The CardBoard
Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . (/thread-10828.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - Hulk01 - 11-29-2015

Hate this thread, too.  Not even going to address the issues.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - cardcrimson - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 09:12 AM)winflop link Wrote:I'm not saying "Fire Shaw" I'm just saying he made some very questionable decisions in the fourth quarter that exhibit a tendancy toward excessive conservatism late in the game.  Hogan bailed him out.  I'd really like to see him stick with what's working until the clock has wound down much further.

I hope it's not an issue next weekend and our boys take the Toejams to the woodshed early and often.  But something tells me they are in for a real battle.  This is not the same U$C team they faced in Week 3, but maybe Stanford isn't either.

I'm not saying "Fire Shaw" either (the headline did grab some attention, though). As I hit our driveway, the radio announcers we're quite clear in their opinions, that the clock management and some of the earlier play calling, had left Stanford with little chance to win with only 30secs left. Fortunately, the little chance came through.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - stupac2 - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 08:36 AM)garvin link Wrote:I think the arguments for saving the timeouts for your offense, though perhaps not decisive, are a lot better than anybody is acknowledging. Opening the middle of the field -- and even, possibly, the running game -- for your offense are big, big, big benefits of keeping your timeouts.

I'm not sure why people keep saying this. In college the clock stops for a first down, so you have plenty of time to get up to the line and spike it or run a play. If you have 30 seconds left, sure, that's not enough, but that's not the counterfactual we're talking about. If we use a couple TOs on defense the offense has something like 1:30 left, plenty of time to use the middle of the field even with only 1 TO. Remember, each TO used on defense saves ~35 seconds of game clock.

I do understand what Shaw was going for, though I disagree. If ND had been out of time outs then I think his strategy would've made some more sense, because a sack or some other sufficiently broken play could effectively end the game. The problem, of course, is that our DL isn't good enough to get those plays, so counting on them isn't super reliable.

That said, this reminds me of the discussion around Belichick's lack of TO in a similar position in the Super Bowl, though of course that worked out in a slightly different way. These decisions are hard and sometimes there's no clearly right answer.

But I'm still with WiM, the overall game strategy was lacking. ND was too fast and too prepared for the run to keep running it right at them. We needed to call more screens or even straight run plays. They sold out to stop the most dangerous part of our offense and it very nearly worked them, and it shouldn't have been so close.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - MustardtheBallCarrier - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 09:24 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Hate this thread, too.  Not even going to address the issues.

But if we miss the kick, then this is fair game?  I think Shaw is great.  I hope he coaches Stanford for another 20 years.  I'm uncomfortable with poor decision-making, win or lose, and last night Shaw made a complete mess of the end of the fourth quarter.  Yes, I'm thrilled we won, but he did not put the team in the best position to win.  Most importantly, this is entirely correctable. 

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - CowboyIndian - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 08:11 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:As long as the dumb decisions work more often than not, why would he stop making them?

If they're working more often than not, maybe it's time to quit calling them dumb decisions.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - OutsiderFan - 11-29-2015

Well, you could wear a suit made of raw meat and run by a sleeping lion several times without being taken down, but that doesn't mean it's a great idea if you value your life.  It might be better to avoid putting on the suit and running by the lion in the first place.  :)

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - winflop - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 08:30 AM)martyup link Wrote:How many more 10+ win seasons will it take to convince you doubters that he is an elite coach?

I think Shaw **IS** an elite coach.  But I think he can be better, and I think he will need to be for Stanford to win a national championship - something I think this program is now capable of doing, and something I wasn't sure I would ever say.  He will have to be more willing to keep the pedal to the metal in the fourth quarter and stick with what's working even when he has a lead.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - Hulk01 - 11-29-2015

I'm sorry, but we are taking radio announcers' commentary as evidence of the wisdom of coaching decisions?

You need a timeout for the field goal, and a timeout to throw to the middle--that's two. 

Notre Dame was going to bleed the clock.  Had Shaw burned a time out, Kelly would have countered to suck back up that time.

Some people are acting as we were playing a coach-less team.

And as if coaches have not run through late game scenarios like this exact one hundreds of times. 

And as if radio announcers and fans have run those scenarios, these same fans who consistently remind players and coaches that college football games are like churches: Many attend but few understand.



Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - stupac2 - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 03:41 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:You need a timeout for the field goal, and a timeout to throw to the middle--that's two.

Uh, what? Both of these are wrong. If you only have 30 seconds left, sure, you need TOs for those, but if you have a minute and a half you sure don't.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't necessarily think that Shaw was wrong with the TO use. It certainly worked out fine, though I think if ND had failed to score right away we might've been in trouble. But I don't think he was so obviously correct that it's insane to question him.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - BostonCard - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 03:43 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=13797.msg144610#msg144610 date=1448836873]You need a timeout for the field goal, and a timeout to throw to the middle--that's two.

Uh, what? Both of these are wrong. If you only have 30 seconds left, sure, you need TOs for those, but if you have a minute and a half you sure don't.
[/quote]

The game dynamic would have been different with fewer time outs and more time.  Overall, it would have probably been more favorable, but you never know.  And there was always the possibility that we would have scored too quickly.

BC

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - Rally - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 03:52 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13797.msg144612#msg144612 date=1448836997]
[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=13797.msg144610#msg144610 date=1448836873]You need a timeout for the field goal, and a timeout to throw to the middle--that's two.

Uh, what? Both of these are wrong. If you only have 30 seconds left, sure, you need TOs for those, but if you have a minute and a half you sure don't.
[/quote]

The game dynamic would have been different with fewer time outs and more time.  Overall, it would have probably been more favorable, but you never know.  And there was always the possibility that we would have scored too quickly.

BC
[/quote]

I thought we had and was, briefly, dreading having to kick off.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - HisKneeWasDown - 11-29-2015

I was thinking the thing to do was to let UDFG score quickly, leaving 2+ minutes to drive down for the game-winning FG.

Remember Mike Montgomery's philosophy about calling TOs? They only give the other team time to prepare.


Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - stupac2 - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 03:52 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The game dynamic would have been different with fewer time outs and more time.  Overall, it would have probably been more favorable, but you never know.  And there was always the possibility that we would have scored too quickly.

Exactly. I think the way they played ND's last drive wasn't optimal, but I don't think the difference is very large, although had the Kizer TD been called correctly I think there's a good chance we lose, which is kind of amazing to think about.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - Rally - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 04:45 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13797.msg144615#msg144615 date=1448837536]The game dynamic would have been different with fewer time outs and more time.  Overall, it would have probably been more favorable, but you never know.  And there was always the possibility that we would have scored too quickly.

Exactly. I think the way they played ND's last drive wasn't optimal, but I don't think the difference is very large, although had the Kizer TD been called correctly I think there's a good chance we lose, which is kind of amazing to think about.
[/quote]

Amazing is right.  When was the last time we rooted for an opponent's non-TD to be incorrectly called good? 

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - fullmetal - 11-29-2015

With ~8 min to go on our second-to-last offensive possession, I thought the playcalling was abysmal.  I actually said out loud that Shaw had gone into clock-killing mode way too early, and lo and behold, a three-and-out happened.  It's been said earlier, and I'll say it again--not once was I convinced that our OL could handle the USB sell-out run blitz.  Worked a couple of times, but didn't work the majority of the game.  In fact, I was hoping for at lot more playaction off of that.

If an opponent will gamble hard against you, you've got to take advantage of their weakness.

But hail Stanford, hail.  We're not LSU or UGA, and though we make poor decisions, we sometimes still win...

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - dabigv13 - 11-29-2015

It was very interesting that we called TO with 6 seconds. If you read Martinez' postgame comments, he even remarked on how he was getting ready for a kickoff, but the clock operator kept it rolling. If I were ND I wouldve raised a stink....

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - Hulk01 - 11-29-2015

You don't have more time left--HOW CLEAR can we make this?  Kelly would have bled the clock, and the only effect of our time out would have been to give us one less time out, and not 30 seconds more time.

I give up trying to explain this. 

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - Extra Point - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 07:47 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:You don't have more time left--HOW CLEAR can we make this?  Kelly would have bled the clock, and the only effect of our time out would have been to give us one less time out, and not 30 seconds more time.

I give up trying to explain this.

You may not be getting through to a particular person, but you are providing insight to others

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - stupac2 - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 07:47 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:You don't have more time left--HOW CLEAR can we make this?  Kelly would have bled the clock, and the only effect of our time out would have been to give us one less time out, and not 30 seconds more time.

I give up trying to explain this.

Hulk, I generally admire you, but you are just wrong here and being condescending about it isn't a good look. If you were right then Kelly wouldn't have even given us the 30 seconds he did. If they had been down 2, then sure, they could take their time since the points would be basically guaranteed, but since they didn't know they could score at will they were maximizing their chance of scoring on every play. Taking TOs would have given us extra time (how much is impossible to say, but it clearly would have been at least 20 seconds per) and with college timing rules TOs aren't as valuable on offense. I think our win probability increases a little bit if we use the time outs, but it's not nearly as obvious as either you are or the (apparent, since I wasn't listening) radio announcers were making it out to be.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - CTcard - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 09:24 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Hate this thread, too.  Not even going to address the issues.

I think I am a little uncomfotable with the tone of the thread, if not necessarily the substance.

It is the very function of a board like this to muse about, "If I were the coach, I have done ...". So, go ahead and postulate about strategy. However, it could also be done with a thought that it is at least possible one's own ideas are either not better than Shaw's - or not much better in cases where things are far from clear.

In addition, a coach makes lots of decisions in a game. There is no coach anywhere where every single one is the absolute best (beyond the fact that there is no such thing as an absolute best decision most of the time). It's worth remembering that when it seems Shaw made a bad to questionable choice.

So, a few add ons (which might be crazy wrong).

1. I also think taking the timeouts while Notre Dame was down deep would probably have been a good idea. There are some attitude issues I wouldn't like about that decision, but still think it would have been a better idea for increasing our chances.

Given how the game actually unfolded, and what it appeared und was trying to do (i.e. score as soon as able), I am fairly sure that using TOs would have given us more time at the end. I probably would have preferred keeping one TO and having some amount more time as a trade off. But, of course it is not clear and the difference in effect is probably not so large as people are imagining.

[And I also thought that the kick was through the uprights with 0:02 on the clock - nothing like a home-hand on the clock to make sure we didn't have to do a kickoff.]

2. On our last two ineffective drives, while I believe in concept that we should have passed more and perhaps utilized more personnel, still there was only one particular call that I really disliked given the particular situation at the time.

ON the first of the two, McCaffrey got 5 then 4 yards on the first two plays. Both pretty good, and in general we'd been great on third and short in this game and this year. Running with McCaffrey in the game fairly deep in our own territory gives a lot more options that with Wright. At the least, it wasn't crazy to run McCaffrey up the gut there.

On the second series, first remember it wasn't a three and out. McCaffrey rushed for 8 then 2 yards for a first down. When he then got stuffed, we did throw an underneath pass to Rector for 6 (I think on a check-down, but that is on a memory I am not too sure of). The Hogan sweep I didn't like on third down - especially given how well other plays were working. So that's the one play I really didn't like.