[CTcard]

The most obvious was the UCLA game in (I believe) 2016. 

You got me to go watch the game again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2fiSoFNCB4

I admit I am a little confused as to the clock management error you are concerned about, though maybe I found it.

It doesn't appear to be on our final drive which was well done, in fact rather amazingly brilliant considering how poorly Burns had passed the ball to that point. The drive details: started with 2:05 left, moved 70 yards to score the winning TD with 0:24 left on the clock. There was only one pass completed in bounds for less than a first down - that was an out route to Irwin that Burns simply didn't throw far enough outside. One might quibble with spiking the ball on first and goal with 0:32 left, since there might have been time for four shots to the end zone, but that's debatable at most.

With more digging I found a mistake. Stanford took its final timeout after the unsuccessful UCLA third down play on the previous drive. It seems to have taken about 0:15-0:20 to get the timeout called. The cut up game on youtube doesn't make clear the exact circumstances but it seems to be associated with Stanford initially thinking they had pushed the UCLA receiver out of bounds. Some kind of miscommunication or indecision cost 15 seconds or more, which was a clear mistake.
I had forgotten about this, but am sure it made me throw something at the TV at the time.

[CTcard]

The most obvious was the UCLA game in (I believe) 2016. 

You got me to go watch the game again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2fiSoFNCB4

I admit I am a little confused as to the clock management error you are concerned about, though maybe I found it.

It doesn't appear to be on our final drive which was well done, in fact rather amazingly brilliant considering how poorly Burns had passed the ball to that point. The drive details: started with 2:05 left, moved 70 yards to score the winning TD with 0:24 left on the clock. There was only one pass completed in bounds for less than a first down - that was an out route to Irwin that Burns simply didn't throw far enough outside. One might quibble with spiking the ball on first and goal with 0:32 left, since there might have been time for four shots to the end zone, but that's debatable at most.

With more digging I found a mistake. Stanford took its final timeout after the unsuccessful UCLA third down play on the previous drive. It seems to have taken about 0:15-0:20 to get the timeout called. The cut up game on youtube doesn't make clear the exact circumstances but it seems to be associated with Stanford initially thinking they had pushed the UCLA receiver out of bounds. Some kind of miscommunication or indecision cost 15 seconds or more, which was a clear mistake.
I had forgotten about this, but am sure it made me throw something at the TV at the time.

[BostonCard]

Thanks for posting.  Yeah, a burnt time out aside (and a delay in calling one), it is really hard to fault the clock management at the end of the game.  Unlike the Washington game this year, that was a two minute drive run to near perfection, except for maybe leaving Rosen with a little too much time at the end.

And of course the winning pass to JJ Arcega Whiteside would proove to be the first of many similar touchdown catches.  He will be missed.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks for posting.  Yeah, a burnt time out aside (and a delay in calling one), it is really hard to fault the clock management at the end of the game.  Unlike the Washington game this year, that was a two minute drive run to near perfection, except for maybe leaving Rosen with a little too much time at the end.

And of course the winning pass to JJ Arcega Whiteside would proove to be the first of many similar touchdown catches.  He will be missed.

BC

[winflop]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

...Wut? When has this been an issue? Unless you include "burning TOs early to avoid delay of game" in which case that's fair, I suppose, but not really a time management issue.

How about the final 2 minutes @ Washington this year where Shaw made substitutions WHILE THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING!! Arguably made the difference between the Sun Bowl and the Rose Bowl.

[winflop]

I'm not over crapping on him. For the past five years the clock management has been abysmal. This is something that should be fixed. He needs to recognize this as a shortcoming and come up with a plan to improve upon it.

...Wut? When has this been an issue? Unless you include "burning TOs early to avoid delay of game" in which case that's fair, I suppose, but not really a time management issue.

How about the final 2 minutes @ Washington this year where Shaw made substitutions WHILE THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING!! Arguably made the difference between the Sun Bowl and the Rose Bowl.

[Goose]

How about the final 2 minutes @ Washington this year where Shaw made substitutions WHILE THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING!! Arguably made the difference between the Sun Bowl and the Rose Bowl.

It was not the fact we substituted that took the time. We got our guys out there pretty fast and it probably cost very little clock. It was the fact that doing so allowed Washington to substitute, and they took their sweet time doing it. Shaw apparently didn't consider this second effect. To be fair, the officials have to allow the other team a "reasonable" time to substitute. At the time, I felt the ref stood over the ball (with the clock running) for much longer than necessary. Washington was ready to go and he didn't start play. However, counting on the refs to do anything particularly well (especially PAC-12 refs) is a mistake.
Unless I am remembering incorrectly, we substituted twice on that final drive, both times getting a clock run-down that we could ill afford. The first time could be somewhat excused based on not realizing how much time the refs would allow Washington to do their substitution. The second time, you don't have that excuse. If we got ourselves in a bind by having the wrong people out there for the plays we needed to run, that is on us. A "hurry up" offense has to be just that. It was a mistake to be in that situation, period. You play like you practice. Did we practice substituting (with the clock running) in the two minute offense? If so,  the coaches should have realized in the practice sessions that the defense would "slow roll" their response as much as they are allowed to. That should have removed such substitutions from the plan right then, even if this was not obvious before. If we didn't practice it, we weren't adequately prepared. While it is true practice time is limited, you can't practice all situations every week, etc, I think we were just not prepared. Especially after out problems at the end of the TCU game the year before, I expected more emphasis on two minute offense both during the summer and in game preparation. The coaches executed poorly. I don't think this error will be repeated. We may still lose in some "comeback" situations, but not for this reason.

[Goose]

How about the final 2 minutes @ Washington this year where Shaw made substitutions WHILE THE CLOCK WAS RUNNING!! Arguably made the difference between the Sun Bowl and the Rose Bowl.

It was not the fact we substituted that took the time. We got our guys out there pretty fast and it probably cost very little clock. It was the fact that doing so allowed Washington to substitute, and they took their sweet time doing it. Shaw apparently didn't consider this second effect. To be fair, the officials have to allow the other team a "reasonable" time to substitute. At the time, I felt the ref stood over the ball (with the clock running) for much longer than necessary. Washington was ready to go and he didn't start play. However, counting on the refs to do anything particularly well (especially PAC-12 refs) is a mistake.
Unless I am remembering incorrectly, we substituted twice on that final drive, both times getting a clock run-down that we could ill afford. The first time could be somewhat excused based on not realizing how much time the refs would allow Washington to do their substitution. The second time, you don't have that excuse. If we got ourselves in a bind by having the wrong people out there for the plays we needed to run, that is on us. A "hurry up" offense has to be just that. It was a mistake to be in that situation, period. You play like you practice. Did we practice substituting (with the clock running) in the two minute offense? If so,  the coaches should have realized in the practice sessions that the defense would "slow roll" their response as much as they are allowed to. That should have removed such substitutions from the plan right then, even if this was not obvious before. If we didn't practice it, we weren't adequately prepared. While it is true practice time is limited, you can't practice all situations every week, etc, I think we were just not prepared. Especially after out problems at the end of the TCU game the year before, I expected more emphasis on two minute offense both during the summer and in game preparation. The coaches executed poorly. I don't think this error will be repeated. We may still lose in some "comeback" situations, but not for this reason.

[cardcrimson]

A simple question: why does anyone who suggests that Shaw could be better, get crucified on this board?

[cardcrimson]

A simple question: why does anyone who suggests that Shaw could be better, get crucified on this board?

[stupac2]

A simple question: why does anyone who suggests that Shaw could be better, get crucified on this board?

Because most of the time the suggestions are:

1) Wrong.
2) Incomplete.
3) Uncharitable.
4) Wildly out of sync with reasonable expectations.

There's plenty of carping about our recruiting strategy lately with virtually no pushback because it's actually a problem. But people saying that we're on a clearly downward trajectory when we're one of the 10 winningest programs during Shaw's tenure? It's like, what the hell do you want?

[stupac2]

A simple question: why does anyone who suggests that Shaw could be better, get crucified on this board?

Because most of the time the suggestions are:

1) Wrong.
2) Incomplete.
3) Uncharitable.
4) Wildly out of sync with reasonable expectations.

There's plenty of carping about our recruiting strategy lately with virtually no pushback because it's actually a problem. But people saying that we're on a clearly downward trajectory when we're one of the 10 winningest programs during Shaw's tenure? It's like, what the hell do you want?

[Leftcoast]

Simple answer, they DON’T.  :-)

Longer answer, this board was founded by people tired of unrelenting negative criticism of Stanford sports figures 20 years ago and that is still in its DNA.  In the lingo of the time Stanford fans were divided into Stepfords (who always lived in the best of all possible football worlds) or the Borg (who predicted the death of Stanford football on the hour, every hour and insisted you join them). The founders, and I am not one of them, weren’t Stepfords exactly they were pretty darn sick of the Borg.

If you could scroll through 20 years of posts and see the barbs thrown at Teevens, Harris, Harbaugh losing Big Game, Fiesta Bowl field goals, playcalling and staffing under Shaw you’d see a consistent history of Head Coach discussion welcomed - particularly if backed with data.

Oh, and very few crucifixions.

[Leftcoast]

Simple answer, they DON’T.  :-)

Longer answer, this board was founded by people tired of unrelenting negative criticism of Stanford sports figures 20 years ago and that is still in its DNA.  In the lingo of the time Stanford fans were divided into Stepfords (who always lived in the best of all possible football worlds) or the Borg (who predicted the death of Stanford football on the hour, every hour and insisted you join them). The founders, and I am not one of them, weren’t Stepfords exactly they were pretty darn sick of the Borg.

If you could scroll through 20 years of posts and see the barbs thrown at Teevens, Harris, Harbaugh losing Big Game, Fiesta Bowl field goals, playcalling and staffing under Shaw you’d see a consistent history of Head Coach discussion welcomed - particularly if backed with data.

Oh, and very few crucifixions.

[d4cohn]

There's plenty of carping about our recruiting strategy lately with virtually no pushback because it's actually a problem. But people saying that we're on a clearly downward trajectory when we're one of the 10 winningest programs during Shaw's tenure? It's like, what the hell do you want?

This. Thank you stupac.

In addressing cardcrimson's point, I am certainly not saying Coach Shaw is infallible. In particular, I understand why Coach Shaw is trying to not over-promise scholarships that he does not have (i.e. an offer is an offer without any conditions or contingencies otherwise), but I definitely think we need to be closer to the 85 scholarship limit, and it does worry me about the 5-7 players in terms of depth that we are giving up by not being at 85 scholarship players. However, I haven't seen any on-field evidence that has adversely affected the program (maybe in Spring workouts as far as depth for certain drills, but I am sure the players are getting all of the reps they need to prepare for the season).

As stupac points out, it is when the criticism is not measured, like we need to fire the offensive staff after 1 season on the job (after a year in which the offense averaged 30 points through first 12 games), or Stanford is in decline and is going to struggle to get to a bowl next year (we have won at least 8 games for 10 consecutive years) that prompt responses from defenders of Coach Shaw like me.

Put simply, if someone offers up a First-Take style hot take, someone is going to respond to refute said hot take.

[d4cohn]

There's plenty of carping about our recruiting strategy lately with virtually no pushback because it's actually a problem. But people saying that we're on a clearly downward trajectory when we're one of the 10 winningest programs during Shaw's tenure? It's like, what the hell do you want?

This. Thank you stupac.

In addressing cardcrimson's point, I am certainly not saying Coach Shaw is infallible. In particular, I understand why Coach Shaw is trying to not over-promise scholarships that he does not have (i.e. an offer is an offer without any conditions or contingencies otherwise), but I definitely think we need to be closer to the 85 scholarship limit, and it does worry me about the 5-7 players in terms of depth that we are giving up by not being at 85 scholarship players. However, I haven't seen any on-field evidence that has adversely affected the program (maybe in Spring workouts as far as depth for certain drills, but I am sure the players are getting all of the reps they need to prepare for the season).

As stupac points out, it is when the criticism is not measured, like we need to fire the offensive staff after 1 season on the job (after a year in which the offense averaged 30 points through first 12 games), or Stanford is in decline and is going to struggle to get to a bowl next year (we have won at least 8 games for 10 consecutive years) that prompt responses from defenders of Coach Shaw like me.

Put simply, if someone offers up a First-Take style hot take, someone is going to respond to refute said hot take.

[SamuelMcF]

There's plenty of carping about our recruiting strategy lately with virtually no pushback because it's actually a problem. But people saying that we're on a clearly downward trajectory when we're one of the 10 winningest programs during Shaw's tenure? It's like, what the hell do you want?

To not be on a clearly downward trajectory.

Of course we're not going to be Rose Bowl good every year. It's simply unsustainable given where the game is at right now (and given the aforementioned recruiting strategy). So naturally anyone who expects it will be disappointed, and that's what we're seeing.

[SamuelMcF]

There's plenty of carping about our recruiting strategy lately with virtually no pushback because it's actually a problem. But people saying that we're on a clearly downward trajectory when we're one of the 10 winningest programs during Shaw's tenure? It's like, what the hell do you want?

To not be on a clearly downward trajectory.

Of course we're not going to be Rose Bowl good every year. It's simply unsustainable given where the game is at right now (and given the aforementioned recruiting strategy). So naturally anyone who expects it will be disappointed, and that's what we're seeing.

[BostonCard]

A simple question: why does anyone who suggests that Shaw could be better, get crucified on this board?

Because most of the time the suggestions are:

1) Wrong.
2) Incomplete.
3) Uncharitable.
4) Wildly out of sync with reasonable expectations.

There's plenty of carping about our recruiting strategy lately with virtually no pushback because it's actually a problem. But people saying that we're on a clearly downward trajectory when we're one of the 10 winningest programs during Shaw's tenure? It's like, what the hell do you want?

That's what really bothers me, personally.  When the complaints are framed as "Shaw could improve on his clock management by x, y, z" or "Shaw should expand our recruiting pool so that we don't wind up with unused scholarships" or even "I wish Shaw would use the passing offense more than running" those are positions where one can agree or disagree with, but at least they are framed in a way that makes it possible to further discussion.  But when the complaints are "Why is Shaw so [stubborn, stupid, lazy, or fill in the pejorative characterization]" or when Shaw isn't given credit for the things he has done well "It was all because of Harbaugh or because he had McCaffrey (paraphrased from this very thread)" I feel like that doesn't further discussion, doesn't respect a coach who I feel has at least earned a modicum of deference from the fans, and presumes to know a lot more about the subject at hand than what the writer does know.

BC

[BostonCard]

A simple question: why does anyone who suggests that Shaw could be better, get crucified on this board?

Because most of the time the suggestions are:

1) Wrong.
2) Incomplete.
3) Uncharitable.
4) Wildly out of sync with reasonable expectations.

There's plenty of carping about our recruiting strategy lately with virtually no pushback because it's actually a problem. But people saying that we're on a clearly downward trajectory when we're one of the 10 winningest programs during Shaw's tenure? It's like, what the hell do you want?

That's what really bothers me, personally.  When the complaints are framed as "Shaw could improve on his clock management by x, y, z" or "Shaw should expand our recruiting pool so that we don't wind up with unused scholarships" or even "I wish Shaw would use the passing offense more than running" those are positions where one can agree or disagree with, but at least they are framed in a way that makes it possible to further discussion.  But when the complaints are "Why is Shaw so [stubborn, stupid, lazy, or fill in the pejorative characterization]" or when Shaw isn't given credit for the things he has done well "It was all because of Harbaugh or because he had McCaffrey (paraphrased from this very thread)" I feel like that doesn't further discussion, doesn't respect a coach who I feel has at least earned a modicum of deference from the fans, and presumes to know a lot more about the subject at hand than what the writer does know.

BC