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. . . . - BostonCard - 11-29-2015

(11-29-2015, 08:24 PM)CTcard link Wrote: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.

On #1...
This year we've converted 40/47 (85%) of our third and shorts (defined as 1-3 yards to go) when rushing; 33 were first downs and 7 were touchdowns.  That is awesome.
McCaffrey has converted 9/11 when rushing on third and short, which means that before yesterday, he failed to get a first down once.
Wright though, was better.  He's converted 24/25 third downs when he has less than 3 yards to go; 19 first downs and 5 touchdowns.
For my money, with the game potentially on the line, I put Wright in there.  To paraphrase a Geico commercial, "If you're Remound Wright, you get first downs.  That's what you do."

Or you run the bunch formation and throw out of it.  Notre Dame was absolutely being abused on the fakes.

On #2...
I agree with you.  I think a pass to Hooper would have been more effective.  That being said, it's a tough spot for us; we've struggled converting third and intermediate (4-6 yards) all year; rushing we have converted 8 of 16, while passing we have converted 9/22 (7 first downs, 2 touchdowns) chances.  Given how Hogan was playing, throwing to a tight end was our best bet, but as you pointed out, "one's own ideas are... not much better when things are far from clear"

BC

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

How many of you are sure you would make these reasoned, carefully thought-out, statistically based decisions, with 50,000 screaming people and other people in your headset, your heart racing, the game clock ticking, not wanting to risk a delay of game, Goya keep everyone back on the sideline, knowing the camera is zoomed in on you, players on the field looking at you, subs crowding around, bedlam . . . . And knowing there's a good chance someone on Cardboard is going to second guess you.  You?  How about you?  Step right up.  Here's the headset.  Ready?  Cue the band.  Go!

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

(11-29-2015, 09:26 PM)ferrari link Wrote:How many of you are sure you would make these reasoned, carefully thought-out, statistically based decisions, with 50,000 screaming people and other people in your headset, your heart racing, the game clock ticking, not wanting to risk a delay of game, Goya keep everyone back on the sideline, knowing the camera is zoomed in on you, players on the field looking at you, subs crowding around, bedlam . . . . And knowing there's a good chance someone on Cardboard is going to second guess you.  You?  How about you?  Step right up.  Here's the headset.  Ready?  Cue the band.  Go!

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. First, some of the decisions we're talking about actually aren't hard to make in real time, people do it while watching or in the game threads all the time. Second, does it matter? We talk about lots of things we can't control on sports board, are we supposed to just shut up about everything we personally can't or don't do? So what would there be to talk about?

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

(11-29-2015, 09:26 PM)ferrari link Wrote:Goya keep everyone back on the sideline,

I think that would work.
[Image: prado9.jpg]

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

Yeah, I don't like the 'how dare anyone who hasn't coached college football question strategy after a win' tone either (maybe presumptuous on my part regarding the intent of your post CT), because there are some interesting things to discuss, particularly after a win when it doesn't hurt so much.

So time outs.  Isn't stopping the clock literally stopping time? You don't just lose time outs, you gain a minute of game time (or so - wasn't paying attention to when they were snapping the ball). Time was not an issue for ND, but was looking like it would be for Stanford. You can't get it back. If the Irish bleed the entire clock so be it. But it's harder to bleed an extra 70 seconds.

Fortunately ND called a TO of their own, Stanford had 3 TOs with them at the end (not always the case this year), ND scored quickly (legit replay I thought), Hogan threw a laser with zero margin for error, and CU was nails, or they would have needed more time than they had left.

Btw New England took defensive time out with Denver driving for lead. Saved 30 seconds for Brady in the snow.

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

New England tied game with 0:04 on clock and out of time outs. Drove from their own 20. Denver would have won in regulation of NE saved their TO while on defense.

Don't think the TV and radio announcers were crazy to question Stanford's strategy.

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

Neither here nor there, but Broncos won in OT.

By the way, that the Patriots managed to win by using their time outs (they had one left) doesn't mean that Shaw's strategy was wrong, just that there are more than one ways to skin the cat.  It is a tradeoff between having more time in your pocket versus more time outs.  On offense you can move quickly without using time outs, running a play every 10 seconds or so if you do it right, so generally I favor burning them on defense (where you can save 40 second per time out).  But having the time outs on offense does open up your offense much more than having time.

And there is the psychological aspect of it that doesn't get mentioned much.  By calling a time out, you are basically telling your defense that you don't think they'll be able to stop the other team (not that it was wrong, but it's different when the coach admits it.

Finally, I think CTCard's tone was anything like "how dare anyone who hasn't coached college football..."  He specifically mentioned that he didn't object to the content, but the tone, and that while it is reasonable to say "If I were coach, I'd have called time out when we were on defense", that should at least come with the implicit acknowledgement that a different call would, at best, be only marginally better than the strategy employed, given the vast amount of uncertainty in these things.  In other words, reasonable people can disagree on what the right strategy, but it seems a bit much to call a given strategy "abysmal", even if you think it is sub-optimal.

BC

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

(11-29-2015, 09:26 PM)ferrari link Wrote:How many of you are sure you would make these reasoned, carefully thought-out, statistically based decisions, with 50,000 screaming people and other people in your headset, your heart racing, the game clock ticking, not wanting to risk a delay of game, Goya keep everyone back on the sideline, knowing the camera is zoomed in on you, players on the field looking at you, subs crowding around, bedlam . . . . And knowing there's a good chance someone on Cardboard is going to second guess you.  You?  How about you?  Step right up.  Here's the headset.  Ready?  Cue the band.  Go!

Check the game thread. I was fully capable of calling two time outs in real time. And for free. Pay me $3.5 million per annum guaranteed? I can make all kinds of second-guessable decisions with a smile on my nationally televised face.😀

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

(11-29-2015, 09:35 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=13797.msg144721#msg144721 date=1448857577]
How many of you are sure you would make these reasoned, carefully thought-out, statistically based decisions, with 50,000 screaming people and other people in your headset, your heart racing, the game clock ticking, not wanting to risk a delay of game, Goya keep everyone back on the sideline, knowing the camera is zoomed in on you, players on the field looking at you, subs crowding around, bedlam . . . . And knowing there's a good chance someone on Cardboard is going to second guess you.  You?  How about you?  Step right up.  Here's the headset.  Ready?  Cue the band.  Go!

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. First, some of the decisions we're talking about actually aren't hard to make in real time, people do it while watching or in the game threads all the time. Second, does it matter? We talk about lots of things we can't control on sports board, are we supposed to just shut up about everything we personally can't or don't do? So what would there be to talk about?
[/quote]

Oh don't get in a lather, Stupac.  These things are fun and part of being a passionate fan.  I get that.  I was just trying to put the decision making and execution, and communication of those decisions, into context.  Sitting in front of the big screen with a beer and chips shouting, "no!  Do this instead!" Isn't exactly the same thing as being there.  Ever thought, after the fact, "why didn't I do this or that instead?"  Well, because, in the heat of the moment you didn't think that way.  Later, with a fire and single malt, it all becomes clear.  We still beat ourselves up, but easier to realized why I should have said is easier than having always said the right thing at the time.  Sometimes it happens, sometimes not.  If it happens more often than not you get the big bucks. :)

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

(11-29-2015, 10:02 PM)jacketree link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=13797.msg144721#msg144721 date=1448857577]
How many of you are sure you would make these reasoned, carefully thought-out, statistically based decisions, with 50,000 screaming people and other people in your headset, your heart racing, the game clock ticking, not wanting to risk a delay of game, Goya keep everyone back on the sideline, knowing the camera is zoomed in on you, players on the field looking at you, subs crowding around, bedlam . . . . And knowing there's a good chance someone on Cardboard is going to second guess you.  You?  How about you?  Step right up.  Here's the headset.  Ready?  Cue the band.  Go!

Check the game thread. I was fully capable of calling two time outs in real time. And for free. Pay me $3.5 million per annum guaranteed? I can make all kinds of second-guessable decisions with a smile on my nationally televised face.😀
[/quote]

Not to pick on you, but it's one thing to say, "I'd have zigged when Shaw zagged" on a few select plays in a game that featured over 100; it's quite another to do that each and every play.  And we aren't just talking, "I'd run it here", but selecting your personnel, the specific run or pass play, the defensive alignment, etc.  Each and every play, with a clock running on you.  Given the size of the playbook, it is amazing that our coaches aren't paralyzed by indecision (and I guess the occasional wasted time out is proof that sometimes, they are).

BC

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

The topic is interesting because I otherwise have never given much intense thought to the trade-off between using TO's on defense or offense.  It's occurred to me, and I usually have an immediate gut reaction based almost entirely on the situation that is at hand. 

I would expect that Shaw and other major head coaches have, indeed, given substantial intense thought to this issue and myriad others that they know, based on experience they will face over time.  I suspect that if the critics here had the chutzpah to confront Shaw in the tone they are using here, they would come away with their little butts in a sling.  One thing about which I feel pretty confident is that Shaw was making a conscious choice in the TO tactic.  I am pretty sure he would be comfortable defending that choice, even if it had not worked.  But it did.

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

Oh I agree. If he didn't have a TO strategy that would be a real problem. He said post game that he 'trusts his defense', so I guess his strategy was that TOs didn't matter one way or another. By training I'm really into contingencies; maybe he isn't. Honestly I worried they would overturn that TD and ND would burn it to ten seconds before punching it in.

My real point is conventional strategy is to save clock when leading by six late and the other team poised to score. Shaw rolled the dice and won. Which is why he is paid a lot of money and shouldn't worry about morons like me second guessing him.

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

I'm pretty sure he doesn't.

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

I don't think that Notre Dame could have run the clock down, at least not until they had a fourth down.  Imagine they have second and goal from the one foot down (if the TD had been overturned), and they run the clock down to 5 seconds, and the defense stuffs them and they never get another play off.  My guess is that Notre Dame would have called time out immediately to stop the clock and then tried only as many runs as they had time outs (or on the final play of the game).  The only thing worse than scoring with too much time on the clock is not scoring because time ran out on you.  So, I think Kelly continues to use as little time as possible (remember, he called a time out after the fourth down conversion).

BC

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - jacketree - 11-30-2015

It would have been ND's choice to have second and goal from inside the one with the clock running at 0:30 assuming no time out (my bet) or 1st and goal from the 2 with the clock stopped after accepting the offsides penalty on Stanford. Interesting strategy decision there. ND had a TO so they could run at least one more time. Fortunately we don't live in that alternate universe, but I sense that had ND run one more play there (taking 6 seconds say) they win. Or maybe Stanford has the mother of all goal line stands.

I had so much more faith in the O than the D that I was willing to use the matador defense like ND to almost win in '09.

All and all another minute on the clock seemed like the way to go, but it couldn't have ended better.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - oldalum - 11-30-2015

the announcers, and their remote rules consultant, said that if the touchdown call was reversed and ND accepted the offsides penalty, the clock would have restarted on the referee's signal. Is that not correct? (the advantage of accepting the penalty then would have been to get an extra down, which does not seem helpful in that situation unless ND was willing to pass on a couple of downs which seems unlikely)

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - BostonCard - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 12:03 AM)jacketree link Wrote:It would have been ND's choice to have second and goal from inside the one with the clock running at 0:30 assuming no time out (my bet) or 1st and goal from the 2 with the clock stopped after accepting the offsides penalty on Stanford. Interesting strategy decision there. ND had a TO so they could run at least one more time. Fortunately we don't live in that alternate universe, but I sense that had ND run one more play there (taking 6 seconds say) they win. Or maybe Stanford has the mother of all goal line stands.

I had so much more faith in the O than the D that I was willing to use the matador defense like ND to almost win in '09.

All and all another minute on the clock seemed like the way to go, but it couldn't have ended better.

I was secretly hoping Notre Dame would score when they converted the fourth down.  At that point, I figured a score was a foregone conclusion and wanted as much time as possible.  But who knows... maybe we stuff them on a run attempt, they call a time out, and we sack Kizer on second down and they never get another play off , or they have three straight incompletions.  Stranger things have happened.

BC

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - Hulk01 - 11-30-2015

I want to apologize for my tone, but can't and won't.  I don't believe I understand more than 15% of football strategy and tactics.  The tone of some posters, whose other posts make it clear they don't either, yet agitate--some of them yearly--for some approach our coaches and teams regularly fail to employ.

There's the anti-Jumbo and anti-Wildcat coalitions; the total yards matter faction; the roll out option in the red zone splinter group; the hands up in pass rushing faction.  Oddly, too, given the reverence for Lance Anderson, there's the new "bend don't break sucks" group, who should at least consider that on Saturdday, we were without four of last year's starting DBs and two of this year's starting corners, and don't have an effective pass rushing defensive line--and have faced too consecutive teams that don't throw well in congested space, particularly when the back of the end zone provides a 12th defender against them.

I agree that deploying arrogance to combat arrogance isn't an optimal strategy, either.  But like more than one poster here, I really have grown tired of so many of these arguments, and promise to ignore them from now on.  It simply seems to me, once more, that this football games really are like church--many attend but few understand--and that there are people here who look under every rock to find an example of Shaw's failures, and they find one--whether it is there or not.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - stupac2 - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 05:27 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:I want to apologize for my tone, but can't and won't.  I don't believe I understand more than 15% of football strategy and tactics.  The tone of some posters, whose other posts make it clear they don't either, yet agitate--some of them yearly--for some approach our coaches and teams regularly fail to employ.

There's the anti-Jumbo and anti-Wildcat coalitions; the total yards matter faction; the roll out option in the red zone splinter group; the hands up in pass rushing faction.  Oddly, too, given the reverence for Lance Anderson, there's the new "bend don't break sucks" group, who should at least consider that on Saturdday, we were without four of last year's starting DBs and two of this year's starting corners, and don't have an effective pass rushing defensive line--and have faced too consecutive teams that don't throw well in congested space, particularly when the back of the end zone provides a 12th defender against them.

I agree that deploying arrogance to combat arrogance isn't an optimal strategy, either.  But like more than one poster here, I really have grown tired of so many of these arguments, and promise to ignore them from now on.  It simply seems to me, once more, that this football games really are like church--many attend but few understand--and that there are people here who look under every rock to find an example of Shaw's failures, and they find one--whether it is there or not.

Who is saying these things? I am starting to really dislike these "people say blah blah blah" without actually calling out the people who say it. This board, for all the smart people on it, has some really bad issues with straw men, and I can't help feeling like your entire first paragraph is one of them.

Most of what I've seen have been people acknowledging that BDB, while frustrating to watch, is our only realistic option for defense this year, given our personnel. I haven't seen very many wildcat complaints (which I do think were odd even in previous years). I don't even know what you mean by "total yards matter" or "roll out in the red zone", maybe those came up in home game threads (which I don't read because I'm at the game and they get very long). The main criticisms I've seen, at least from this game, are:

1) The TO use probably wasn't optimal but it wasn't a large difference and it worked out anyway.
2) We should've been passing more in the 4th quarter.

Apparently you disagree pretty strongly with #1, though I honestly don't get why since it's so mild, but do you disagree with 2?

But even if all those things really are on here and really are frustrating to you, holy hell, you should look at other fan boards. Even the stuff I see leak onto /r/cfb is pretty toxic from the big fan bases. We are nothing like that, even with the wildly disappointing season last year. People really are calling for Les Miles's head after a season only marginally more disappointing than ours this year, a lot of people! Some of them very influential. That hasn't been the case here, and I hope we never lose perspective so thoroughly that a 9-3 season is seen as an abysmal failure.




Anyway, in general I don't think criticizing coaches is beyond the pale, but part of that is I think in-game decisionmaking by the coach is the most interesting part of football strategy (that I can understand, anyway, the specifics of playcalling against different defenses would be interesting but understanding it takes a lot of work). A couple years ago Bill Barnwell did a column called "Thank you for not coaching" that criticized wildly wrong coaching decisions in the NFL and it was something I looked forward to every week. Time outs (times out?) and challenges are the two most approachable things to look at here (as well as punting/kicking a FG vs going for it on 4th, but that didn't come up here), so it's reasonable to talk about it. Why that raises any dander is beyond me.

Re: Fire Shaw! Oh wait. We won. . . . - fullmetal - 11-30-2015

Hulk, I don't know if I'm specifically included in your target audience, but I've been hearing from at least a few former Stanford players on these things too.