[Goose]

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. 

Unless being in 4 down territory is not solely dependent on being on/inside the opponent's 35 yard line, which by even your own standards may be modulated by the "eye test". Do you feel you can make 4th and 10? If you don't, maybe you kick a FG. If you do, yo go for it. If it is the end of the game and a FG won't help you, you go for it. It clearly isn't a dichotomy where you do the same thing because of where you are on the field.

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."

I guess you aren't much of an analytics guy either. I am not of the opinion that the eye test matters way more than some pre-game formula. It can in some circumstances, but in most cases chasing success based on what didn't work on the last play doesn't work IMHO. If you find something that is working, ride it, but if you have a situation where the plays you run well against the defense the opponent is playing aren't working, switching to plays that you don't run well and/or are not indicated against the opposing defense probably isn't going to help.

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.

And so many of us here are that Stanford could save lots of money by letting one of us call the plays?

[Goose]

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. 

Unless being in 4 down territory is not solely dependent on being on/inside the opponent's 35 yard line, which by even your own standards may be modulated by the "eye test". Do you feel you can make 4th and 10? If you don't, maybe you kick a FG. If you do, yo go for it. If it is the end of the game and a FG won't help you, you go for it. It clearly isn't a dichotomy where you do the same thing because of where you are on the field.

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."

I guess you aren't much of an analytics guy either. I am not of the opinion that the eye test matters way more than some pre-game formula. It can in some circumstances, but in most cases chasing success based on what didn't work on the last play doesn't work IMHO. If you find something that is working, ride it, but if you have a situation where the plays you run well against the defense the opponent is playing aren't working, switching to plays that you don't run well and/or are not indicated against the opposing defense probably isn't going to help.

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.

And so many of us here are that Stanford could save lots of money by letting one of us call the plays?