[teejers1]

Teejers1, it is by definition a "matter of opinion" whether any conterfactual  play would have worked any better. It didn't happen, so nobody can know the result. It is certainly possible to believe the result would have been better, and I may share that belief in many cases. However, it is still of necessity an opinion.

I am pretty sure that if somebody had asked David Shaw what happened on the three fades, he would have replied something like the following:
"We got the matchups we wanted. Given the defense they presented, the fade was the correct call". You may not like that analysis, but it is certainly a rational one. It is, in my opinion, probable that Shaw could have added (but would not) "We complete that pass 65% of the time against our own defense in single coverage press man. Our own defense knows exactly what is coming. I like those odds. I would do it again. We just failed to execute". Continuing my counterfactual interview, if somebody asked Shaw "Why didn't you run?", he would have said "We liked the matchups we had". He would be thinking "Five or six years ago, I would for sure have run three times, and if we didn't score, kicked a FG. However, back then the PAC-12 didn't have an answer for our power running. Now they do. They recruited bigger guys on defense, and if we never throw the ball near the end zone, they play the safeties like linebackers. I remember losses cause by not getting in the endzone, particularly against USC. I realized we needed to change, and we did. If we get a good matchup, we will take it every damn time. Didn't you listen to my previous answer?" Consider his response about Weaver vs Parkinson in the endzone on the pass that was simply lead too far. "I will take that matchup any day of the week".

You ask do I think "Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working) ...". I think Shaw believes he understands what his team does well  and does not do well. I think he also believes that the game plan and the analysis behind that are generally more reliable than what he "feels" about the flow of the game. As he says, he "doesn't panic" and change everything because he doesn't like what he sees at the moment.

Teejers1 seems to prefer a coach who is more responsive to what the "eye test" tells him. Is Shaw "stubborn"? He would probably say that he and the staff have studied the opponent extensively and have determined what gives them the best chance to win. They will not easily abandon that. I think Shaw has shown that he will adjust in the game if there is a clear reason, i.e. the opponent running a defense he did not expect. He won't do so just because things aren't working, because he believes the strategy is correct and the alternatives will be worse. Others may not agree.

Whether a coach thinks he is in 4 down territory on the opponent's 35 yard line is not a matter of opinion.  He either does, or he doesn't.  And whether you call plays with that mindset or not is also not a matter of opinion - you either do or you don't.  

And yes, the eye test matters - WAY more than some pre-game formula.  Just ask the Dodgers manager who stuck with Urias for multiple innings to close out games - including the WS winner - because his eyes told him "it was working."   

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.

[teejers1]

Teejers1, it is by definition a "matter of opinion" whether any conterfactual  play would have worked any better. It didn't happen, so nobody can know the result. It is certainly possible to believe the result would have been better, and I may share that belief in many cases. However, it is still of necessity an opinion.

I am pretty sure that if somebody had asked David Shaw what happened on the three fades, he would have replied something like the following:
"We got the matchups we wanted. Given the defense they presented, the fade was the correct call". You may not like that analysis, but it is certainly a rational one. It is, in my opinion, probable that Shaw could have added (but would not) "We complete that pass 65% of the time against our own defense in single coverage press man. Our own defense knows exactly what is coming. I like those odds. I would do it again. We just failed to execute". Continuing my counterfactual interview, if somebody asked Shaw "Why didn't you run?", he would have said "We liked the matchups we had". He would be thinking "Five or six years ago, I would for sure have run three times, and if we didn't score, kicked a FG. However, back then the PAC-12 didn't have an answer for our power running. Now they do. They recruited bigger guys on defense, and if we never throw the ball near the end zone, they play the safeties like linebackers. I remember losses cause by not getting in the endzone, particularly against USC. I realized we needed to change, and we did. If we get a good matchup, we will take it every damn time. Didn't you listen to my previous answer?" Consider his response about Weaver vs Parkinson in the endzone on the pass that was simply lead too far. "I will take that matchup any day of the week".

You ask do I think "Shaw has a good grasp of game situations, control of the offense (in terms of what is/is not working) ...". I think Shaw believes he understands what his team does well  and does not do well. I think he also believes that the game plan and the analysis behind that are generally more reliable than what he "feels" about the flow of the game. As he says, he "doesn't panic" and change everything because he doesn't like what he sees at the moment.

Teejers1 seems to prefer a coach who is more responsive to what the "eye test" tells him. Is Shaw "stubborn"? He would probably say that he and the staff have studied the opponent extensively and have determined what gives them the best chance to win. They will not easily abandon that. I think Shaw has shown that he will adjust in the game if there is a clear reason, i.e. the opponent running a defense he did not expect. He won't do so just because things aren't working, because he believes the strategy is correct and the alternatives will be worse. Others may not agree.

Whether a coach thinks he is in 4 down territory on the opponent's 35 yard line is not a matter of opinion.  He either does, or he doesn't.  And whether you call plays with that mindset or not is also not a matter of opinion - you either do or you don't.  

And yes, the eye test matters - WAY more than some pre-game formula.  Just ask the Dodgers manager who stuck with Urias for multiple innings to close out games - including the WS winner - because his eyes told him "it was working."   

Shaw failed "grasp of the game/eye test" WAY BACK when, at Utah, when he was knocking on the door at  very end of game. Everyone . . . and I mean everyone . . . I know who watched that game (including Utah fans) thought Stanford had to pound the rock into the end zone and wrap up the game (and make a CFP, it turns out, had the rest of the season turned out the same).  It was so mind-numbingly bewildering that it made the decision to take the ball out of Andrew Luck's hands at the end of the Fiesta Bowl look like a reasoned decision, relatively speaking.

This guy isn't qualified to run a good college offense.