a higher percentage of desperation fourth down attempts than most.

[CTcard]

The terminology "ball control offense" strikes me as a bit ironic, because obviously the best way to control the ball would be not to willingly give it away to the opponent on 4th down.  You guys are using it in the way everyone does, but maybe the term ought to be rethought.  


To me, letting the clock roll and being willing to pound the ball methodically down the field is a different decision than whether to go for it on 4th down.  It can be both/and rather than either/or.

To me the term "ball control offense" also strikes me as odd as Stanford hasn't been the kind of team most people mean by that for at least three, really four years now.

The one element of that traditional definition that still applies is Stanford generally huddles and runs the play clock. Thus, they tend to have fewer plays per game than most. (though last year for the first time in a while, Stanford didn't have the fewest plays per game in the Pac 12)

Stanford throws the ball a high percentage of the time now. The last time Stanford attempted run plays over 50% of the time was 2017, the last time 60% of the time was 2016. In 2018 through 2020 Stanford was second or third in the conference in pass attempts per game, on a team that runs fewer plays overall.

Stanford also doesn't run a WSU-type (Leach) short-pass, ball-control passing offense. Stanford's been near the top of the conference in yds/att and yds/completion - though in 2019 when everything was awful they were in the bottom half there.

As we all surmise, Stanford is typically towards the bottom of the conference in fourth down attempts. I was surprised to see that Stanford has been pretty good at it when they did try. Tops in the conference in fourth down conversion rate in 2020, typically pretty high, and only dismal in 2019 when everything was dismal. I suppose that means Stanford only tries when its relatively easy, though I might have thought it would mean Stanford would have a higher percentage of desperation fourth down attempts than most.

[norcard]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

No need to take things so literally. Hater vs hate has different connotations in today's world.  Perhaps this hasn't transcended generations effectively.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about the semi-literate "haters gotta hate", "He Hate Me" generation.  It's another sign of the imminent apocalypse. Language and words matter. Using words the way hookers use makeup is nothing new. But hookers still confine themselves to "discrete" neighborhoods. Semi-literates, not unlike like cockroaches, are omnipresent thanks in large part to social-media saturation. If only they could be exterminated as easily.

Aegist.

Quite the tangent here

[norcard]

Now I know the season is almost here.  The shaw haters are out in force again!

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

No need to take things so literally. Hater vs hate has different connotations in today's world.  Perhaps this hasn't transcended generations effectively.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about the semi-literate "haters gotta hate", "He Hate Me" generation.  It's another sign of the imminent apocalypse. Language and words matter. Using words the way hookers use makeup is nothing new. But hookers still confine themselves to "discrete" neighborhoods. Semi-literates, not unlike like cockroaches, are omnipresent thanks in large part to social-media saturation. If only they could be exterminated as easily.

Aegist.

Quite the tangent here

[BostonCard]

Language is constantly changing.  Nobody alive today talks like this:

Lordinges that be now here,
If ye will, listen and lere
Al the story of Ingland
As Robert Mannyng written it fand
And on Inglysch has it schewed,
Not for the lerned but for the lewed
For tho that in this lande wone
That the latin ne frankys con

-Robert Manning, Story of England (1338)

BC

[BostonCard]

Language is constantly changing.  Nobody alive today talks like this:

Lordinges that be now here,
If ye will, listen and lere
Al the story of Ingland
As Robert Mannyng written it fand
And on Inglysch has it schewed,
Not for the lerned but for the lewed
For tho that in this lande wone
That the latin ne frankys con

-Robert Manning, Story of England (1338)

BC

[gailtate]

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

No need to take things so literally. Hater vs hate has different connotations in today's world.  Perhaps this hasn't transcended generations effectively.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about the semi-literate "haters gotta hate", "He Hate Me" generation.  It's another sign of the imminent apocalypse. Language and words matter. Using words the way hookers use makeup is nothing new. But hookers still confine themselves to "discrete" neighborhoods. Semi-literates, not unlike like cockroaches, are omnipresent thanks in large part to social-media saturation. If only they could be exterminated as easily.

Aegist.

Quite the tangent here

Nothing tangential here at all. I was directly citing the widespread lazy mis-use of the word "hate", which has been bastardized into a meaningless, urban-dictionary synonym that sloppily refers to "being critical of". But it's come to be cool, lazy-speak. It also signals that the speaker holds some kind of virtue. Refer to 'hate" this way and it signals that the other guy, the critic, is "hateful" and not as compassionate, fair-minded or informed or respectful or empathetic as the speaker. Ye olde virtue-signaler. They exist on both sides of the ideological divide today. A pox on both of their houses.

[gailtate]

There's a lot of territory between "hating" and having one's doubts. I have my doubts and I express them. Anyone who interprets this as hate has a head problem. Treatable, of course, but a problem nonetheless.

No need to take things so literally. Hater vs hate has different connotations in today's world.  Perhaps this hasn't transcended generations effectively.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about the semi-literate "haters gotta hate", "He Hate Me" generation.  It's another sign of the imminent apocalypse. Language and words matter. Using words the way hookers use makeup is nothing new. But hookers still confine themselves to "discrete" neighborhoods. Semi-literates, not unlike like cockroaches, are omnipresent thanks in large part to social-media saturation. If only they could be exterminated as easily.

Aegist.

Quite the tangent here

Nothing tangential here at all. I was directly citing the widespread lazy mis-use of the word "hate", which has been bastardized into a meaningless, urban-dictionary synonym that sloppily refers to "being critical of". But it's come to be cool, lazy-speak. It also signals that the speaker holds some kind of virtue. Refer to 'hate" this way and it signals that the other guy, the critic, is "hateful" and not as compassionate, fair-minded or informed or respectful or empathetic as the speaker. Ye olde virtue-signaler. They exist on both sides of the ideological divide today. A pox on both of their houses.