12-02-2017, 01:20 PM
Didn't see the whole game due to NY client obligations, but did see most of the 2H. The territory is well-covered in these parts. The D was the bigger problem yesterday (though I agree with Lex that the 2H D seemed good enough to win).
But my main difference with (what appears to be) the prevailing mood is on the fourth and goal. Forget about second-guessing the play calls leading up to that point (maddening in their own right). Bur real time, when third down was stopped a yard short, I said "kick the FG" immediately and loudly. And it's not a "conservative" vs. "aggressive" thing, it's a "I know the play Shaw will call on fourth down (as will everyone else), and the chances of it getting stuffed are greater than 50%." Admit it, you all knew that was coming. I mean, why do you think the edge rusher got there so quickly? Because he ALSO knew what we all knew. It's just so predictable and so frustrating.
Another reason to kick the FG: maintain a sense of momentum by tying the score. No guarantee Stanford wins in (or even gets to) OT, but I think the whole momentum/tenor of the game would have been different had Stanford tied it in Q4.
BTW, agree that Shaw had to challenge the lateral pass ruling; and that refs mysteriously upheld the erroneous call.
Maybe some day I'll "see the wisdom" in running into the teeth of a stacked defense, subjecting the best/most explosive player to more tacklers in a tighter space (and greater risk of shenanigans in pileup tackles). It just seems that perhaps getting Love in space (even a straight pitch sweep) would be at least as effective.
Bottom line: you can say SC played better and "deserved" to win, but only if you also acknowledge the game was "right there" for Stanford to take itself. Maybe it's because I watched only 2H action, but SC didn't look like the appreciably better team to me. They did look like the team that did not make as many defensive mistakes (and of course had a more varied offense - the teams' respective fourth down calls really says it all).
But my main difference with (what appears to be) the prevailing mood is on the fourth and goal. Forget about second-guessing the play calls leading up to that point (maddening in their own right). Bur real time, when third down was stopped a yard short, I said "kick the FG" immediately and loudly. And it's not a "conservative" vs. "aggressive" thing, it's a "I know the play Shaw will call on fourth down (as will everyone else), and the chances of it getting stuffed are greater than 50%." Admit it, you all knew that was coming. I mean, why do you think the edge rusher got there so quickly? Because he ALSO knew what we all knew. It's just so predictable and so frustrating.
Another reason to kick the FG: maintain a sense of momentum by tying the score. No guarantee Stanford wins in (or even gets to) OT, but I think the whole momentum/tenor of the game would have been different had Stanford tied it in Q4.
BTW, agree that Shaw had to challenge the lateral pass ruling; and that refs mysteriously upheld the erroneous call.
Maybe some day I'll "see the wisdom" in running into the teeth of a stacked defense, subjecting the best/most explosive player to more tacklers in a tighter space (and greater risk of shenanigans in pileup tackles). It just seems that perhaps getting Love in space (even a straight pitch sweep) would be at least as effective.
Bottom line: you can say SC played better and "deserved" to win, but only if you also acknowledge the game was "right there" for Stanford to take itself. Maybe it's because I watched only 2H action, but SC didn't look like the appreciably better team to me. They did look like the team that did not make as many defensive mistakes (and of course had a more varied offense - the teams' respective fourth down calls really says it all).