[Mick]

My impression of the game (from TV, not in person) was that Shaw had a strategy of winning with a minimum of risk.  To Shaw, this game may have been bigger than a Big Game.  Lose this, and we might not win the North.  Out goes the Rose Bowl (and any prayer of anything more).    A number of people here felt particularly anxious about this game.  Maybe Shaw saw Low APR U as a dangerous opponent that needed to be defeated, even if the win wasn't particularly gaudy.  I believe he minimized risk on both offense and defense.

At 21-6 by half, the important point was to avoid Low APR U getting quick scores. I believe Shaw was just fine to let Low APR U be the team that drained the clock.  Stanford's defense fought a battle of attrition throughout the second half:  the defense dropped well off the line.  I think the D is better at tackling than defending passes.  The important thing was to avoid quick Low APR U scores and let the clock drain.  Low APR U's longest pass play was the 31 yard pass for the meaningless score at the end of the game.

I went back and watched some of the early defense, when Stanford was up 7-0.  Our defenders were right up on the line rather than giving so much room.  We also almost gave up big gains on passes, but they weren't caught.

Once Stanford got the second touchdown, Low APR U was within a single touchdown only once.  That was short lived as Stanford's next possession resulted in a touchdown.

--------

I presume Shaw was as conservative on the offense in the second half for the same reason.  Passes can turn into quick scores by the opponent.  Even though passing may increase the effectiveness of your offense, why risk it if you're two scores ahead?  (As it was, Hogan threw a late pass that I thought should have been intercepted.)

So, while Garvin is concerned that "But this is the second game in a row where our offense has looked iffy against a crummy-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt defense, and also the second in a row where the massive fault lines in our defense were exposed," I see it as a tour-de-force of the coaching staff.  Maybe in the next game, the offense & defense will have to play with more risk & reward.  In this game, they just held the little kid at arm's length so they didn't get hit.

--------

The TV announcers made a big deal of Low APR U's time of possession, but when you're behind, your own ToP isn't terribly important.  If anything, it is counter-productive.
------

Regarding the pass that was ruled incomplete, which Garvin thought should have been a touchdown, the TV feed (and so I presume the review officials) had excellent video of the play (both of the ball coming out and the receiver's feet).  The TV feed didn't carry the announcement by the officials, and the announcer first said one thing that made it sound like the call was allowed to stand and then something that made it seem like it was confirmed.  I don't know the rules here, so I'll accept their judgement.

----------

I watched Sports Center talk about the game.  I wondered whether one guy was trying to play the straight man, or just really was that ignorant, when he said  "McCaffery does everything for them but throw the ball.".  But they cut to a commercial, so if the speaker was setting it up for a comment by the other announcer, the setup was for naught.

---------
One announcer (Chris Spielman) wondered why McCaffery was still on the field just before the end of the game.  Dave Flemming had just announced that the 23-yard run had given him the Stanford record for most total yardage in a single game.  Yes, it was a risk, but I expect the one play he ran will help in his Voldemort Trophy hunt.  Certainly it has to feel good to all that this record came in the Big Game.  (Can you imagine how we would moan if the coach had held him out, with less than 20 yards to break the record?)

Terrific post, MT.  Agreed on all points.  I don't think  there's any such thing as style points in a win of this nature.  We won by 13, let's be happy.

I thought Shaw's game plan was superb, and I don't give a rip about ToP, that's a highly overrated statistic.  I don't mind if a UCB WR gets 150 yards receiving with 0 TDs.  I thought the announcers were particularly ill informed about Stanford, McCaffrey, etc.

[Mick]

My impression of the game (from TV, not in person) was that Shaw had a strategy of winning with a minimum of risk.  To Shaw, this game may have been bigger than a Big Game.  Lose this, and we might not win the North.  Out goes the Rose Bowl (and any prayer of anything more).    A number of people here felt particularly anxious about this game.  Maybe Shaw saw Low APR U as a dangerous opponent that needed to be defeated, even if the win wasn't particularly gaudy.  I believe he minimized risk on both offense and defense.

At 21-6 by half, the important point was to avoid Low APR U getting quick scores. I believe Shaw was just fine to let Low APR U be the team that drained the clock.  Stanford's defense fought a battle of attrition throughout the second half:  the defense dropped well off the line.  I think the D is better at tackling than defending passes.  The important thing was to avoid quick Low APR U scores and let the clock drain.  Low APR U's longest pass play was the 31 yard pass for the meaningless score at the end of the game.

I went back and watched some of the early defense, when Stanford was up 7-0.  Our defenders were right up on the line rather than giving so much room.  We also almost gave up big gains on passes, but they weren't caught.

Once Stanford got the second touchdown, Low APR U was within a single touchdown only once.  That was short lived as Stanford's next possession resulted in a touchdown.

--------

I presume Shaw was as conservative on the offense in the second half for the same reason.  Passes can turn into quick scores by the opponent.  Even though passing may increase the effectiveness of your offense, why risk it if you're two scores ahead?  (As it was, Hogan threw a late pass that I thought should have been intercepted.)

So, while Garvin is concerned that "But this is the second game in a row where our offense has looked iffy against a crummy-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt defense, and also the second in a row where the massive fault lines in our defense were exposed," I see it as a tour-de-force of the coaching staff.  Maybe in the next game, the offense & defense will have to play with more risk & reward.  In this game, they just held the little kid at arm's length so they didn't get hit.

--------

The TV announcers made a big deal of Low APR U's time of possession, but when you're behind, your own ToP isn't terribly important.  If anything, it is counter-productive.
------

Regarding the pass that was ruled incomplete, which Garvin thought should have been a touchdown, the TV feed (and so I presume the review officials) had excellent video of the play (both of the ball coming out and the receiver's feet).  The TV feed didn't carry the announcement by the officials, and the announcer first said one thing that made it sound like the call was allowed to stand and then something that made it seem like it was confirmed.  I don't know the rules here, so I'll accept their judgement.

----------

I watched Sports Center talk about the game.  I wondered whether one guy was trying to play the straight man, or just really was that ignorant, when he said  "McCaffery does everything for them but throw the ball.".  But they cut to a commercial, so if the speaker was setting it up for a comment by the other announcer, the setup was for naught.

---------
One announcer (Chris Spielman) wondered why McCaffery was still on the field just before the end of the game.  Dave Flemming had just announced that the 23-yard run had given him the Stanford record for most total yardage in a single game.  Yes, it was a risk, but I expect the one play he ran will help in his Voldemort Trophy hunt.  Certainly it has to feel good to all that this record came in the Big Game.  (Can you imagine how we would moan if the coach had held him out, with less than 20 yards to break the record?)

Terrific post, MT.  Agreed on all points.  I don't think  there's any such thing as style points in a win of this nature.  We won by 13, let's be happy.

I thought Shaw's game plan was superb, and I don't give a rip about ToP, that's a highly overrated statistic.  I don't mind if a UCB WR gets 150 yards receiving with 0 TDs.  I thought the announcers were particularly ill informed about Stanford, McCaffrey, etc.