You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - 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: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... (/thread-2720.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: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... (/thread-2720.html)
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
I really do not like the name calling and anger towards Shaw. It is disrespectful and in my opinion just wrong.
Shaw and his staff prepared our team very well before the game, designed an excellent game plan that was very successful, made terrific adjustments throughout the game, and called a really great game. That's why we were ahead or tied from the beginning through the entire game. The rankings, the betting line, the experts, etc. thought OSU would beat us - that they could blow us off the field. But they didn't and that is a testament to Shaw as much as anything else.
Then no matter how you design it, put it on paper, strategize, call it, etc. - in the end - the players have to perform and execute. Nobody planned for the fumble near our end zone. Nobody planned for the interception Luck threw. We're those bad play calls? Of course not.
At the time of the last drive I had these thoughts... we just need a field goal and Williamson can kick it from 65 yards if we need it. He had been kicking from 55 or further in warm ups. Then we got going moving the ball and we had OSU on their heels and it looked like we were going to put it in - but there were two issues. 1) we didn't want to give OSU time to score and go for two - and because they had been scoring against OUR defense in quick bursts - that meant we couldn't give them even a few seconds. 2) the officials called a timeout (I assume it was a TV timeout because none of the teams called a timeout) with 53 seconds left. Then when we came back and broke our huddle, OSU called their own timeout. These timeouts completely stopped our momentum, gave their defense a chance to regroup and catch their breath, and their defensive coordinator time to think. And they really needed it. And it gave our offensive coordinators time to think. If the officials had not called timeout I truly believe we would have scored a TD. Instead, all this thinking led to the next series of calls and plays.
Personally, at the time, I thought we should rush our plays and try to score a TD. I didn't like the idea of running out the clock right then and there. Afterwards, I reflected on the events and have think Shaw's decision made a lot of sense.
Shaw wanted to score, but he didn't want to leave time on the clock to allow OSU to score themselves, especially because they could go for 2 to win the game. In basketball, you always want to take the last shot - to win or at worst tie. You do NOT want to score too early, leaving time on the clock for your opponent to score if they are within reach - which they were. Remember, we have the No. 1 red zone offense in the country so if we go into OT - the chances are that we win.
Why not pass? Because a lot of things can go wrong - a sack, a fumble, a catch and fumble, or an interception would all be bad and could lose the game. An incomplete is bad too because it stops the clock and then with 2 timeouts left, OSU would stop the clock on the next two plays - giving them plenty of time - probably 30 seconds - to score the winning TD.
As long as we run the ball, OSU's 2 timeouts are not enough to leave any time on the clock. We can run out the clock - take the last shot to win the game or go into OT. That's the BEST strategy.
So, we run the ball with Taylor who had his career high and to that point had averaged 5.12 YPC. Before the timeout - those runs might have gotten a first down - and if we do - then probably let the clock run down anyway and then kick. But after OSU had time to recover, Taylor gets 6 and then only 2 yards.
Now, why not go for it on third down? If we do and don't get the 1st, then OSU calls timeout, we kick a field goal, and they have time to win the game with a TD. So, I think both coaches figured out their strategy and Shaw decided to let the clock run down while he still had an extra play so that IF OSU called a timeout, he could then run the clock down.
Wiliamson had been money during the beginning of the year. Not sure how he got hurt but he had been out for several weeks. He came back for the last game or so - but didn't do any kickoffs. With the layoff - he seemed to be physically recovered. He was kicking long field goals with accuracy in warm ups. BUT it is difficult to simulate the real-world pressure and noise at that moment.
In the end, he missed it by a few inches. It was a strategic, calculated, high-probability series of decisions that Shaw and his staff made - after having made a ton of great decisions leading up to and throughout the game. Then you just have to play - and there will be a winner and a loser. And sometimes it is just by a few inches that makes the difference between the two.
It isn't the end of the world. Both teams and coaching staffs did an outstanding job - prepared, called, and played a terrific game - one that could have gone either way and that both teams should be very proud of.
As others have said - it was NOT just that one play that lost the game. There were a number of plays on both sides that could have gone differently but ultimately led us up to the moment of that one decisive play. As Andrew Luck says - it isn't one play or one player that wins or loses the game - it may look that way to fans, especially those that want to explain and find someone to blame - but in reality - it is a very team game and therefore a team win and a team loss.
It was a great game. I'm very proud of everything Stanford did and how it represented itself. They should all hold their heads up high - they really gave it their best - and THAT is what it is all about. Ask John Wooden.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
I really do not like the name calling and anger towards Shaw. It is disrespectful and in my opinion just wrong.
Shaw and his staff prepared our team very well before the game, designed an excellent game plan that was very successful, made terrific adjustments throughout the game, and called a really great game. That's why we were ahead or tied from the beginning through the entire game. The rankings, the betting line, the experts, etc. thought OSU would beat us - that they could blow us off the field. But they didn't and that is a testament to Shaw as much as anything else.
Then no matter how you design it, put it on paper, strategize, call it, etc. - in the end - the players have to perform and execute. Nobody planned for the fumble near our end zone. Nobody planned for the interception Luck threw. We're those bad play calls? Of course not.
At the time of the last drive I had these thoughts... we just need a field goal and Williamson can kick it from 65 yards if we need it. He had been kicking from 55 or further in warm ups. Then we got going moving the ball and we had OSU on their heels and it looked like we were going to put it in - but there were two issues. 1) we didn't want to give OSU time to score and go for two - and because they had been scoring against OUR defense in quick bursts - that meant we couldn't give them even a few seconds. 2) the officials called a timeout (I assume it was a TV timeout because none of the teams called a timeout) with 53 seconds left. Then when we came back and broke our huddle, OSU called their own timeout. These timeouts completely stopped our momentum, gave their defense a chance to regroup and catch their breath, and their defensive coordinator time to think. And they really needed it. And it gave our offensive coordinators time to think. If the officials had not called timeout I truly believe we would have scored a TD. Instead, all this thinking led to the next series of calls and plays.
Personally, at the time, I thought we should rush our plays and try to score a TD. I didn't like the idea of running out the clock right then and there. Afterwards, I reflected on the events and have think Shaw's decision made a lot of sense.
Shaw wanted to score, but he didn't want to leave time on the clock to allow OSU to score themselves, especially because they could go for 2 to win the game. In basketball, you always want to take the last shot - to win or at worst tie. You do NOT want to score too early, leaving time on the clock for your opponent to score if they are within reach - which they were. Remember, we have the No. 1 red zone offense in the country so if we go into OT - the chances are that we win.
Why not pass? Because a lot of things can go wrong - a sack, a fumble, a catch and fumble, or an interception would all be bad and could lose the game. An incomplete is bad too because it stops the clock and then with 2 timeouts left, OSU would stop the clock on the next two plays - giving them plenty of time - probably 30 seconds - to score the winning TD.
As long as we run the ball, OSU's 2 timeouts are not enough to leave any time on the clock. We can run out the clock - take the last shot to win the game or go into OT. That's the BEST strategy.
So, we run the ball with Taylor who had his career high and to that point had averaged 5.12 YPC. Before the timeout - those runs might have gotten a first down - and if we do - then probably let the clock run down anyway and then kick. But after OSU had time to recover, Taylor gets 6 and then only 2 yards.
Now, why not go for it on third down? If we do and don't get the 1st, then OSU calls timeout, we kick a field goal, and they have time to win the game with a TD. So, I think both coaches figured out their strategy and Shaw decided to let the clock run down while he still had an extra play so that IF OSU called a timeout, he could then run the clock down.
Wiliamson had been money during the beginning of the year. Not sure how he got hurt but he had been out for several weeks. He came back for the last game or so - but didn't do any kickoffs. With the layoff - he seemed to be physically recovered. He was kicking long field goals with accuracy in warm ups. BUT it is difficult to simulate the real-world pressure and noise at that moment.
In the end, he missed it by a few inches. It was a strategic, calculated, high-probability series of decisions that Shaw and his staff made - after having made a ton of great decisions leading up to and throughout the game. Then you just have to play - and there will be a winner and a loser. And sometimes it is just by a few inches that makes the difference between the two.
It isn't the end of the world. Both teams and coaching staffs did an outstanding job - prepared, called, and played a terrific game - one that could have gone either way and that both teams should be very proud of.
As others have said - it was NOT just that one play that lost the game. There were a number of plays on both sides that could have gone differently but ultimately led us up to the moment of that one decisive play. As Andrew Luck says - it isn't one play or one player that wins or loses the game - it may look that way to fans, especially those that want to explain and find someone to blame - but in reality - it is a very team game and therefore a team win and a team loss.
It was a great game. I'm very proud of everything Stanford did and how it represented itself. They should all hold their heads up high - they really gave it their best - and THAT is what it is all about. Ask John Wooden.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
I really do not like the name calling and anger towards Shaw. It is disrespectful and in my opinion just wrong.
Shaw and his staff prepared our team very well before the game, designed an excellent game plan that was very successful, made terrific adjustments throughout the game, and called a really great game. That's why we were ahead or tied from the beginning through the entire game. The rankings, the betting line, the experts, etc. thought OSU would beat us - that they could blow us off the field. But they didn't and that is a testament to Shaw as much as anything else.
Then no matter how you design it, put it on paper, strategize, call it, etc. - in the end - the players have to perform and execute. Nobody planned for the fumble near our end zone. Nobody planned for the interception Luck threw. We're those bad play calls? Of course not.
At the time of the last drive I had these thoughts... we just need a field goal and Williamson can kick it from 65 yards if we need it. He had been kicking from 55 or further in warm ups. Then we got going moving the ball and we had OSU on their heels and it looked like we were going to put it in - but there were two issues. 1) we didn't want to give OSU time to score and go for two - and because they had been scoring against OUR defense in quick bursts - that meant we couldn't give them even a few seconds. 2) the officials called a timeout (I assume it was a TV timeout because none of the teams called a timeout) with 53 seconds left. Then when we came back and broke our huddle, OSU called their own timeout. These timeouts completely stopped our momentum, gave their defense a chance to regroup and catch their breath, and their defensive coordinator time to think. And they really needed it. And it gave our offensive coordinators time to think. If the officials had not called timeout I truly believe we would have scored a TD. Instead, all this thinking led to the next series of calls and plays.
Personally, at the time, I thought we should rush our plays and try to score a TD. I didn't like the idea of running out the clock right then and there. Afterwards, I reflected on the events and have think Shaw's decision made a lot of sense.
Shaw wanted to score, but he didn't want to leave time on the clock to allow OSU to score themselves, especially because they could go for 2 to win the game. In basketball, you always want to take the last shot - to win or at worst tie. You do NOT want to score too early, leaving time on the clock for your opponent to score if they are within reach - which they were. Remember, we have the No. 1 red zone offense in the country so if we go into OT - the chances are that we win.
Why not pass? Because a lot of things can go wrong - a sack, a fumble, a catch and fumble, or an interception would all be bad and could lose the game. An incomplete is bad too because it stops the clock and then with 2 timeouts left, OSU would stop the clock on the next two plays - giving them plenty of time - probably 30 seconds - to score the winning TD.
As long as we run the ball, OSU's 2 timeouts are not enough to leave any time on the clock. We can run out the clock - take the last shot to win the game or go into OT. That's the BEST strategy.
So, we run the ball with Taylor who had his career high and to that point had averaged 5.12 YPC. Before the timeout - those runs might have gotten a first down - and if we do - then probably let the clock run down anyway and then kick. But after OSU had time to recover, Taylor gets 6 and then only 2 yards.
Now, why not go for it on third down? If we do and don't get the 1st, then OSU calls timeout, we kick a field goal, and they have time to win the game with a TD. So, I think both coaches figured out their strategy and Shaw decided to let the clock run down while he still had an extra play so that IF OSU called a timeout, he could then run the clock down.
Wiliamson had been money during the beginning of the year. Not sure how he got hurt but he had been out for several weeks. He came back for the last game or so - but didn't do any kickoffs. With the layoff - he seemed to be physically recovered. He was kicking long field goals with accuracy in warm ups. BUT it is difficult to simulate the real-world pressure and noise at that moment.
In the end, he missed it by a few inches. It was a strategic, calculated, high-probability series of decisions that Shaw and his staff made - after having made a ton of great decisions leading up to and throughout the game. Then you just have to play - and there will be a winner and a loser. And sometimes it is just by a few inches that makes the difference between the two.
It isn't the end of the world. Both teams and coaching staffs did an outstanding job - prepared, called, and played a terrific game - one that could have gone either way and that both teams should be very proud of.
As others have said - it was NOT just that one play that lost the game. There were a number of plays on both sides that could have gone differently but ultimately led us up to the moment of that one decisive play. As Andrew Luck says - it isn't one play or one player that wins or loses the game - it may look that way to fans, especially those that want to explain and find someone to blame - but in reality - it is a very team game and therefore a team win and a team loss.
It was a great game. I'm very proud of everything Stanford did and how it represented itself. They should all hold their heads up high - they really gave it their best - and THAT is what it is all about. Ask John Wooden.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
I really do not like the name calling and anger towards Shaw. It is disrespectful and in my opinion just wrong.
Shaw and his staff prepared our team very well before the game, designed an excellent game plan that was very successful, made terrific adjustments throughout the game, and called a really great game. That's why we were ahead or tied from the beginning through the entire game. The rankings, the betting line, the experts, etc. thought OSU would beat us - that they could blow us off the field. But they didn't and that is a testament to Shaw as much as anything else.
Then no matter how you design it, put it on paper, strategize, call it, etc. - in the end - the players have to perform and execute. Nobody planned for the fumble near our end zone. Nobody planned for the interception Luck threw. We're those bad play calls? Of course not.
At the time of the last drive I had these thoughts... we just need a field goal and Williamson can kick it from 65 yards if we need it. He had been kicking from 55 or further in warm ups. Then we got going moving the ball and we had OSU on their heels and it looked like we were going to put it in - but there were two issues. 1) we didn't want to give OSU time to score and go for two - and because they had been scoring against OUR defense in quick bursts - that meant we couldn't give them even a few seconds. 2) the officials called a timeout (I assume it was a TV timeout because none of the teams called a timeout) with 53 seconds left. Then when we came back and broke our huddle, OSU called their own timeout. These timeouts completely stopped our momentum, gave their defense a chance to regroup and catch their breath, and their defensive coordinator time to think. And they really needed it. And it gave our offensive coordinators time to think. If the officials had not called timeout I truly believe we would have scored a TD. Instead, all this thinking led to the next series of calls and plays.
Personally, at the time, I thought we should rush our plays and try to score a TD. I didn't like the idea of running out the clock right then and there. Afterwards, I reflected on the events and have think Shaw's decision made a lot of sense.
Shaw wanted to score, but he didn't want to leave time on the clock to allow OSU to score themselves, especially because they could go for 2 to win the game. In basketball, you always want to take the last shot - to win or at worst tie. You do NOT want to score too early, leaving time on the clock for your opponent to score if they are within reach - which they were. Remember, we have the No. 1 red zone offense in the country so if we go into OT - the chances are that we win.
Why not pass? Because a lot of things can go wrong - a sack, a fumble, a catch and fumble, or an interception would all be bad and could lose the game. An incomplete is bad too because it stops the clock and then with 2 timeouts left, OSU would stop the clock on the next two plays - giving them plenty of time - probably 30 seconds - to score the winning TD.
As long as we run the ball, OSU's 2 timeouts are not enough to leave any time on the clock. We can run out the clock - take the last shot to win the game or go into OT. That's the BEST strategy.
So, we run the ball with Taylor who had his career high and to that point had averaged 5.12 YPC. Before the timeout - those runs might have gotten a first down - and if we do - then probably let the clock run down anyway and then kick. But after OSU had time to recover, Taylor gets 6 and then only 2 yards.
Now, why not go for it on third down? If we do and don't get the 1st, then OSU calls timeout, we kick a field goal, and they have time to win the game with a TD. So, I think both coaches figured out their strategy and Shaw decided to let the clock run down while he still had an extra play so that IF OSU called a timeout, he could then run the clock down.
Wiliamson had been money during the beginning of the year. Not sure how he got hurt but he had been out for several weeks. He came back for the last game or so - but didn't do any kickoffs. With the layoff - he seemed to be physically recovered. He was kicking long field goals with accuracy in warm ups. BUT it is difficult to simulate the real-world pressure and noise at that moment.
In the end, he missed it by a few inches. It was a strategic, calculated, high-probability series of decisions that Shaw and his staff made - after having made a ton of great decisions leading up to and throughout the game. Then you just have to play - and there will be a winner and a loser. And sometimes it is just by a few inches that makes the difference between the two.
It isn't the end of the world. Both teams and coaching staffs did an outstanding job - prepared, called, and played a terrific game - one that could have gone either way and that both teams should be very proud of.
As others have said - it was NOT just that one play that lost the game. There were a number of plays on both sides that could have gone differently but ultimately led us up to the moment of that one decisive play. As Andrew Luck says - it isn't one play or one player that wins or loses the game - it may look that way to fans, especially those that want to explain and find someone to blame - but in reality - it is a very team game and therefore a team win and a team loss.
It was a great game. I'm very proud of everything Stanford did and how it represented itself. They should all hold their heads up high - they really gave it their best - and THAT is what it is all about. Ask John Wooden.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
(01-03-2012, 09:07 PM)DC link Wrote:--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.He kicked field goals/extra points in the last 2 games against Kal and Notre.Dame
Quote:--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.41 Yards isn't considered "short"
Quote:--- I don't know how he looked in practice.He looked good.
I think Tarpley explained the players' point:
Quote:"We trust him, said linebacker A.J. Tarpley. "Wed put him out there if there was a game tomorrow. Sometimes they dont go in and sometimes they do. We had a lot of chances to win this game so its definitely not his fault."
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
(01-03-2012, 09:07 PM)DC link Wrote:--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.He kicked field goals/extra points in the last 2 games against Kal and Notre.Dame
Quote:--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.41 Yards isn't considered "short"
Quote:--- I don't know how he looked in practice.He looked good.
I think Tarpley explained the players' point:
Quote:"We trust him, said linebacker A.J. Tarpley. "Wed put him out there if there was a game tomorrow. Sometimes they dont go in and sometimes they do. We had a lot of chances to win this game so its definitely not his fault."
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
(01-03-2012, 09:07 PM)DC link Wrote:--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.He kicked field goals/extra points in the last 2 games against Kal and Notre.Dame
Quote:--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.41 Yards isn't considered "short"
Quote:--- I don't know how he looked in practice.He looked good.
I think Tarpley explained the players' point:
Quote:"We trust him, said linebacker A.J. Tarpley. "Wed put him out there if there was a game tomorrow. Sometimes they dont go in and sometimes they do. We had a lot of chances to win this game so its definitely not his fault."
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
(01-03-2012, 09:07 PM)DC link Wrote:--- He had not kicked in a game for 2 1/2 months.He kicked field goals/extra points in the last 2 games against Kal and Notre.Dame
Quote:--- He had missed a short FG early in the game.41 Yards isn't considered "short"
Quote:--- I don't know how he looked in practice.He looked good.
I think Tarpley explained the players' point:
Quote:"We trust him, said linebacker A.J. Tarpley. "Wed put him out there if there was a game tomorrow. Sometimes they dont go in and sometimes they do. We had a lot of chances to win this game so its definitely not his fault."
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
(01-03-2012, 04:48 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Why not run the ball again? Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again. Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.If we don't get a first down THEN OSU calls timeout with 20 seconds left. We kick the field goal. They get the kickoff - where they were averaging around the 30 yard line - could be more. Then they get several shots to Blackmon to score the winning TD or kick a tying field goal. All of their TD drives took just a few seconds: 91, 38, 118, 143, 119 seconds and they weren't in hurry up mode.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
(01-03-2012, 04:48 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Why not run the ball again? Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again. Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.If we don't get a first down THEN OSU calls timeout with 20 seconds left. We kick the field goal. They get the kickoff - where they were averaging around the 30 yard line - could be more. Then they get several shots to Blackmon to score the winning TD or kick a tying field goal. All of their TD drives took just a few seconds: 91, 38, 118, 143, 119 seconds and they weren't in hurry up mode.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
(01-03-2012, 04:48 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Why not run the ball again? Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again. Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.If we don't get a first down THEN OSU calls timeout with 20 seconds left. We kick the field goal. They get the kickoff - where they were averaging around the 30 yard line - could be more. Then they get several shots to Blackmon to score the winning TD or kick a tying field goal. All of their TD drives took just a few seconds: 91, 38, 118, 143, 119 seconds and they weren't in hurry up mode.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - Griffins78 - 01-04-2012
(01-03-2012, 04:48 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:Why not run the ball again? Get a first down, use a TO, and run it again. Don't get a first down, then maybe you let the clock run down and take your shot.If we don't get a first down THEN OSU calls timeout with 20 seconds left. We kick the field goal. They get the kickoff - where they were averaging around the 30 yard line - could be more. Then they get several shots to Blackmon to score the winning TD or kick a tying field goal. All of their TD drives took just a few seconds: 91, 38, 118, 143, 119 seconds and they weren't in hurry up mode.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - 76lsjumb - 01-04-2012
Griffin78 --
Thank you! :)Â
Even good faith fans [such as most of the regulars around here] have to go through several stages of despair to get to a solid analysis. Kudos to you for getting there pretty quickly.
And, from the quotes I've seen, it looks like the players and coaches are there, too. Granted the stage was much bigger on Monday than in the 2009 Big Game [although, relative to the context that was pretty big then, too], but a lot of the same thoughts were expressed after that about Harbaugh's decision-making capabilities...and he seems to have been a halfway decent coach in the following years. ;)  From what I've read, Shaw is willing to stand behind his strategy...and I'm glad to hear it. The last thing I would want is a coach who decides on a strategy that is eminently defensible -- see above analysis -- but, when it doesn't work because sometimes things don't go as they should, begins to lose confidence in his decision-making. When that happens, you can stick a fork in him...
Now, if you really want to go after some weird decision-making, start talking about Frank Beamer...
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - 76lsjumb - 01-04-2012
Griffin78 --
Thank you! :)Â
Even good faith fans [such as most of the regulars around here] have to go through several stages of despair to get to a solid analysis. Kudos to you for getting there pretty quickly.
And, from the quotes I've seen, it looks like the players and coaches are there, too. Granted the stage was much bigger on Monday than in the 2009 Big Game [although, relative to the context that was pretty big then, too], but a lot of the same thoughts were expressed after that about Harbaugh's decision-making capabilities...and he seems to have been a halfway decent coach in the following years. ;)  From what I've read, Shaw is willing to stand behind his strategy...and I'm glad to hear it. The last thing I would want is a coach who decides on a strategy that is eminently defensible -- see above analysis -- but, when it doesn't work because sometimes things don't go as they should, begins to lose confidence in his decision-making. When that happens, you can stick a fork in him...
Now, if you really want to go after some weird decision-making, start talking about Frank Beamer...
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - 76lsjumb - 01-04-2012
Griffin78 --
Thank you! :)Â
Even good faith fans [such as most of the regulars around here] have to go through several stages of despair to get to a solid analysis. Kudos to you for getting there pretty quickly.
And, from the quotes I've seen, it looks like the players and coaches are there, too. Granted the stage was much bigger on Monday than in the 2009 Big Game [although, relative to the context that was pretty big then, too], but a lot of the same thoughts were expressed after that about Harbaugh's decision-making capabilities...and he seems to have been a halfway decent coach in the following years. ;)  From what I've read, Shaw is willing to stand behind his strategy...and I'm glad to hear it. The last thing I would want is a coach who decides on a strategy that is eminently defensible -- see above analysis -- but, when it doesn't work because sometimes things don't go as they should, begins to lose confidence in his decision-making. When that happens, you can stick a fork in him...
Now, if you really want to go after some weird decision-making, start talking about Frank Beamer...
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - 76lsjumb - 01-04-2012
Griffin78 --
Thank you! :)Â
Even good faith fans [such as most of the regulars around here] have to go through several stages of despair to get to a solid analysis. Kudos to you for getting there pretty quickly.
And, from the quotes I've seen, it looks like the players and coaches are there, too. Granted the stage was much bigger on Monday than in the 2009 Big Game [although, relative to the context that was pretty big then, too], but a lot of the same thoughts were expressed after that about Harbaugh's decision-making capabilities...and he seems to have been a halfway decent coach in the following years. ;)  From what I've read, Shaw is willing to stand behind his strategy...and I'm glad to hear it. The last thing I would want is a coach who decides on a strategy that is eminently defensible -- see above analysis -- but, when it doesn't work because sometimes things don't go as they should, begins to lose confidence in his decision-making. When that happens, you can stick a fork in him...
Now, if you really want to go after some weird decision-making, start talking about Frank Beamer...
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - NYC Poke - 01-05-2012
G78, I agree with you on how TV timeouts disrupt the game. I really hate them, even though it most definitely worked to our advantage this time.
I used to the break to buy more Tostitos. Karma, baby.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - NYC Poke - 01-05-2012
G78, I agree with you on how TV timeouts disrupt the game. I really hate them, even though it most definitely worked to our advantage this time.
I used to the break to buy more Tostitos. Karma, baby.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - NYC Poke - 01-05-2012
G78, I agree with you on how TV timeouts disrupt the game. I really hate them, even though it most definitely worked to our advantage this time.
I used to the break to buy more Tostitos. Karma, baby.
Re: You have Andrew Luck and you let 30 secs... - NYC Poke - 01-05-2012
G78, I agree with you on how TV timeouts disrupt the game. I really hate them, even though it most definitely worked to our advantage this time.
I used to the break to buy more Tostitos. Karma, baby.