[cardcrimson]

Missed most of the game, again. Caught the last Irish drive on the radio. The announcers were crucifying the clock management of the last 8 minutes or so on our part. Borderline incompetence. ND scores with 30 secs left. I get home, take the dog out, turn on the TV. We're at the 45 and Hogan completes to Cajuste. We run. We kick. We win. I'm happy, but I'm very confused. What the heck happened?

[cardcrimson]

Missed most of the game, again. Caught the last Irish drive on the radio. The announcers were crucifying the clock management of the last 8 minutes or so on our part. Borderline incompetence. ND scores with 30 secs left. I get home, take the dog out, turn on the TV. We're at the 45 and Hogan completes to Cajuste. We run. We kick. We win. I'm happy, but I'm very confused. What the heck happened?

[washingtonismoney]

David Shaw has a unique ability to annoy people during and after wins. Never seen anything like it!*

* (by my lights the bigger error was not throwing during the final two drives... and while I don't mind running Hogan on 3rd and 4, Shaw needs to understand that opposing defenses are keyed into the personnel he's doing it from. If Hogan + FB are in shotgun formation, it's a run to the fullback's side the vast majority of the time.)

[washingtonismoney]

David Shaw has a unique ability to annoy people during and after wins. Never seen anything like it!*

* (by my lights the bigger error was not throwing during the final two drives... and while I don't mind running Hogan on 3rd and 4, Shaw needs to understand that opposing defenses are keyed into the personnel he's doing it from. If Hogan + FB are in shotgun formation, it's a run to the fullback's side the vast majority of the time.)

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/vkhosla/status/670830827706650624

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/vkhosla/status/670830827706650624

[dabigv13]

Screw that guy. Restricting beach access ought to buy you a one way ticket to hell, or at least infinity spent watching Holmoe era Kal highlights.

[dabigv13]

Screw that guy. Restricting beach access ought to buy you a one way ticket to hell, or at least infinity spent watching Holmoe era Kal highlights.

[CompSci87]

Missed most of the game, again. Caught the last Irish drive on the radio. The announcers were crucifying the clock management of the last 8 minutes or so on our part. Borderline incompetence. ND scores with 30 secs left. I get home, take the dog out, turn on the TV. We're at the 45 and Hogan completes to Cajuste. We run. We kick. We win. I'm happy, but I'm very confused. What the heck happened?

15 yard facemask penalty on ND was one thing you missed.

[CompSci87]

Missed most of the game, again. Caught the last Irish drive on the radio. The announcers were crucifying the clock management of the last 8 minutes or so on our part. Borderline incompetence. ND scores with 30 secs left. I get home, take the dog out, turn on the TV. We're at the 45 and Hogan completes to Cajuste. We run. We kick. We win. I'm happy, but I'm very confused. What the heck happened?

15 yard facemask penalty on ND was one thing you missed.

[Hank 91]

I had no issue with Shaw's decision not to go for two on the last touchdown, but I agree with WiM -- as good as Hogan was all night, it bothered me when we forgot about the pass on those last two possessions.

What were the questions about time management? Did they want him to use those timeouts on defense? I could see that, I suppose. Also, it's a good thing that ND's touchdown wasn't reversed. We ended up needing every second.

[Hank 91]

I had no issue with Shaw's decision not to go for two on the last touchdown, but I agree with WiM -- as good as Hogan was all night, it bothered me when we forgot about the pass on those last two possessions.

What were the questions about time management? Did they want him to use those timeouts on defense? I could see that, I suppose. Also, it's a good thing that ND's touchdown wasn't reversed. We ended up needing every second.

[BostonCard]

Generally, you want to use time outs on defense because on offense you can hurry the play calls, spike the ball or try to get the ball out of bounds, etc, whereas your opponent can run as much clock as they want.  The one thing that holding time outs did for us, is it opened the middle of the field on the winning drive.  We could not have hit the seam route to Cajuste if we didn't have the time outs.

The other thing is, however, that we had the lead, so if the clock ran out on Notre Dame, they would have lost.  In fact, Notre Dame took a time out in there.  It's a bit of a cat and mouse game, because as the offense you want to score the winning touchdown as time expires of course, but you would rather leave time on the clock than fail to score.

My biggest complaint on the play-calling was running McCaffrey on third and 1 and failing to get the first down.  Wright gives you the best chance to get a first down there (or a fake for a big gain).  I realize McCaffrey is a special back, but if Wright is the guy you call on all year, you have to have him back there.

BC

[BostonCard]

Generally, you want to use time outs on defense because on offense you can hurry the play calls, spike the ball or try to get the ball out of bounds, etc, whereas your opponent can run as much clock as they want.  The one thing that holding time outs did for us, is it opened the middle of the field on the winning drive.  We could not have hit the seam route to Cajuste if we didn't have the time outs.

The other thing is, however, that we had the lead, so if the clock ran out on Notre Dame, they would have lost.  In fact, Notre Dame took a time out in there.  It's a bit of a cat and mouse game, because as the offense you want to score the winning touchdown as time expires of course, but you would rather leave time on the clock than fail to score.

My biggest complaint on the play-calling was running McCaffrey on third and 1 and failing to get the first down.  Wright gives you the best chance to get a first down there (or a fake for a big gain).  I realize McCaffrey is a special back, but if Wright is the guy you call on all year, you have to have him back there.

BC

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

Shaw's decision to go into the turtle shell on the last two drives before the game-winner was maddening, but predictable. 

The failure to use any of the three timeouts on defense on ND's final drive was just insane.  Confiscate his whistle insane.  Can somebody sit him down and explain basic clock management? 

Great win.  So proud of the team and especially Hogan, who was great tonight.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

Shaw's decision to go into the turtle shell on the last two drives before the game-winner was maddening, but predictable. 

The failure to use any of the three timeouts on defense on ND's final drive was just insane.  Confiscate his whistle insane.  Can somebody sit him down and explain basic clock management? 

Great win.  So proud of the team and especially Hogan, who was great tonight.

[Hank 91]

I know that coaches typically use those timeouts on defense, and I also that pointing out that it worked does not automatically justify the decision -- but it did work. Based on how the Stanford red zone defense had played throughout the game, it wouldn't have been a surprise if they had held them out there.

[Hank 91]

I know that coaches typically use those timeouts on defense, and I also that pointing out that it worked does not automatically justify the decision -- but it did work. Based on how the Stanford red zone defense had played throughout the game, it wouldn't have been a surprise if they had held them out there.

[cardcrimson]

The radio guys were complaining about both the offensive play calling the last couple of series and not calling timeouts on defense. "You gotta call a timeout here, don't you? . . . ." I also remember a third and one, and they run McCaffrey. Have they done that at all during the season? Where was Wright?

Great win by the team and a ton of heart by Hogan. . . .

[cardcrimson]

The radio guys were complaining about both the offensive play calling the last couple of series and not calling timeouts on defense. "You gotta call a timeout here, don't you? . . . ." I also remember a third and one, and they run McCaffrey. Have they done that at all during the season? Where was Wright?

Great win by the team and a ton of heart by Hogan. . . .

[JohnR34231]

Shaw's decision to go into the turtle shell on the last two drives before the game-winner was maddening, but predictable. 

Trying to sit on a lead makes a certain amount of sense when the strength of your team is defense, but that is hardly the case this year.
However, it's in Shaw's DNA, so we might as well get used to it (as if we weren't already).
Hard to complain too much when you won the game, also.

[JohnR34231]

Shaw's decision to go into the turtle shell on the last two drives before the game-winner was maddening, but predictable. 

Trying to sit on a lead makes a certain amount of sense when the strength of your team is defense, but that is hardly the case this year.
However, it's in Shaw's DNA, so we might as well get used to it (as if we weren't already).
Hard to complain too much when you won the game, also.

[ChicagoCard]

[quote author=MustardtheBallCarrier link=topic=13797.msg144448#msg144448 date=1448783282]
Shaw's decision to go into the turtle shell on the last two drives before the game-winner was maddening, but predictable. 

Trying to sit on a lead makes a certain amount of sense when the strength of your team is defense, but that is hardly the case this year.
However, it's in Shaw's DNA, so we might as well get used to it (as if we weren't already).
Hard to complain too much when you won the game, also.
[/quote]

Those two late possessions were opportunities to stretch a 6-point lead. I was thinking back to the S,C, game when Stanford did stretch a 7-point lead back to a 10-point lead... Can anybody recall if there was a different approach by Shaw and Bloomgren, or merely a different result?

[ChicagoCard]

[quote author=MustardtheBallCarrier link=topic=13797.msg144448#msg144448 date=1448783282]
Shaw's decision to go into the turtle shell on the last two drives before the game-winner was maddening, but predictable. 

Trying to sit on a lead makes a certain amount of sense when the strength of your team is defense, but that is hardly the case this year.
However, it's in Shaw's DNA, so we might as well get used to it (as if we weren't already).
Hard to complain too much when you won the game, also.
[/quote]

Those two late possessions were opportunities to stretch a 6-point lead. I was thinking back to the S,C, game when Stanford did stretch a 7-point lead back to a 10-point lead... Can anybody recall if there was a different approach by Shaw and Bloomgren, or merely a different result?

[OutsiderFan]

David Shaw has to lose games by making dumb decisions until he will change his approach.  As long as the dumb decisions work more often than not, why would he stop making them?

The short side toss to McCaffrey out of heavy personnel on 1st down with 7 mins to go was maddening.  Not one time in the game did Stanford's heavy personnel dominate UDFG's front.  They were bringing the Safeties up and blitzing on 1st down in "obvious" passing situations, totally keying on CMac.  Everyone in the stadium knew he was getting the ball because there were 8 OL in the game.  All the D had to do is make one guy responsible for the TE, and turn 10 guys loose on CMac.

The only time Stanford's offense had success was when it was spread out.  So why on Earth would you do the thing that was working the least effectively in the game when you had a lead against a team your defense couldn't stop?  It was OBVIOUS that Stanford's offense was going to have to win that game, not the defense.  So instead of be the aggressor Shaw went full turtle.  This reminded me of the Washington game in 2013.  Stanford couldn't run the ball to save its life because UW was completely selling out to stop the run.  But Shaw continued what wasn't working.  In both cases last second heroics were needed to save the win, when just a couple first downs and some aggressive play calls would have done the trick much more easily, and more than likely caught the defense off guard.

I don't have a problem with heavy sets, but you have to have some pass threat when the defense shows it can stop the run.  And in Stanford's case, use the damn TEs!  Schultz and Taboada have been so chronically underused this season.

[OutsiderFan]

David Shaw has to lose games by making dumb decisions until he will change his approach.  As long as the dumb decisions work more often than not, why would he stop making them?

The short side toss to McCaffrey out of heavy personnel on 1st down with 7 mins to go was maddening.  Not one time in the game did Stanford's heavy personnel dominate UDFG's front.  They were bringing the Safeties up and blitzing on 1st down in "obvious" passing situations, totally keying on CMac.  Everyone in the stadium knew he was getting the ball because there were 8 OL in the game.  All the D had to do is make one guy responsible for the TE, and turn 10 guys loose on CMac.

The only time Stanford's offense had success was when it was spread out.  So why on Earth would you do the thing that was working the least effectively in the game when you had a lead against a team your defense couldn't stop?  It was OBVIOUS that Stanford's offense was going to have to win that game, not the defense.  So instead of be the aggressor Shaw went full turtle.  This reminded me of the Washington game in 2013.  Stanford couldn't run the ball to save its life because UW was completely selling out to stop the run.  But Shaw continued what wasn't working.  In both cases last second heroics were needed to save the win, when just a couple first downs and some aggressive play calls would have done the trick much more easily, and more than likely caught the defense off guard.

I don't have a problem with heavy sets, but you have to have some pass threat when the defense shows it can stop the run.  And in Stanford's case, use the damn TEs!  Schultz and Taboada have been so chronically underused this season.

[martyup]

I'm sorry, but I hate this thread.  We just witnessed an amazing game in which Stanford defeated the sixth ranked Fighting Irish in a thriller.  We put up 38 points on a very good defense.  We would have never have been in a position to win this game if the coaches hadn't made key decisions throughout the contest.  How many more 10+ win seasons will it take to convince you doubters that he is an elite coach?

[martyup]

I'm sorry, but I hate this thread.  We just witnessed an amazing game in which Stanford defeated the sixth ranked Fighting Irish in a thriller.  We put up 38 points on a very good defense.  We would have never have been in a position to win this game if the coaches hadn't made key decisions throughout the contest.  How many more 10+ win seasons will it take to convince you doubters that he is an elite coach?

[OutsiderFan]

There is no doubt Shaw deserves mondo credit for putting the team in position to win.  But the reality is Stanford's defense was a shambles in that game and the offense needed to be more dynamic to keep the ball from UDFG at the end of the game.  Remember, wit 30 secs left, Stanford was losing after the offense had gone into a shell.  Take away the 15 yard facemark penalty and Stanford loses that game. 

So yes, praise the win, and a great performance by Hogan and Cajuste, even the coaches for getting the team so well prepared to play on offense, but that game was an example of how sometimes you can win despite bad decisions.  Those critiquing the performance would prefer to win with good decisions that demonstrate good habits.  Because over the long haul, better decisions will mean more wins.

[OutsiderFan]

There is no doubt Shaw deserves mondo credit for putting the team in position to win.  But the reality is Stanford's defense was a shambles in that game and the offense needed to be more dynamic to keep the ball from UDFG at the end of the game.  Remember, wit 30 secs left, Stanford was losing after the offense had gone into a shell.  Take away the 15 yard facemark penalty and Stanford loses that game. 

So yes, praise the win, and a great performance by Hogan and Cajuste, even the coaches for getting the team so well prepared to play on offense, but that game was an example of how sometimes you can win despite bad decisions.  Those critiquing the performance would prefer to win with good decisions that demonstrate good habits.  Because over the long haul, better decisions will mean more wins.

[JohnR34231]

I'm sorry, but I hate this thread.  We just witnessed an amazing game in which Stanford defeated the sixth ranked Fighting Irish in a thriller.  We put up 38 points on a very good defense.  We would have never have been in a position to win this game if the coaches hadn't made key decisions throughout the contest.  How many more 10+ win seasons will it take to convince you doubters that he is an elite coach?

Not a fan of Negative Nellies, but part of the fun of being a football fan is not only reveling in a victory, but discussing some of the things the team could have done better.

Even elite coaches make mistakes and errors in judgment.

[JohnR34231]

I'm sorry, but I hate this thread.  We just witnessed an amazing game in which Stanford defeated the sixth ranked Fighting Irish in a thriller.  We put up 38 points on a very good defense.  We would have never have been in a position to win this game if the coaches hadn't made key decisions throughout the contest.  How many more 10+ win seasons will it take to convince you doubters that he is an elite coach?

Not a fan of Negative Nellies, but part of the fun of being a football fan is not only reveling in a victory, but discussing some of the things the team could have done better.

Even elite coaches make mistakes and errors in judgment.

[cardcrimson]

I'm sorry, but I hate this thread.  We just witnessed an amazing game in which Stanford defeated the sixth ranked Fighting Irish in a thriller.  We put up 38 points on a very good defense.  We would have never have been in a position to win this game if the coaches hadn't made key decisions throughout the contest.  How many more 10+ win seasons will it take to convince you doubters that he is an elite coach?

You witnessed the game. I missed most of it. Watched the first quarter or so, then heard the last 5 or 6 plays of ND's drive to go ahead. The radio team was going crazy second guessing the staff play selection and game/clock management of the last few minutes. Got home just in time for Cajuste's catch and then the field goal. Hoping the good folks here could shed some light. . . .

[cardcrimson]

I'm sorry, but I hate this thread.  We just witnessed an amazing game in which Stanford defeated the sixth ranked Fighting Irish in a thriller.  We put up 38 points on a very good defense.  We would have never have been in a position to win this game if the coaches hadn't made key decisions throughout the contest.  How many more 10+ win seasons will it take to convince you doubters that he is an elite coach?

You witnessed the game. I missed most of it. Watched the first quarter or so, then heard the last 5 or 6 plays of ND's drive to go ahead. The radio team was going crazy second guessing the staff play selection and game/clock management of the last few minutes. Got home just in time for Cajuste's catch and then the field goal. Hoping the good folks here could shed some light. . . .

[Rally]

Sunday morning Bing is all well and good if that's your thing, but I wouldn't trade David Shaw for any college coach in America, and damn few pro coaches.  This thread sounds like it belongs on an LSU board.

[Rally]

Sunday morning Bing is all well and good if that's your thing, but I wouldn't trade David Shaw for any college coach in America, and damn few pro coaches.  This thread sounds like it belongs on an LSU board.

[81alum]

Shaw recruited our team, hired our coaches, and bears complete responsibility for winning this game.  Could he have won it in easier fashion had he been less predictable in his 3rd and short playcalling on those two occasions in the fourth quarter?  Maybe.  Could his time management have been better?  Possibly.  Do we as fans like to analyze victories as much as defeats?  Of course.  Does it change our bad feelings after a loss or our good feelings after a victory?  No, but it is its own pleasure, fantasizing that we are coaches.  And no one can say that a game, that is played for entertainment, should not inspire such behavior. 

[81alum]

Shaw recruited our team, hired our coaches, and bears complete responsibility for winning this game.  Could he have won it in easier fashion had he been less predictable in his 3rd and short playcalling on those two occasions in the fourth quarter?  Maybe.  Could his time management have been better?  Possibly.  Do we as fans like to analyze victories as much as defeats?  Of course.  Does it change our bad feelings after a loss or our good feelings after a victory?  No, but it is its own pleasure, fantasizing that we are coaches.  And no one can say that a game, that is played for entertainment, should not inspire such behavior. 

[winflop]

I'm with WiM.  Going conservative with more than 10 mins left on the clock was a bad decision - in fact two bad decisions since he did it two series in a row.  Pretty clear that ND was committed to not letting McCaffrey beat them, and Hogan was having one of the best games of his career - arguably the best of his career given the situation.  The gameplan for the first three quarters was really well done - not showing a whole ton of creativity in the first half and then really unleashing the entire offense in the first 20 mins of the second half with fantastic misdirection and play action.  ND's defense was completely discombobulated and on its heels at that point and I think Shaw gave them an opportunity to find their footing by taking his foot off the gas pedal.  I think if Stanford had scored on either of those 3 and outs - even a FG - the game would have been over with a two-score lead.

I'm not saying "Fire Shaw" I'm just saying he made some very questionable decisions in the fourth quarter that exhibit a tendancy toward excessive conservatism late in the game.  Hogan bailed him out.  I'd really like to see him stick with what's working until the clock has wound down much further.

I hope it's not an issue next weekend and our boys take the Toejams to the woodshed early and often.  But something tells me they are in for a real battle.  This is not the same U$C team they faced in Week 3, but maybe Stanford isn't either.

[winflop]

I'm with WiM.  Going conservative with more than 10 mins left on the clock was a bad decision - in fact two bad decisions since he did it two series in a row.  Pretty clear that ND was committed to not letting McCaffrey beat them, and Hogan was having one of the best games of his career - arguably the best of his career given the situation.  The gameplan for the first three quarters was really well done - not showing a whole ton of creativity in the first half and then really unleashing the entire offense in the first 20 mins of the second half with fantastic misdirection and play action.  ND's defense was completely discombobulated and on its heels at that point and I think Shaw gave them an opportunity to find their footing by taking his foot off the gas pedal.  I think if Stanford had scored on either of those 3 and outs - even a FG - the game would have been over with a two-score lead.

I'm not saying "Fire Shaw" I'm just saying he made some very questionable decisions in the fourth quarter that exhibit a tendancy toward excessive conservatism late in the game.  Hogan bailed him out.  I'd really like to see him stick with what's working until the clock has wound down much further.

I hope it's not an issue next weekend and our boys take the Toejams to the woodshed early and often.  But something tells me they are in for a real battle.  This is not the same U$C team they faced in Week 3, but maybe Stanford isn't either.