What was the moment that lost that game? - 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: What was the moment that lost that game? (/thread-23547.html)
+- 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: What was the moment that lost that game? (/thread-23547.html)
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - JohnR34231 - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 06:32 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:12 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-09-2022, 05:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote:(10-09-2022, 12:01 AM)Phogge Wrote: Agree with both of you although the defining moment may have been not choosing Fangio or Roman in 2011.
I really don’t understand this argument. Yes, Shaw is terrible now and the time has come for him to go (although it won’t happen anytime soon). But Shaw is also responsible for directing several of the best seasons in program history. There’s no guarantee and I’d actually argue that it’s highly unlikely that Fangio or Roman would have been able to replicate Shaw’s early success. Shaw was the right choice at the right time for the job. The state of the program at the time was such that it accentuated his strengths and minimized his weaknesses. Over the long haul, the state of the program has changed such that his weaknesses are exposed for all to see. But our current struggles are a price I’d gladly pay 10 times out of 10 for the euphoria of the Rose Bowls we experienced.
If you are a true Shaw boo-bird you think that Harbaugh left such a treasure chest that any coach worth his salt could have accomplished what Shaw did from 2011-2015. That's BS of course, but some people have convinced themselves that it is true,
I also agree that Shaw was the right pick at the time. He took Harbaugh's players and system and got spectacular results during his first five seasons. The problem is that there were visible cracks in the foundation as early as the 2016 and 2017 seasons (despite our winning the North in 2017). The trends were not good; the numbers pointed toward decline across the board. And once rot sets in, the descent can be rapid (as we finally discovered in 2019).
Though I would assert that Wisconsin, for example, shot too early in firing Chryst this season, the administration at Stanford (and David Shaw) have let this downward process go on for far too long; and getting out of this morass will be a painful, multi-year process for any successor who takes on the turnaround project. Shaw's ultimate failing is that he allowed the coaching staff to degrade during his tenure and never held his lieutenants accountable for their performance.
Seems to me like the inflection point was the two back to back blowout losses to Washington and Washington State in early 2016. We had won something like 14 out of our last 15 games up to then. Didn't seem to me we were ever quite the same afterward.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - gailtate - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 08:26 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:32 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:12 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-09-2022, 05:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote:(10-09-2022, 12:01 AM)Phogge Wrote: Agree with both of you although the defining moment may have been not choosing Fangio or Roman in 2011.
I really don’t understand this argument. Yes, Shaw is terrible now and the time has come for him to go (although it won’t happen anytime soon). But Shaw is also responsible for directing several of the best seasons in program history. There’s no guarantee and I’d actually argue that it’s highly unlikely that Fangio or Roman would have been able to replicate Shaw’s early success. Shaw was the right choice at the right time for the job. The state of the program at the time was such that it accentuated his strengths and minimized his weaknesses. Over the long haul, the state of the program has changed such that his weaknesses are exposed for all to see. But our current struggles are a price I’d gladly pay 10 times out of 10 for the euphoria of the Rose Bowls we experienced.
If you are a true Shaw boo-bird you think that Harbaugh left such a treasure chest that any coach worth his salt could have accomplished what Shaw did from 2011-2015. That's BS of course, but some people have convinced themselves that it is true,
I also agree that Shaw was the right pick at the time. He took Harbaugh's players and system and got spectacular results during his first five seasons. The problem is that there were visible cracks in the foundation as early as the 2016 and 2017 seasons (despite our winning the North in 2017). The trends were not good; the numbers pointed toward decline across the board. And once rot sets in, the descent can be rapid (as we finally discovered in 2019).
Though I would assert that Wisconsin, for example, shot too early in firing Chryst this season, the administration at Stanford (and David Shaw) have let this downward process go on for far too long; and getting out of this morass will be a painful, multi-year process for any successor who takes on the turnaround project. Shaw's ultimate failing is that he allowed the coaching staff to degrade during his tenure and never held his lieutenants accountable for their performance.
Seems to me like the inflection point was the two back to back blowout losses to Washington and Washington State in early 2016. We had won something like 14 out of our last 15 games up to then. Didn't seem to me we were ever quite the same afterward.
Damn good recollection. Makes good sense, too. In retrospect, the Pac12 North championship in 2017 was akin to the "dead-cat bounce". The end of the glory years was clearly in sight. Shaw was already coasting. Now? "Le Deluge". He had an unprecedented run and it should not be minimized. His time has passed, however. The longer he remains, the deeper the hole his successor will have to climb out of.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Austroturf - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 09:01 AM)gailtate Wrote:(10-09-2022, 08:26 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:32 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:12 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-09-2022, 05:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: I really don’t understand this argument. Yes, Shaw is terrible now and the time has come for him to go (although it won’t happen anytime soon). But Shaw is also responsible for directing several of the best seasons in program history. There’s no guarantee and I’d actually argue that it’s highly unlikely that Fangio or Roman would have been able to replicate Shaw’s early success. Shaw was the right choice at the right time for the job. The state of the program at the time was such that it accentuated his strengths and minimized his weaknesses. Over the long haul, the state of the program has changed such that his weaknesses are exposed for all to see. But our current struggles are a price I’d gladly pay 10 times out of 10 for the euphoria of the Rose Bowls we experienced.
If you are a true Shaw boo-bird you think that Harbaugh left such a treasure chest that any coach worth his salt could have accomplished what Shaw did from 2011-2015. That's BS of course, but some people have convinced themselves that it is true,
I also agree that Shaw was the right pick at the time. He took Harbaugh's players and system and got spectacular results during his first five seasons. The problem is that there were visible cracks in the foundation as early as the 2016 and 2017 seasons (despite our winning the North in 2017). The trends were not good; the numbers pointed toward decline across the board. And once rot sets in, the descent can be rapid (as we finally discovered in 2019).
Though I would assert that Wisconsin, for example, shot too early in firing Chryst this season, the administration at Stanford (and David Shaw) have let this downward process go on for far too long; and getting out of this morass will be a painful, multi-year process for any successor who takes on the turnaround project. Shaw's ultimate failing is that he allowed the coaching staff to degrade during his tenure and never held his lieutenants accountable for their performance.
Seems to me like the inflection point was the two back to back blowout losses to Washington and Washington State in early 2016. We had won something like 14 out of our last 15 games up to then. Didn't seem to me we were ever quite the same afterward.
Damn good recollection. Makes good sense, too. In retrospect, the Pac12 North championship in 2017 was akin to the "dead-cat bounce". The end of the glory years was clearly in sight. Shaw was already coasting. Now? "Le Deluge". He had an unprecedented run and it should not be minimized. His time has passed, however. The longer he remains, the deeper the hole his successor will have to climb out of.
Yes, that 2016 blowout loss to the Huskies in Seattle felt like a sea-change: once the home of "intellectual brutality", Stanford was brutalized by the Dawgs on both sides of the line. Burns and Chryst were running for their lives, while CMac was stymied every time he got the ball. The first seven games of that season were a sign that the foundation for Stanford's brand of football was no longer firm, especially after that travesty of a home loss to Colorado (10-5!). A few stand-out players, most notably Bryce Love in 2017, helped plaster over the cracks during this period; but the crumbling continued apace, and last night's game represents a logical nadir (or can it still get worse?).
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - ADPinWDC - 10-09-2022
After going 3-9, Shaw refuses to bring in new talent -- such as New OffCo, new DefCo.
No new blood, no new thinking.
Winning programs regularly change up talent.
Shaw is only one of three programs in USA to sit on a Busted Flush.
No new blood -- Fatal.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Alvin - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 08:26 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:32 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:12 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-09-2022, 05:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote:(10-09-2022, 12:01 AM)Phogge Wrote: Agree with both of you although the defining moment may have been not choosing Fangio or Roman in 2011.
I really don’t understand this argument. Yes, Shaw is terrible now and the time has come for him to go (although it won’t happen anytime soon). But Shaw is also responsible for directing several of the best seasons in program history. There’s no guarantee and I’d actually argue that it’s highly unlikely that Fangio or Roman would have been able to replicate Shaw’s early success. Shaw was the right choice at the right time for the job. The state of the program at the time was such that it accentuated his strengths and minimized his weaknesses. Over the long haul, the state of the program has changed such that his weaknesses are exposed for all to see. But our current struggles are a price I’d gladly pay 10 times out of 10 for the euphoria of the Rose Bowls we experienced.
If you are a true Shaw boo-bird you think that Harbaugh left such a treasure chest that any coach worth his salt could have accomplished what Shaw did from 2011-2015. That's BS of course, but some people have convinced themselves that it is true,
I also agree that Shaw was the right pick at the time. He took Harbaugh's players and system and got spectacular results during his first five seasons. The problem is that there were visible cracks in the foundation as early as the 2016 and 2017 seasons (despite our winning the North in 2017). The trends were not good; the numbers pointed toward decline across the board. And once rot sets in, the descent can be rapid (as we finally discovered in 2019).
Though I would assert that Wisconsin, for example, shot too early in firing Chryst this season, the administration at Stanford (and David Shaw) have let this downward process go on for far too long; and getting out of this morass will be a painful, multi-year process for any successor who takes on the turnaround project. Shaw's ultimate failing is that he allowed the coaching staff to degrade during his tenure and never held his lieutenants accountable for their performance.
Seems to me like the inflection point was the two back to back blowout losses to Washington and Washington State in early 2016. We had won something like 14 out of our last 15 games up to then. Didn't seem to me we were ever quite the same afterward.
Agree with most of the sentiments in this thread except for two. I think Shaw did a helluva job in the Covid lockdown year of 2020 where we spent the final month of the season practicing and playing on the road with wins at Oregon St, UW, and UCLA to name a few. Mills was held out of the Oregon game and missed practicing the entire week leading up to Colorado because of a stupid false positive and no symptoms. We played at Oregon with the worst starting QB in Stanford football history (West). It took Mills a half during the Colorado game to get into form. I think we could have won both of those game or at least finished 5-1 and a Jan 1 bowl berth had Mills not been mistakenly kept out of practice and the Oregon game. Not to mention we had a very young team at the skill positions, offensive line and at most defensive positions.
The other comment I want to respond is the decision to not hire Fangio or Roman. I can't comment on Roman, because I don't know much about him, but Fangio was ready to be put out to pasture in 2010. He looked old and tired in my opinion and not someone who could at least maintain or take Stanford to new heights. Sort of like Walt Harris in 2005 or even Bill Walsh in the mid 90s. Shaw was the right choice. But now it's time for Stanford football to drop football or shift down to a lower division...unless drastic changes are made to academic and transfer policies.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Goose - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 10:00 AM)Austroturf Wrote: Yes, that 2016 blowout loss to the Huskies in Seattle felt like a sea-change: once the home of "intellectual brutality", Stanford was brutalized by the Dawgs on both sides of the line. Burns and Chryst were running for their lives, while CMac was stymied every time he got the ball. The first seven games of that season were a sign that the foundation for Stanford's brand of football was no longer firm, especially after that travesty of a home loss to Colorado (10-5!). A few stand-out players, most notably Bryce Love in 2017, helped plaster over the cracks during this period; but the crumbling continued apace, and last night's game represents a logical nadir (or can it still get worse?).I think Utah last year was far worse.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - CowboyIndian - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 08:04 AM)PVTree Wrote: At the time, I told my friend that those 3 points may come back to hunt us.
They found us...and killed us.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Phogge - 10-09-2022
I don't buy the argument that Fangio and Roman couldn't have had Shaw-like success if they had ascended to the throne. Oh yeah, they weren't Stanford Men. As far as I know Harballs wasn't cheating and there is no story about him hitting on professors' daughters so why don't you guys like him? Oh yeah, he wasn't a Stanford Man.
Shaw is a Stanford Man. And right now he's doing a shitty job.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Softball Fan - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 10:50 AM)Alvin Wrote:(10-09-2022, 08:26 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:32 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(10-09-2022, 06:12 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(10-09-2022, 05:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: I really don’t understand this argument. Yes, Shaw is terrible now and the time has come for him to go (although it won’t happen anytime soon). But Shaw is also responsible for directing several of the best seasons in program history. There’s no guarantee and I’d actually argue that it’s highly unlikely that Fangio or Roman would have been able to replicate Shaw’s early success. Shaw was the right choice at the right time for the job. The state of the program at the time was such that it accentuated his strengths and minimized his weaknesses. Over the long haul, the state of the program has changed such that his weaknesses are exposed for all to see. But our current struggles are a price I’d gladly pay 10 times out of 10 for the euphoria of the Rose Bowls we experienced.
If you are a true Shaw boo-bird you think that Harbaugh left such a treasure chest that any coach worth his salt could have accomplished what Shaw did from 2011-2015. That's BS of course, but some people have convinced themselves that it is true,
I also agree that Shaw was the right pick at the time. He took Harbaugh's players and system and got spectacular results during his first five seasons. The problem is that there were visible cracks in the foundation as early as the 2016 and 2017 seasons (despite our winning the North in 2017). The trends were not good; the numbers pointed toward decline across the board. And once rot sets in, the descent can be rapid (as we finally discovered in 2019).
Though I would assert that Wisconsin, for example, shot too early in firing Chryst this season, the administration at Stanford (and David Shaw) have let this downward process go on for far too long; and getting out of this morass will be a painful, multi-year process for any successor who takes on the turnaround project. Shaw's ultimate failing is that he allowed the coaching staff to degrade during his tenure and never held his lieutenants accountable for their performance.
Seems to me like the inflection point was the two back to back blowout losses to Washington and Washington State in early 2016. We had won something like 14 out of our last 15 games up to then. Didn't seem to me we were ever quite the same afterward.
...unless drastic changes are made to academic and transfer policies.
I sure hope it doesn't come to that. Stanford alums would also have to start playing the NIL game for Stanford to become relevant on the national football scene. The obstacles may be too great to overcome. It would be interesting to pose the question to the Stanford student body about what should be done with the football team.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Alvin - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 07:01 PM)Phogge Wrote: I don't buy the argument that Fangio and Roman couldn't have had Shaw-like success if they had ascended to the throne. Oh yeah, they weren't Stanford Men. As far as I know Harballs wasn't cheating and there is no story about him hitting on professors' daughters so why don't you guys like him? Oh yeah, he wasn't a Stanford Man.
Shaw is a Stanford Man. And right now he's doing a shitty job.
Harbaugh wasn't a Stanford man and was awesome. I'd hire Saban, Belichick, John Harbaugh, Urban Meyer, Chris Petersen, Gary Patterson, Mike Leach, Andy Reid, Sean McDermott, in a heartbeat, are any of them Stanford men? Shaw was the best of the three finalists, played college football under Green and Walsh, had NFL coaching experience on several teams with some of the best coaches, and importantly for me, the son of a football coach. He seemed to relate well with players and a fine leader of young men.
I think being a "Stanford man" has many disadvantages, like not wanting to rock the boat and complacency ("it is what it is"), lack of ambition (like the person whose goal in life is to teach at the high school he attended - a loser), the "check the box", <irrelevant political information removed following complaints from other members> do what you're told, never question authority in a meaningful way Stanford man. No thanks.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - BostonCard - 10-09-2022
(10-09-2022, 07:01 PM)Phogge Wrote: I don't buy the argument that Fangio and Roman couldn't have had Shaw-like success if they had ascended to the throne. Oh yeah, they weren't Stanford Men. As far as I know Harballs wasn't cheating and there is no story about him hitting on professors' daughters so why don't you guys like him? Oh yeah, he wasn't a Stanford Man.
Shaw is a Stanford Man. And right now he's doing a shitty job.
Who doesn’t like Harbaugh? He had his rough edges, always had one foot out the door, and wore out his welcome, but he resurrected Stanford football, and for that we should always be thankful.
BC
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Austroturf - 10-10-2022
(10-09-2022, 04:47 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-09-2022, 10:00 AM)Austroturf Wrote: Yes, that 2016 blowout loss to the Huskies in Seattle felt like a sea-change: once the home of "intellectual brutality", Stanford was brutalized by the Dawgs on both sides of the line. Burns and Chryst were running for their lives, while CMac was stymied every time he got the ball. The first seven games of that season were a sign that the foundation for Stanford's brand of football was no longer firm, especially after that travesty of a home loss to Colorado (10-5!). A few stand-out players, most notably Bryce Love in 2017, helped plaster over the cracks during this period; but the crumbling continued apace, and last night's game represents a logical nadir (or can it still get worse?).I think Utah last year was far worse.
Well, that was against a very good Utah team. The way we choked last Saturday was against a decidedly average Beaver squad with its second string QB. Plus, this defeat sets a Stanford record for consecutive losses to FBS teams. Feels like a relative nadir, which could be exceeded this coming Saturday. Anyway, we can quibble about where rock bottom is. We are at or near it right now.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - JohnR34231 - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 01:49 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(10-09-2022, 04:47 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-09-2022, 10:00 AM)Austroturf Wrote: Yes, that 2016 blowout loss to the Huskies in Seattle felt like a sea-change: once the home of "intellectual brutality", Stanford was brutalized by the Dawgs on both sides of the line. Burns and Chryst were running for their lives, while CMac was stymied every time he got the ball. The first seven games of that season were a sign that the foundation for Stanford's brand of football was no longer firm, especially after that travesty of a home loss to Colorado (10-5!). A few stand-out players, most notably Bryce Love in 2017, helped plaster over the cracks during this period; but the crumbling continued apace, and last night's game represents a logical nadir (or can it still get worse?).I think Utah last year was far worse.
Well, that was against a very good Utah team. The way we choked last Saturday was against a decidedly average Beaver squad with its second string QB. Plus, this defeat sets a Stanford record for consecutive losses to FBS teams. Feels like a relative nadir, which could be exceeded this coming Saturday. Anyway, we can quibble about where rock bottom is. We are at or near it right now.
Yep, and we were playing with our second string QB against Utah.
Not that things got much better when McKee returned.
Fortunately, ND is not a particularly good team this year by ND standards. So maybe we can hope for a respectable outcome, although I think our chances of winning are just about zilch.
As far as Shaw doing an excellent job in 2020, I agree with that sentiment. It made one hope that 2019 was something of a fluke. Unfortunately subsequent events have clearly shown it wasn't.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Goose - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 01:49 AM)Austroturf Wrote:The Colorado game definitely showed that Stanford had serious OL problems. Nobody wanted to hear it back then, but it was a fact. Lots of that got covered up by great individual talents elsewhere exploiting weaknesses in opposing defenses. The Coaches were able to "work around" a systemic problem for a while. On the one hand, they were good enough coaches to put in place the "work-arounds". OTOH, they weren't good enough coaches to recognize and fix the systemic problem.(10-09-2022, 04:47 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-09-2022, 10:00 AM)Austroturf Wrote: Yes, that 2016 blowout loss to the Huskies in Seattle felt like a sea-change: once the home of "intellectual brutality", Stanford was brutalized by the Dawgs on both sides of the line. Burns and Chryst were running for their lives, while CMac was stymied every time he got the ball. The first seven games of that season were a sign that the foundation for Stanford's brand of football was no longer firm, especially after that travesty of a home loss to Colorado (10-5!). A few stand-out players, most notably Bryce Love in 2017, helped plaster over the cracks during this period; but the crumbling continued apace, and last night's game represents a logical nadir (or can it still get worse?).I think Utah last year was far worse.
Well, that was against a very good Utah team. The way we choked last Saturday was against a decidedly average Beaver squad with its second string QB. Plus, this defeat sets a Stanford record for consecutive losses to FBS teams. Feels like a relative nadir, which could be exceeded this coming Saturday. Anyway, we can quibble about where rock bottom is. We are at or near it right now.
However bad those problems were, those teams never "quit". Against Utah last year, no matter what one says about the relative stringths of the teams, IMHO Stanford quit, and quit pretty early on, possibly from the first play. This year's team hasn't quit, at least not yet. IMHO, quitting is the nadir.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - StanfordMatt - 10-10-2022
(10-10-2022, 08:44 AM)Goose Wrote: However bad those problems were, those teams never "quit". Against Utah last year, no matter what one says about the relative stringths of the teams, IMHO Stanford quit, and quit pretty early on, possibly from the first play. This year's team hasn't quit, at least not yet. IMHO, quitting is the nadir.
Respectfully disagree. When Bo Nix outruns 11 defenders over 80 yards to the end zone, players quit. That was one of the most pathetic displays of effort I've ever seen from a Stanford team.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Phogge - 10-10-2022
Respectably disagree BC. Engaging guy when it's just you two shooting baskets in Maples before an interview. Talked about the class he inherited and how it was not even close to what was coming.
Site goers bought into the "how hard it is to get along with him" in the building. I'd rather have a coach who wears it on his sleeve than a Zombie dressed in black patrolling the sideline.
I'd rather have a Saban than a grandfather like a Curtice. A Dabo over an Elway. But... I'm only a Gator.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - BostonCard - 10-10-2022
Disagree about what? Harbaugh wasn’t fired and wasn’t pushed out. I think everyone would have been happy to have him stay as long as he wanted to, but it was clear from his second year that Harbaugh was going to leave at the first decent opportunity he had (hell, he almost left for a crappy opportunity in Kansas!). I think by the time he left, people were at peace with his decision. Let’s face it, he just wasn’t all that into Stanford, which is fine, but you don’t want to get too emotionally invested into someone who’s just not all that into you.
BC
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Phogge - 10-10-2022
OK. Still think many here were happy to see him leave.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - Spiny_Norman - 10-10-2022
I don't think there was a single moment that Stanford lost the game (other than the obvious answer, the winning TD pass for OSU). But it was a succession of little failures in the 4th quarter that added up.
- allowing OSU to score a TD on 4th and 8 when Nicolas Toomer turned the wrong way to look for the ball on a back shoulder pass
- Stanford then drove the ball to the OSU 44 before the drive stalled and they punted. A good defensive stand forced a 3 and out by the Beavers. Stanford was looking at good field position. But a mediocre OSU punt got 10-15 extra yards of roll. On top of that, Stanford was holding on the punt, then got caught holding again on the 2nd down play. The result was effectively a 66 yard punt. Stanford was backed up to its 17 yard line. Thanks to a little luck and Stanford mistakes, OSU had flipped the field. Oregon State scored again 1:14 later.
- suboptimal time management on the final Stanford drive. McKee could have waited longer to snap the ball.
- on the winning TD pass, Bonner did not locate the ball until the receiver had picked it off the top of his head. Still not sure why Fields held up. Waiting for a ricochet? Not wanting to hit a defenseless player and get a targeting call?
- btw, OSU's held the ball for for 3:44 in the 4th quarter and scored 18 points. Stanford had the ball for 11:16 and scored 3 points.
RE: What was the moment that lost that game? - PAsportsfan - 10-10-2022
Is this a trick question?
The moment Shaw entered the stadium.