[Snorlax94]

That isn't awful play calling when you are 14 points ahead of a team that has managed to score against you only once in three quarters, and you are facing a team that is going to gamble if and when you attempt a pass.

Generically, I agree with you but ...

- ASU had scored twice in three quarters.
- ASU had had two or three other significant drives into our territory (59 yds to the 34, 44 yds to the 31, 35 yds to the 40).
- Stanford clearly has trouble running the ball this year.
- Costello had been generally accurate on the day - though he did force one terribly.
- Stanford continued the strategy for two drives after it became a one score game.

So, while not awful, I think it started too early. And once it became a one score game I think it would have been better to play a little more toward keeping possession and a little less toward running the clock and avoiding turnovers.

But of course along with the counterfactual that many are imagining (we pass for one more first down with 2:20 left and run out the clock), I am also mindful of another counterfactual - that we throw an incomplete pass on third and 8, ASU saves a TO, after their sack or long completion call it then to save 25-30 seconds, giving them as many as 3/4 more tries from our 20 to score the final TD.
And that incomplete pass could have been almost any time in the fourth quarter with potentially the same effect on the clock.

I'm always glad when we win, but games aren't much fun to watch when Shaw isn't trying to do anything offensively besides kill the clock and the defense is holding on to a slim lead with their fingernails.
Mostly they are just nerve-wracking.

I don't mind the clock killing -- well, it is frustrating and anxiety-inducing -- but I do think Stanford's overall record, and its ability to close out games -- earns a lot of trust.

I don't mind running the ball to kill the clock. Makes sense. Shaw and his staff have crunched the numbers, and they have their conclusion, and it is contrary to a lot of popular thinking, but during this era, Stanford has been one of the winningest programs in the nation.

And generally, I defend sticking with the run, and specializing in a smaller number of plays. As Hulk mentioned, there's a lot of variety even within the same play (for example, there are a lot of reads of where a player can cut, or even how a player might block). And many of the great coaches, including Bill Walsh, emphasized it's how well you execute your core, basic plays. Other coaches might have different base plays, but your base plays are your base plays.

But my concern is this -- teams seem to get into a groove and a rhythm stopping particular Stanford run plays they prepare for. The current Bryce Love pitch play has a particular set up, a particular rhythm, a particular location, a particular player, and, perhaps most significantly, a particular timing -- it is a slow-developing play that has been disrupted by interior run blitzing.

I can see an argument that Stanford shouldn't pass -- passes stop the clock, and they're full of risk and uncertainty (blindside rushers, unseen/misdiagnosed coverage, tipped balls). 

I can even see the argument against many run plays people argue for (pitch sweeps arguably could be tipped/disrupted by a gambling defense, and wide/fast pitches can be fumbled, and even zone reads can lead to turnovers when a QB isn't decisive and makes a sloppy choice whether to keep or handoff).

But my question is this -- Coach Shaw defends the play call by saying the correct choice was to run, but does that necessarily mean the correct choice was to run the same run play, to the same place, with the same timing, to the same gap, with the same player, over and over?


It seems like defenses can get into a nice rhythm over and over successfully stopping these run plays. And I do think the conservatism has cost Stanford some games, especially against some clever, well-regarded coaches.

So my question is -- even if Stanford runs, and it runs a very safe run play, can't they mix some things up? I would imagine Stanford could benefit if it ran another different type of run play -- even a Fullback dive (assuming our fullbacks can be trusted to hold onto the rock). The benefit of a fullback dive is that it develops much, much more quickly, it can be to the site opposite of Bryce Love, and it hits a different hole. But I think the greatest benefit is the change-up in timing. I just think there's a LOT to be said about defenses getting into a rhythm and defenses being able to anticipate. The change-up could put defenders off-balance, which could make them question things more on future plays, and it could help linemen blocking players that are less sure what's going to happen. And the surprise could net good yards.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=yout...tvzk&t=48s

Maybe the change-up run play is not a fullback dive, but I can't help wondering if there are some other run plays that could be run that could put defenses off-balance, make them guess more, and deny them a sense of rhythm. Or even the same dang play with some line-of-scrimmage formation shifts before snapping the ball, to not let defenses settle in. Or even if it meant burning more time in the huddle, then rushing to the line and starting their play almost in a 'hurry-up' mode on a quick snap count to deny defenses from locking in their plans. I can't help thinking a little bit of a change-up is possible, and could be beneficial.

But as a whole, I'm very happy with Coach Shaw because I'm very happy with the unprecedented results, and I'm very happy that the results are being achieved doing things by and large the right way, with relatively little drama. But, I think every coach can improve elements of their game, and I do wonder if this area can be improved a bit, even if the general philosophy of running out the clock with conservative run plays may be sound.

[Snorlax94]

That isn't awful play calling when you are 14 points ahead of a team that has managed to score against you only once in three quarters, and you are facing a team that is going to gamble if and when you attempt a pass.

Generically, I agree with you but ...

- ASU had scored twice in three quarters.
- ASU had had two or three other significant drives into our territory (59 yds to the 34, 44 yds to the 31, 35 yds to the 40).
- Stanford clearly has trouble running the ball this year.
- Costello had been generally accurate on the day - though he did force one terribly.
- Stanford continued the strategy for two drives after it became a one score game.

So, while not awful, I think it started too early. And once it became a one score game I think it would have been better to play a little more toward keeping possession and a little less toward running the clock and avoiding turnovers.

But of course along with the counterfactual that many are imagining (we pass for one more first down with 2:20 left and run out the clock), I am also mindful of another counterfactual - that we throw an incomplete pass on third and 8, ASU saves a TO, after their sack or long completion call it then to save 25-30 seconds, giving them as many as 3/4 more tries from our 20 to score the final TD.
And that incomplete pass could have been almost any time in the fourth quarter with potentially the same effect on the clock.

I'm always glad when we win, but games aren't much fun to watch when Shaw isn't trying to do anything offensively besides kill the clock and the defense is holding on to a slim lead with their fingernails.
Mostly they are just nerve-wracking.

I don't mind the clock killing -- well, it is frustrating and anxiety-inducing -- but I do think Stanford's overall record, and its ability to close out games -- earns a lot of trust.

I don't mind running the ball to kill the clock. Makes sense. Shaw and his staff have crunched the numbers, and they have their conclusion, and it is contrary to a lot of popular thinking, but during this era, Stanford has been one of the winningest programs in the nation.

And generally, I defend sticking with the run, and specializing in a smaller number of plays. As Hulk mentioned, there's a lot of variety even within the same play (for example, there are a lot of reads of where a player can cut, or even how a player might block). And many of the great coaches, including Bill Walsh, emphasized it's how well you execute your core, basic plays. Other coaches might have different base plays, but your base plays are your base plays.

But my concern is this -- teams seem to get into a groove and a rhythm stopping particular Stanford run plays they prepare for. The current Bryce Love pitch play has a particular set up, a particular rhythm, a particular location, a particular player, and, perhaps most significantly, a particular timing -- it is a slow-developing play that has been disrupted by interior run blitzing.

I can see an argument that Stanford shouldn't pass -- passes stop the clock, and they're full of risk and uncertainty (blindside rushers, unseen/misdiagnosed coverage, tipped balls). 

I can even see the argument against many run plays people argue for (pitch sweeps arguably could be tipped/disrupted by a gambling defense, and wide/fast pitches can be fumbled, and even zone reads can lead to turnovers when a QB isn't decisive and makes a sloppy choice whether to keep or handoff).

But my question is this -- Coach Shaw defends the play call by saying the correct choice was to run, but does that necessarily mean the correct choice was to run the same run play, to the same place, with the same timing, to the same gap, with the same player, over and over?


It seems like defenses can get into a nice rhythm over and over successfully stopping these run plays. And I do think the conservatism has cost Stanford some games, especially against some clever, well-regarded coaches.

So my question is -- even if Stanford runs, and it runs a very safe run play, can't they mix some things up? I would imagine Stanford could benefit if it ran another different type of run play -- even a Fullback dive (assuming our fullbacks can be trusted to hold onto the rock). The benefit of a fullback dive is that it develops much, much more quickly, it can be to the site opposite of Bryce Love, and it hits a different hole. But I think the greatest benefit is the change-up in timing. I just think there's a LOT to be said about defenses getting into a rhythm and defenses being able to anticipate. The change-up could put defenders off-balance, which could make them question things more on future plays, and it could help linemen blocking players that are less sure what's going to happen. And the surprise could net good yards.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=yout...tvzk&t=48s

Maybe the change-up run play is not a fullback dive, but I can't help wondering if there are some other run plays that could be run that could put defenses off-balance, make them guess more, and deny them a sense of rhythm. Or even the same dang play with some line-of-scrimmage formation shifts before snapping the ball, to not let defenses settle in. Or even if it meant burning more time in the huddle, then rushing to the line and starting their play almost in a 'hurry-up' mode on a quick snap count to deny defenses from locking in their plans. I can't help thinking a little bit of a change-up is possible, and could be beneficial.

But as a whole, I'm very happy with Coach Shaw because I'm very happy with the unprecedented results, and I'm very happy that the results are being achieved doing things by and large the right way, with relatively little drama. But, I think every coach can improve elements of their game, and I do wonder if this area can be improved a bit, even if the general philosophy of running out the clock with conservative run plays may be sound.