09-22-2021, 05:28 AM
Here, now there is a dedicated thread to talk your hearts out about how Stanford's Football team manages the clock in games.
The CardBoard
/
C-House!
/
The CardBoard
/
The Official thread for griping about David Shaw's clock management
The Official thread for griping about David Shaw's clock management
Here, now there is a dedicated thread to talk your hearts out about how Stanford's Football team manages the clock in games.
09-22-2021, 07:05 AM
I don't know if Shaw's clock management is good or bad, but Stanford's offense seems to have more issues than other teams, and it seems to have been thus for Shaw's entire term. Or it could be a gigantic coincidence, but I don't think so.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
09-22-2021, 07:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2021, 07:41 AM by OutsiderFan.)
I do believe his clock and game management have in the past been awful. However, like all things David Shaw, he seems to eventually learn he has to change. The problem is I can't think of any situation where he hasn't been late to react or evolve.
Some people moaned about the before half USC drive and using last time out with 16 seconds left on clock. Context matters. It was 1st down. The ball was inside the 10 yard line. If you run them right, a play with that short of a field takes 4 seconds. So there was easily time to run three plays and kick a FG if forced. There were two objectives: Score a TD and leave USC no time to do anything before half time. Both were accomplished. It's almost like some people were complaining at the prospect of the worst case scenario happening than they were confident Stanford could execute properly. Could have been a bad snap that resulted in a fire drill to spike the ball with 1 tick or two on the clock if they could even get it off in time. Could have thrown a pass to receiver tackled in bounds before the goal line, be forced to spike it and settle for 3. But a clean snap from Center and quick routes to the EZ were in order, and that's what was executed. Not having a timeout with 16 seconds left on First & Goal from the 9 was arguably beneficial.
Watching the Niners game on Sunday, I couldn't help but notice the play clock going down to 1 second before the ball was snapped on moving clock, on most snaps Garoppolo took. If your goal is to run clock down before snapping, it's got to be difficult for the sideline to detect if a timeout is needed because it appears the ball won't be snapped in time, or if everything is under control and it will be snapped before a delay of game penalty.
Some people moaned about the before half USC drive and using last time out with 16 seconds left on clock. Context matters. It was 1st down. The ball was inside the 10 yard line. If you run them right, a play with that short of a field takes 4 seconds. So there was easily time to run three plays and kick a FG if forced. There were two objectives: Score a TD and leave USC no time to do anything before half time. Both were accomplished. It's almost like some people were complaining at the prospect of the worst case scenario happening than they were confident Stanford could execute properly. Could have been a bad snap that resulted in a fire drill to spike the ball with 1 tick or two on the clock if they could even get it off in time. Could have thrown a pass to receiver tackled in bounds before the goal line, be forced to spike it and settle for 3. But a clean snap from Center and quick routes to the EZ were in order, and that's what was executed. Not having a timeout with 16 seconds left on First & Goal from the 9 was arguably beneficial.
Watching the Niners game on Sunday, I couldn't help but notice the play clock going down to 1 second before the ball was snapped on moving clock, on most snaps Garoppolo took. If your goal is to run clock down before snapping, it's got to be difficult for the sideline to detect if a timeout is needed because it appears the ball won't be snapped in time, or if everything is under control and it will be snapped before a delay of game penalty.
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2021, 07:41 AM by OutsiderFan.)
I do believe his clock and game management have in the past been awful. However, like all things David Shaw, he seems to eventually learn he has to change. The problem is I can't think of any situation where he hasn't been late to react or evolve.
Some people moaned about the before half USC drive and using last time out with 16 seconds left on clock. Context matters. It was 1st down. The ball was inside the 10 yard line. If you run them right, a play with that short of a field takes 4 seconds. So there was easily time to run three plays and kick a FG if forced. There were two objectives: Score a TD and leave USC no time to do anything before half time. Both were accomplished. It's almost like some people were complaining at the prospect of the worst case scenario happening than they were confident Stanford could execute properly. Could have been a bad snap that resulted in a fire drill to spike the ball with 1 tick or two on the clock if they could even get it off in time. Could have thrown a pass to receiver tackled in bounds before the goal line, be forced to spike it and settle for 3. But a clean snap from Center and quick routes to the EZ were in order, and that's what was executed. Not having a timeout with 16 seconds left on First & Goal from the 9 was arguably beneficial.
Watching the Niners game on Sunday, I couldn't help but notice the play clock going down to 1 second before the ball was snapped on moving clock, on most snaps Garoppolo took. If your goal is to run clock down before snapping, it's got to be difficult for the sideline to detect if a timeout is needed because it appears the ball won't be snapped in time, or if everything is under control and it will be snapped before a delay of game penalty.
Some people moaned about the before half USC drive and using last time out with 16 seconds left on clock. Context matters. It was 1st down. The ball was inside the 10 yard line. If you run them right, a play with that short of a field takes 4 seconds. So there was easily time to run three plays and kick a FG if forced. There were two objectives: Score a TD and leave USC no time to do anything before half time. Both were accomplished. It's almost like some people were complaining at the prospect of the worst case scenario happening than they were confident Stanford could execute properly. Could have been a bad snap that resulted in a fire drill to spike the ball with 1 tick or two on the clock if they could even get it off in time. Could have thrown a pass to receiver tackled in bounds before the goal line, be forced to spike it and settle for 3. But a clean snap from Center and quick routes to the EZ were in order, and that's what was executed. Not having a timeout with 16 seconds left on First & Goal from the 9 was arguably beneficial.
Watching the Niners game on Sunday, I couldn't help but notice the play clock going down to 1 second before the ball was snapped on moving clock, on most snaps Garoppolo took. If your goal is to run clock down before snapping, it's got to be difficult for the sideline to detect if a timeout is needed because it appears the ball won't be snapped in time, or if everything is under control and it will be snapped before a delay of game penalty.
09-22-2021, 08:09 AM
Clock management is hard. I think it is easy to sit here and say that there was a more optimal approach. And, yes, objectively, despite the optimal outcome, the clock management at the time didn't maximize our chances of getting that outcome. Given that the priority of scoring (preferentially a touchdown) is more important than leaving as little time on the clock as possible, it is fair to say that we didn't execute the optimal strategy.
Of course that is much easier for us to say, here, without any of the time pressure of an end-of-game situation. It is much harder to evaluate all those options while the clock is ticking. And coaches have to do this while picking the right play, making sure the right personnel package is in the team, and of course, adapting to whatever the defense puts up. The other team is trying to prevent you from scoring too.
With regards to the question about time outs / delays of game, they bother me less than they do some other people here. I think a better framework for thinking about it is what they cost us (blown time outs, 5 yard penalties) and what it would cost to reduce them. I think Shaw et al should institute some simple failsafes to reduce the risk (for example, a default play call that the QB can institute if the right play is slow to come in from the sidelines, a drop-dead time beyond which the QB should not attempt to change the play in response to the defense, etc. Maybe having a dedicated clock-watcher on the sidelines would also be helpful. On the flip side, while we could almost certainly eliminate DoG's changing to a no-huddle system where the playcalls are based on cartoons in the sideline, the costs are probably not worth it.
BC
Of course that is much easier for us to say, here, without any of the time pressure of an end-of-game situation. It is much harder to evaluate all those options while the clock is ticking. And coaches have to do this while picking the right play, making sure the right personnel package is in the team, and of course, adapting to whatever the defense puts up. The other team is trying to prevent you from scoring too.
With regards to the question about time outs / delays of game, they bother me less than they do some other people here. I think a better framework for thinking about it is what they cost us (blown time outs, 5 yard penalties) and what it would cost to reduce them. I think Shaw et al should institute some simple failsafes to reduce the risk (for example, a default play call that the QB can institute if the right play is slow to come in from the sidelines, a drop-dead time beyond which the QB should not attempt to change the play in response to the defense, etc. Maybe having a dedicated clock-watcher on the sidelines would also be helpful. On the flip side, while we could almost certainly eliminate DoG's changing to a no-huddle system where the playcalls are based on cartoons in the sideline, the costs are probably not worth it.
BC
Clock management is hard. I think it is easy to sit here and say that there was a more optimal approach. And, yes, objectively, despite the optimal outcome, the clock management at the time didn't maximize our chances of getting that outcome. Given that the priority of scoring (preferentially a touchdown) is more important than leaving as little time on the clock as possible, it is fair to say that we didn't execute the optimal strategy.
Of course that is much easier for us to say, here, without any of the time pressure of an end-of-game situation. It is much harder to evaluate all those options while the clock is ticking. And coaches have to do this while picking the right play, making sure the right personnel package is in the team, and of course, adapting to whatever the defense puts up. The other team is trying to prevent you from scoring too.
With regards to the question about time outs / delays of game, they bother me less than they do some other people here. I think a better framework for thinking about it is what they cost us (blown time outs, 5 yard penalties) and what it would cost to reduce them. I think Shaw et al should institute some simple failsafes to reduce the risk (for example, a default play call that the QB can institute if the right play is slow to come in from the sidelines, a drop-dead time beyond which the QB should not attempt to change the play in response to the defense, etc. Maybe having a dedicated clock-watcher on the sidelines would also be helpful. On the flip side, while we could almost certainly eliminate DoG's changing to a no-huddle system where the playcalls are based on cartoons in the sideline, the costs are probably not worth it.
BC
Of course that is much easier for us to say, here, without any of the time pressure of an end-of-game situation. It is much harder to evaluate all those options while the clock is ticking. And coaches have to do this while picking the right play, making sure the right personnel package is in the team, and of course, adapting to whatever the defense puts up. The other team is trying to prevent you from scoring too.
With regards to the question about time outs / delays of game, they bother me less than they do some other people here. I think a better framework for thinking about it is what they cost us (blown time outs, 5 yard penalties) and what it would cost to reduce them. I think Shaw et al should institute some simple failsafes to reduce the risk (for example, a default play call that the QB can institute if the right play is slow to come in from the sidelines, a drop-dead time beyond which the QB should not attempt to change the play in response to the defense, etc. Maybe having a dedicated clock-watcher on the sidelines would also be helpful. On the flip side, while we could almost certainly eliminate DoG's changing to a no-huddle system where the playcalls are based on cartoons in the sideline, the costs are probably not worth it.
BC
Clock mis-management was a Harballs innovation and the virus was caught by Greg Roman. The Niners had the same problem, same staff. I don’t like the game slowed down but this week with UCLA’s track team on both sides of the ball Stanford needs the D to stay of the field as much as possible.
Clock mis-management was a Harballs innovation and the virus was caught by Greg Roman. The Niners had the same problem, same staff. I don’t like the game slowed down but this week with UCLA’s track team on both sides of the ball Stanford needs the D to stay of the field as much as possible.
09-22-2021, 08:45 AM
(09-22-2021, 08:09 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Clock management is hard. I think it is easy to sit here and say that there was a more optimal approach. And, yes, objectively, despite the optimal outcome, the clock management at the time didn't maximize our chances of getting that outcome. Given that the priority of scoring (preferentially a touchdown) is more important than leaving as little time on the clock as possible, it is fair to say that we didn't execute the optimal strategy.
Of course that is much easier for us to say, here, without any of the time pressure of an end-of-game situation. It is much harder to evaluate all those options while the clock is ticking. And coaches have to do this while picking the right play, making sure the right personnel package is in the team, and of course, adapting to whatever the defense puts up. The other team is trying to prevent you from scoring too.
With regards to the question about time outs / delays of game, they bother me less than they do some other people here. I think a better framework for thinking about it is what they cost us (blown time outs, 5 yard penalties) and what it would cost to reduce them. I think Shaw et al should institute some simple failsafes to reduce the risk (for example, a default play call that the QB can institute if the right play is slow to come in from the sidelines, a drop-dead time beyond which the QB should not attempt to change the play in response to the defense, etc. Maybe having a dedicated clock-watcher on the sidelines would also be helpful. On the flip side, while we could almost certainly eliminate DoG's changing to a no-huddle system where the playcalls are based on cartoons in the sideline, the costs are probably not worth it.
BC
I doubt anyone on this board thinks clock management is easy. But it seems like Shaw has more trouble with it than our opponents do. Don't have the data, but we likely have more delays of game, more timeouts burned to prevent them, and fewer timeouts remaining when hitting the final drive of a half or game.
(09-22-2021, 08:09 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Clock management is hard. I think it is easy to sit here and say that there was a more optimal approach. And, yes, objectively, despite the optimal outcome, the clock management at the time didn't maximize our chances of getting that outcome. Given that the priority of scoring (preferentially a touchdown) is more important than leaving as little time on the clock as possible, it is fair to say that we didn't execute the optimal strategy.
Of course that is much easier for us to say, here, without any of the time pressure of an end-of-game situation. It is much harder to evaluate all those options while the clock is ticking. And coaches have to do this while picking the right play, making sure the right personnel package is in the team, and of course, adapting to whatever the defense puts up. The other team is trying to prevent you from scoring too.
With regards to the question about time outs / delays of game, they bother me less than they do some other people here. I think a better framework for thinking about it is what they cost us (blown time outs, 5 yard penalties) and what it would cost to reduce them. I think Shaw et al should institute some simple failsafes to reduce the risk (for example, a default play call that the QB can institute if the right play is slow to come in from the sidelines, a drop-dead time beyond which the QB should not attempt to change the play in response to the defense, etc. Maybe having a dedicated clock-watcher on the sidelines would also be helpful. On the flip side, while we could almost certainly eliminate DoG's changing to a no-huddle system where the playcalls are based on cartoons in the sideline, the costs are probably not worth it.
BC
I doubt anyone on this board thinks clock management is easy. But it seems like Shaw has more trouble with it than our opponents do. Don't have the data, but we likely have more delays of game, more timeouts burned to prevent them, and fewer timeouts remaining when hitting the final drive of a half or game.
09-22-2021, 11:20 AM
I'd like to see some data that shows Stanford's Football team has suffered losses because of bad unacceptable clock and time out management.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
I'd like to see some data that shows Stanford's Football team has suffered losses because of bad unacceptable clock and time out management.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
09-22-2021, 11:59 AM
I know this isn't exactly the type of clock management being discussed here, but it's related. I've gotten used to the fact that every offensive snap will happen with one or two seconds left on the play clock and that at least one or two timeouts per game will be burned to avoid delay penalties. And some delay penalties will still occur. It's frustrating, but it seemed like another reality connected to the Stanford play book -- or another reason to simplify the play book, depending on your point of view.
Anyway, one thing I noticed while watching the Vanderbilt game was that not only was McKee avoiding these situations, he almost always took the snap with more than ten seconds on the clock. It was stunning, really, and I don't think that it's just a reflection of a quarterback knowing the plays, especially since it's not an experienced quarterback. (Now that I write that, I realize it could be McKee's inexperience that's caused this. Maybe he just isn't being given as many options to sift through at the line of scrimmage.) Anyway, it seems like a change of philosophy that could only come from Shaw. It might be only incrementally so, but the offense is moving faster.
Anyway, one thing I noticed while watching the Vanderbilt game was that not only was McKee avoiding these situations, he almost always took the snap with more than ten seconds on the clock. It was stunning, really, and I don't think that it's just a reflection of a quarterback knowing the plays, especially since it's not an experienced quarterback. (Now that I write that, I realize it could be McKee's inexperience that's caused this. Maybe he just isn't being given as many options to sift through at the line of scrimmage.) Anyway, it seems like a change of philosophy that could only come from Shaw. It might be only incrementally so, but the offense is moving faster.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
I know this isn't exactly the type of clock management being discussed here, but it's related. I've gotten used to the fact that every offensive snap will happen with one or two seconds left on the play clock and that at least one or two timeouts per game will be burned to avoid delay penalties. And some delay penalties will still occur. It's frustrating, but it seemed like another reality connected to the Stanford play book -- or another reason to simplify the play book, depending on your point of view.
Anyway, one thing I noticed while watching the Vanderbilt game was that not only was McKee avoiding these situations, he almost always took the snap with more than ten seconds on the clock. It was stunning, really, and I don't think that it's just a reflection of a quarterback knowing the plays, especially since it's not an experienced quarterback. (Now that I write that, I realize it could be McKee's inexperience that's caused this. Maybe he just isn't being given as many options to sift through at the line of scrimmage.) Anyway, it seems like a change of philosophy that could only come from Shaw. It might be only incrementally so, but the offense is moving faster.
Anyway, one thing I noticed while watching the Vanderbilt game was that not only was McKee avoiding these situations, he almost always took the snap with more than ten seconds on the clock. It was stunning, really, and I don't think that it's just a reflection of a quarterback knowing the plays, especially since it's not an experienced quarterback. (Now that I write that, I realize it could be McKee's inexperience that's caused this. Maybe he just isn't being given as many options to sift through at the line of scrimmage.) Anyway, it seems like a change of philosophy that could only come from Shaw. It might be only incrementally so, but the offense is moving faster.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
09-22-2021, 01:15 PM
(09-22-2021, 11:20 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'd like to see some data that shows Stanford's Football team has suffered losses because of bad unacceptable clock and time out management.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
Poor clock management will never be the only reason for a loss, but it can be a major contributing factor.
I think the game you're referring to was at home against Washington in 2019 when Shaw substituted on Stanford's final drive. That gave Washington the ability to substitute as well, which they did as slowly as they were permitted to do and burned a full 30 seconds off the clock. Who knows whether Stanford would have scored on that drive (and won instead of lost), but the likelihood of doing so was greatly diminished by the loss of those 30 precious seconds.
(09-22-2021, 11:20 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'd like to see some data that shows Stanford's Football team has suffered losses because of bad unacceptable clock and time out management.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
Poor clock management will never be the only reason for a loss, but it can be a major contributing factor.
I think the game you're referring to was at home against Washington in 2019 when Shaw substituted on Stanford's final drive. That gave Washington the ability to substitute as well, which they did as slowly as they were permitted to do and burned a full 30 seconds off the clock. Who knows whether Stanford would have scored on that drive (and won instead of lost), but the likelihood of doing so was greatly diminished by the loss of those 30 precious seconds.
09-22-2021, 01:29 PM
(09-22-2021, 01:15 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-22-2021, 11:20 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'd like to see some data that shows Stanford's Football team has suffered losses because of bad unacceptable clock and time out management.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
Poor clock management will never be the only reason for a loss, but it can be a major contributing factor.
I think the game you're referring to was at home against Washington in 2019 when Shaw substituted on Stanford's final drive. That gave Washington the ability to substitute as well, which they did as slowly as they were permitted to do and burned a full 30 seconds off the clock. Who knows whether Stanford would have scored on that drive (and won instead of lost), but the likelihood of doing so was greatly diminished by the loss of those 30 precious seconds.
I know for a fact it was WSU, though my year may be wrong. I remember listening to Todd Husak screaming on the radio broadcast in utter exasperation about how much time Stanford was wasting. Stanford lost 38-35 or something like this.
(09-22-2021, 01:15 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-22-2021, 11:20 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'd like to see some data that shows Stanford's Football team has suffered losses because of bad unacceptable clock and time out management.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
Poor clock management will never be the only reason for a loss, but it can be a major contributing factor.
I think the game you're referring to was at home against Washington in 2019 when Shaw substituted on Stanford's final drive. That gave Washington the ability to substitute as well, which they did as slowly as they were permitted to do and burned a full 30 seconds off the clock. Who knows whether Stanford would have scored on that drive (and won instead of lost), but the likelihood of doing so was greatly diminished by the loss of those 30 precious seconds.
I know for a fact it was WSU, though my year may be wrong. I remember listening to Todd Husak screaming on the radio broadcast in utter exasperation about how much time Stanford was wasting. Stanford lost 38-35 or something like this.
09-22-2021, 01:32 PM
(09-22-2021, 11:59 AM)Hank 91 Wrote: I know this isn't exactly the type of clock management being discussed here, but it's related. I've gotten used to the fact that every offensive snap will happen with one or two seconds left on the play clock and that at least one or two timeouts per game will be burned to avoid delay penalties. And some delay penalties will still occur. It's frustrating, but it seemed like another reality connected to the Stanford play book -- or another reason to simplify the play book, depending on your point of view.
Anyway, one thing I noticed while watching the Vanderbilt game was that not only was McKee avoiding these situations, he almost always took the snap with more than ten seconds on the clock. It was stunning, really, and I don't think that it's just a reflection of a quarterback knowing the plays, especially since it's not an experienced quarterback. (Now that I write that, I realize it could be McKee's inexperience that's caused this. Maybe he just isn't being given as many options to sift through at the line of scrimmage.) Anyway, it seems like a change of philosophy that could only come from Shaw. It might be only incrementally so, but the offense is moving faster.
That's front and center to at least one of the issues being discussed here and in other threads.
It certainly appears that the DOG and near-DOG penalties are/were closely linked to Stanford's strategy to shorten games by always running the play clock near zero. While not necessarily tied together, the running of the play clock seemed to induce some lack of urgency in making decisions and getting plays in. Whether it is also associated with a large playbook and complicated terminology is unclear to me - though certainly possible.
However, as Stanford has moved away from a traditional control-the-clock, more-consistent-less-explosive-plays type of offense, it seems they have also generally stopped taking the play clock to zero so regularly despite still huddling and playing at a relatively slow tempo. It's noticeable with McKee, but I thought we also saw it with Mills. I'd have to go back and watch a few games to be sure.
Because of another thread, I went back to check the play clock during Stanford's plays during the final 10 minutes of the game. Over that stretch most of the plays began with under 5 seconds on the play clock, but the actual snapping was somewhat leisurely as McKee apparently was waiting about for the clock to run down near 5.
(09-22-2021, 11:59 AM)Hank 91 Wrote: I know this isn't exactly the type of clock management being discussed here, but it's related. I've gotten used to the fact that every offensive snap will happen with one or two seconds left on the play clock and that at least one or two timeouts per game will be burned to avoid delay penalties. And some delay penalties will still occur. It's frustrating, but it seemed like another reality connected to the Stanford play book -- or another reason to simplify the play book, depending on your point of view.
Anyway, one thing I noticed while watching the Vanderbilt game was that not only was McKee avoiding these situations, he almost always took the snap with more than ten seconds on the clock. It was stunning, really, and I don't think that it's just a reflection of a quarterback knowing the plays, especially since it's not an experienced quarterback. (Now that I write that, I realize it could be McKee's inexperience that's caused this. Maybe he just isn't being given as many options to sift through at the line of scrimmage.) Anyway, it seems like a change of philosophy that could only come from Shaw. It might be only incrementally so, but the offense is moving faster.
That's front and center to at least one of the issues being discussed here and in other threads.
It certainly appears that the DOG and near-DOG penalties are/were closely linked to Stanford's strategy to shorten games by always running the play clock near zero. While not necessarily tied together, the running of the play clock seemed to induce some lack of urgency in making decisions and getting plays in. Whether it is also associated with a large playbook and complicated terminology is unclear to me - though certainly possible.
However, as Stanford has moved away from a traditional control-the-clock, more-consistent-less-explosive-plays type of offense, it seems they have also generally stopped taking the play clock to zero so regularly despite still huddling and playing at a relatively slow tempo. It's noticeable with McKee, but I thought we also saw it with Mills. I'd have to go back and watch a few games to be sure.
Because of another thread, I went back to check the play clock during Stanford's plays during the final 10 minutes of the game. Over that stretch most of the plays began with under 5 seconds on the play clock, but the actual snapping was somewhat leisurely as McKee apparently was waiting about for the clock to run down near 5.
09-22-2021, 01:53 PM
(09-22-2021, 01:15 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-22-2021, 11:20 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'd like to see some data that shows Stanford's Football team has suffered losses because of bad unacceptable clock and time out management.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
Poor clock management will never be the only reason for a loss, but it can be a major contributing factor.
I think the game you're referring to was at home against Washington in 2019 when Shaw substituted on Stanford's final drive. That gave Washington the ability to substitute as well, which they did as slowly as they were permitted to do and burned a full 30 seconds off the clock. Who knows whether Stanford would have scored on that drive (and won instead of lost), but the likelihood of doing so was greatly diminished by the loss of those 30 precious seconds.
Pretty sure Shaw subbed in players twice in that final drive against UW, further undermining the chances for a W.
(09-22-2021, 01:15 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-22-2021, 11:20 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'd like to see some data that shows Stanford's Football team has suffered losses because of bad unacceptable clock and time out management.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
Poor clock management will never be the only reason for a loss, but it can be a major contributing factor.
I think the game you're referring to was at home against Washington in 2019 when Shaw substituted on Stanford's final drive. That gave Washington the ability to substitute as well, which they did as slowly as they were permitted to do and burned a full 30 seconds off the clock. Who knows whether Stanford would have scored on that drive (and won instead of lost), but the likelihood of doing so was greatly diminished by the loss of those 30 precious seconds.
Pretty sure Shaw subbed in players twice in that final drive against UW, further undermining the chances for a W.
09-22-2021, 03:08 PM
(09-22-2021, 01:53 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-22-2021, 01:15 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-22-2021, 11:20 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'd like to see some data that shows Stanford's Football team has suffered losses because of bad unacceptable clock and time out management.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
Poor clock management will never be the only reason for a loss, but it can be a major contributing factor.
I think the game you're referring to was at home against Washington in 2019 when Shaw substituted on Stanford's final drive. That gave Washington the ability to substitute as well, which they did as slowly as they were permitted to do and burned a full 30 seconds off the clock. Who knows whether Stanford would have scored on that drive (and won instead of lost), but the likelihood of doing so was greatly diminished by the loss of those 30 precious seconds.
Pretty sure Shaw subbed in players twice in that final drive against UW, further undermining the chances for a W.
Are you sure you are not thinking of the 2018 loss to Washington in Seattle? I think we beat UW at home in 2019…
(09-22-2021, 01:53 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-22-2021, 01:15 PM)winflop Wrote:(09-22-2021, 11:20 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I'd like to see some data that shows Stanford's Football team has suffered losses because of bad unacceptable clock and time out management.
I do recall in 2019 IIRC, a game against WSU where Stanford completely bungled an end of game drive, but I don't know if the fact it did actually was the reason for the loss, or if perfect clock management would have rescued victory from the jaws of defeat in that game.
Poor clock management will never be the only reason for a loss, but it can be a major contributing factor.
I think the game you're referring to was at home against Washington in 2019 when Shaw substituted on Stanford's final drive. That gave Washington the ability to substitute as well, which they did as slowly as they were permitted to do and burned a full 30 seconds off the clock. Who knows whether Stanford would have scored on that drive (and won instead of lost), but the likelihood of doing so was greatly diminished by the loss of those 30 precious seconds.
Pretty sure Shaw subbed in players twice in that final drive against UW, further undermining the chances for a W.
Are you sure you are not thinking of the 2018 loss to Washington in Seattle? I think we beat UW at home in 2019…
09-22-2021, 03:10 PM
Stanford 23, UW 13 in 2019 was the only highlight of that season. Please don't take it away!
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
Stanford 23, UW 13 in 2019 was the only highlight of that season. Please don't take it away!
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
09-22-2021, 03:15 PM
(09-22-2021, 08:14 AM)Phogge Wrote: Clock mis-management was a Harballs innovation and the virus was caught by Greg Roman. The Niners had the same problem, same staff. I don’t like the game slowed down but this week with UCLA’s track team on both sides of the ball Stanford needs the D to stay of the field as much as possible.
Far and away my biggest concern today, esp. in light of injuries this week. Shaw won't have freedom of action with a corps of 1 (Peat). Those other guys are unlikely to bust big gains at critical moments; so it's on McKee to throw key, third-down strikes. And Bruin brain-trust (such that it is) knows it. So it's game-planning accordingly, right now. I'd anticipated a big-scoring close win for Shaw. Now it looks like more of a decisive road-win for Chip Kelly who'll exploit our gassed defenders late in the game. Hope I'm wrong.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(09-22-2021, 08:14 AM)Phogge Wrote: Clock mis-management was a Harballs innovation and the virus was caught by Greg Roman. The Niners had the same problem, same staff. I don’t like the game slowed down but this week with UCLA’s track team on both sides of the ball Stanford needs the D to stay of the field as much as possible.
Far and away my biggest concern today, esp. in light of injuries this week. Shaw won't have freedom of action with a corps of 1 (Peat). Those other guys are unlikely to bust big gains at critical moments; so it's on McKee to throw key, third-down strikes. And Bruin brain-trust (such that it is) knows it. So it's game-planning accordingly, right now. I'd anticipated a big-scoring close win for Shaw. Now it looks like more of a decisive road-win for Chip Kelly who'll exploit our gassed defenders late in the game. Hope I'm wrong.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
09-22-2021, 03:27 PM
In 2019 we beat UW 23-13, so that's not it, but we also lost to WSU 49-22, so it is unlikely that the problem was time management.
In 2018, we lost to both UW and WSU by less than a touchdown, so it might have been either.
Against UW, we got the ball at the 15 yard line with 2:05 left in the game and no time outs (we used them defensively in the previous UW drive), down by 4 points. We ran 9 plays in those 2 minutes, making it all the way to the UW 34 with 3 seconds left; a desperation heave by Costello into the end zone was intercepted. The keys: 2nd and 10 from the 15, Costello completes a pass that goes 9 yards to Connor Weddington and the clock uses up about 30 seconds; 1st and 10 from our own 30 , Costello completes a pass to Bryce Love for 8 yards, and the clock ticks 26 seconds; 2nd and 2 from the Stanford 38, Costello completes a 13 yard pass to Wilson for a 1st down, and 31 seconds tick off the clock (even though the clock only restarted after the chains were moved). I think Teejers' memory is accurate here.
Against WSU, we lost 41-38, but actually had tied the game on a 10 play, 73 yard drive with 1 minute or so left. Here, the problem was that we left too much time on the clock; WSU went on a 7 play, 50 yard drive the culminated in a 42 yard field goal. We did get the ball back, but had only 10 seconds left; we ran three plays. I don't think this was the case where clock mismanagement cost us the game. Nor was there mismanagement in the first half, we scored a touchdown with 1:04 left (again, leaving enough time for WSU to go down the field and score a field goal).
BC
In 2018, we lost to both UW and WSU by less than a touchdown, so it might have been either.
Against UW, we got the ball at the 15 yard line with 2:05 left in the game and no time outs (we used them defensively in the previous UW drive), down by 4 points. We ran 9 plays in those 2 minutes, making it all the way to the UW 34 with 3 seconds left; a desperation heave by Costello into the end zone was intercepted. The keys: 2nd and 10 from the 15, Costello completes a pass that goes 9 yards to Connor Weddington and the clock uses up about 30 seconds; 1st and 10 from our own 30 , Costello completes a pass to Bryce Love for 8 yards, and the clock ticks 26 seconds; 2nd and 2 from the Stanford 38, Costello completes a 13 yard pass to Wilson for a 1st down, and 31 seconds tick off the clock (even though the clock only restarted after the chains were moved). I think Teejers' memory is accurate here.
Against WSU, we lost 41-38, but actually had tied the game on a 10 play, 73 yard drive with 1 minute or so left. Here, the problem was that we left too much time on the clock; WSU went on a 7 play, 50 yard drive the culminated in a 42 yard field goal. We did get the ball back, but had only 10 seconds left; we ran three plays. I don't think this was the case where clock mismanagement cost us the game. Nor was there mismanagement in the first half, we scored a touchdown with 1:04 left (again, leaving enough time for WSU to go down the field and score a field goal).
BC
In 2019 we beat UW 23-13, so that's not it, but we also lost to WSU 49-22, so it is unlikely that the problem was time management.
In 2018, we lost to both UW and WSU by less than a touchdown, so it might have been either.
Against UW, we got the ball at the 15 yard line with 2:05 left in the game and no time outs (we used them defensively in the previous UW drive), down by 4 points. We ran 9 plays in those 2 minutes, making it all the way to the UW 34 with 3 seconds left; a desperation heave by Costello into the end zone was intercepted. The keys: 2nd and 10 from the 15, Costello completes a pass that goes 9 yards to Connor Weddington and the clock uses up about 30 seconds; 1st and 10 from our own 30 , Costello completes a pass to Bryce Love for 8 yards, and the clock ticks 26 seconds; 2nd and 2 from the Stanford 38, Costello completes a 13 yard pass to Wilson for a 1st down, and 31 seconds tick off the clock (even though the clock only restarted after the chains were moved). I think Teejers' memory is accurate here.
Against WSU, we lost 41-38, but actually had tied the game on a 10 play, 73 yard drive with 1 minute or so left. Here, the problem was that we left too much time on the clock; WSU went on a 7 play, 50 yard drive the culminated in a 42 yard field goal. We did get the ball back, but had only 10 seconds left; we ran three plays. I don't think this was the case where clock mismanagement cost us the game. Nor was there mismanagement in the first half, we scored a touchdown with 1:04 left (again, leaving enough time for WSU to go down the field and score a field goal).
BC
In 2018, we lost to both UW and WSU by less than a touchdown, so it might have been either.
Against UW, we got the ball at the 15 yard line with 2:05 left in the game and no time outs (we used them defensively in the previous UW drive), down by 4 points. We ran 9 plays in those 2 minutes, making it all the way to the UW 34 with 3 seconds left; a desperation heave by Costello into the end zone was intercepted. The keys: 2nd and 10 from the 15, Costello completes a pass that goes 9 yards to Connor Weddington and the clock uses up about 30 seconds; 1st and 10 from our own 30 , Costello completes a pass to Bryce Love for 8 yards, and the clock ticks 26 seconds; 2nd and 2 from the Stanford 38, Costello completes a 13 yard pass to Wilson for a 1st down, and 31 seconds tick off the clock (even though the clock only restarted after the chains were moved). I think Teejers' memory is accurate here.
Against WSU, we lost 41-38, but actually had tied the game on a 10 play, 73 yard drive with 1 minute or so left. Here, the problem was that we left too much time on the clock; WSU went on a 7 play, 50 yard drive the culminated in a 42 yard field goal. We did get the ball back, but had only 10 seconds left; we ran three plays. I don't think this was the case where clock mismanagement cost us the game. Nor was there mismanagement in the first half, we scored a touchdown with 1:04 left (again, leaving enough time for WSU to go down the field and score a field goal).
BC
09-22-2021, 04:19 PM
For me Shaw's time(out) issues have typically been related to what some have called situational awareness (or lack thereof). The lack of a two-minute offense and urgency, which heavily relies on timing. (I've seen some signs of improvement in this area, but it was woeful for years under this head coach.) Knowing when and when not to take TOs has been another pretty glaring issue. I remember an ND game not too long back, when toward the end the Domers were driving and the commentators (and anyone with basic math skills) were befuddled that Shaw wasn't calling a TO to stop the clock. Stanford escaped with a W, but it was in spite of that snafu. There are a few other related issues, but these have stood out to me more than how long it takes for plays to come in.
(09-22-2021, 05:28 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Here, now there is a dedicated thread to talk your hearts out about how Stanford's Football team manages the clock in games.
For me Shaw's time(out) issues have typically been related to what some have called situational awareness (or lack thereof). The lack of a two-minute offense and urgency, which heavily relies on timing. (I've seen some signs of improvement in this area, but it was woeful for years under this head coach.) Knowing when and when not to take TOs has been another pretty glaring issue. I remember an ND game not too long back, when toward the end the Domers were driving and the commentators (and anyone with basic math skills) were befuddled that Shaw wasn't calling a TO to stop the clock. Stanford escaped with a W, but it was in spite of that snafu. There are a few other related issues, but these have stood out to me more than how long it takes for plays to come in.
(09-22-2021, 05:28 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Here, now there is a dedicated thread to talk your hearts out about how Stanford's Football team manages the clock in games.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »