[winflop]

Did you even listen to the post-game presser?  Shaw said "the plan" was to take the TD shot on second down and then run on third down to burn clock (that was reported on TOS).  Now, I can understand your predisposition to defend Shaw at every turn, but at some point don't you have to take him at his word?  And if so, how can that possibly be sound game management in that down and distance and score situation?  

Short answer:  it cannot.

And murky, there were 3 minutes left on second and 4 (IIRC).  Cal had 3 timeouts.  If you run it twice* to get a first down, let's assume Cal calls one of its TOs (on third down).  That means you have first and 10, Cal has 2 timeouts left.  That's 2:15 and the clock running.  Best case scenario for Cal there (barring a TO) is that Cal gets ball back with no timeouts and 1:30 on the clock.  And that assumes Stanford does not get another first down; or that Stanford does not score a TD.  Of course, if Stanford takes four downs to get the initial first down, then Cal will have (at best) 45 seconds or so to score.  

Now, it's certainly true that Cal could have scored game tying or game-winning FG or TD in 1:30 with no timeouts (and in fact, they did score a TD in just over a minute, IIRC).  But it's also possible that Stanford could have closed out the game with another first down (after the one at issue).  And it's also possible that after Stanford gets that initial first down - and Cal sees Stanford is in "make Cal burn its timeouts as we set up for late go-ahead FG" - Cal would be particularly vulnerable to play-action for the TD.

It's all about maximizing the chances for the W at each juncture of the game and having the foresight to know how that calculation changes with each play, especially late in the game.  And I think Stanford is sorely lacking on that front under this regime, as repeatedly demonstrated over the years.  

* And BC, I'm not blindly advocating for run-run in that 2nd and 4 situation.  But I am definitely advocating for a run on second down.  If it was stuffed in the backfield for a loss of 3, then yes, a pass would be the call because the immediate goal is to get the first down.  OTOH, if a second down run gained 1 or 2 yards, then I'd be inclined to run again (especially if you had a conviction to go for it on fourth and short).  As noted, fourth and 1 or inches is intriguing.  Again, it's all about having the variables sorted out in your head prior to each play and understanding "the next move."  I have zero sense that this staff "gets that."

Shaw's explanation frustrates me even further because it's back-@$$wards. Run on second down, then pass if you don't get at least two yards. Force the Weenies to burn a TO on second down or let the clock run down another 30 seconds.

Shaw's clock management has been awful for years now. When and where/how does he get better?

[winflop]

Did you even listen to the post-game presser?  Shaw said "the plan" was to take the TD shot on second down and then run on third down to burn clock (that was reported on TOS).  Now, I can understand your predisposition to defend Shaw at every turn, but at some point don't you have to take him at his word?  And if so, how can that possibly be sound game management in that down and distance and score situation?  

Short answer:  it cannot.

And murky, there were 3 minutes left on second and 4 (IIRC).  Cal had 3 timeouts.  If you run it twice* to get a first down, let's assume Cal calls one of its TOs (on third down).  That means you have first and 10, Cal has 2 timeouts left.  That's 2:15 and the clock running.  Best case scenario for Cal there (barring a TO) is that Cal gets ball back with no timeouts and 1:30 on the clock.  And that assumes Stanford does not get another first down; or that Stanford does not score a TD.  Of course, if Stanford takes four downs to get the initial first down, then Cal will have (at best) 45 seconds or so to score.  

Now, it's certainly true that Cal could have scored game tying or game-winning FG or TD in 1:30 with no timeouts (and in fact, they did score a TD in just over a minute, IIRC).  But it's also possible that Stanford could have closed out the game with another first down (after the one at issue).  And it's also possible that after Stanford gets that initial first down - and Cal sees Stanford is in "make Cal burn its timeouts as we set up for late go-ahead FG" - Cal would be particularly vulnerable to play-action for the TD.

It's all about maximizing the chances for the W at each juncture of the game and having the foresight to know how that calculation changes with each play, especially late in the game.  And I think Stanford is sorely lacking on that front under this regime, as repeatedly demonstrated over the years.  

* And BC, I'm not blindly advocating for run-run in that 2nd and 4 situation.  But I am definitely advocating for a run on second down.  If it was stuffed in the backfield for a loss of 3, then yes, a pass would be the call because the immediate goal is to get the first down.  OTOH, if a second down run gained 1 or 2 yards, then I'd be inclined to run again (especially if you had a conviction to go for it on fourth and short).  As noted, fourth and 1 or inches is intriguing.  Again, it's all about having the variables sorted out in your head prior to each play and understanding "the next move."  I have zero sense that this staff "gets that."

Shaw's explanation frustrates me even further because it's back-@$$wards. Run on second down, then pass if you don't get at least two yards. Force the Weenies to burn a TO on second down or let the clock run down another 30 seconds.

Shaw's clock management has been awful for years now. When and where/how does he get better?