[FarmTeam]

Elic ran the wrong route on that final play. Agree that the call from Taylor was stupid, but it was Ayo who blew the play. #13 was supposed to cut to the sideline after the initial move, but instead ran straight upfield. Daniels threw the timing pattern to the spot where his receiver was supposed to be. I'm not sure if the pass would have been completed, but I don't think it would have been intercepted. 

You could tell by Daniels' reaction after the play that #13 ran the route incorrectly. 

Very unfortunate way to lose, and it spoiled what was a pretty good performance by Daniels.

You'll have to elaborate on how you know all of this. Maybe you've played or coached a lot of football (which I have not). 

I did not see Daniels trying to blame Ayomanor for anything, but maybe I missed it. He just looked dejected to me.

Also, the ball was way overthrown, not underthrown. Why would he overthrow it if Ayomanor was supposed to cut to the sideline rather than go upfield? Maybe you meant the opposite?

I just think you have the wrong take on this one. But even if you're right, it was by definition a bad throw that ignored the presence of the safety, which at best would have led to a 50/50 ball in a situation where we didn't want or need that.

I'm with you on this on all counts: I haven't played or coached a lot of football either and could be totally wrong, but I've watched this play a bunch of times and can't figure out how Red80's take on this is correct. If Elic had cut to the sideline instead of running upfield, the ball would have been 20 yards overthrown instead of 10 yards.

[FarmTeam]

Elic ran the wrong route on that final play. Agree that the call from Taylor was stupid, but it was Ayo who blew the play. #13 was supposed to cut to the sideline after the initial move, but instead ran straight upfield. Daniels threw the timing pattern to the spot where his receiver was supposed to be. I'm not sure if the pass would have been completed, but I don't think it would have been intercepted. 

You could tell by Daniels' reaction after the play that #13 ran the route incorrectly. 

Very unfortunate way to lose, and it spoiled what was a pretty good performance by Daniels.

You'll have to elaborate on how you know all of this. Maybe you've played or coached a lot of football (which I have not). 

I did not see Daniels trying to blame Ayomanor for anything, but maybe I missed it. He just looked dejected to me.

Also, the ball was way overthrown, not underthrown. Why would he overthrow it if Ayomanor was supposed to cut to the sideline rather than go upfield? Maybe you meant the opposite?

I just think you have the wrong take on this one. But even if you're right, it was by definition a bad throw that ignored the presence of the safety, which at best would have led to a 50/50 ball in a situation where we didn't want or need that.

I'm with you on this on all counts: I haven't played or coached a lot of football either and could be totally wrong, but I've watched this play a bunch of times and can't figure out how Red80's take on this is correct. If Elic had cut to the sideline instead of running upfield, the ball would have been 20 yards overthrown instead of 10 yards.

[MarinCard]

Why hire a new coach when the issue of which level Stanford will be playing at it in the future is open?

I think this is precisely why you *do* make a change. The question is open, and you can decide to answer it yourself or have it answered for you. Had the B1G expansion/P12 dissolution happened in the mid '10s, we would have been a far more desirable program to take aboard than we were in '22/'23. The B1G and SEC are partitioning the future landscape of college athletics once again, with more cards to fall in the next two years. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[MarinCard]

Why hire a new coach when the issue of which level Stanford will be playing at it in the future is open?

I think this is precisely why you *do* make a change. The question is open, and you can decide to answer it yourself or have it answered for you. Had the B1G expansion/P12 dissolution happened in the mid '10s, we would have been a far more desirable program to take aboard than we were in '22/'23. The B1G and SEC are partitioning the future landscape of college athletics once again, with more cards to fall in the next two years. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[Red80]

Elic ran the wrong route on that final play. Agree that the call from Taylor was stupid, but it was Ayo who blew the play. #13 was supposed to cut to the sideline after the initial move, but instead ran straight upfield. Daniels threw the timing pattern to the spot where his receiver was supposed to be. I'm not sure if the pass would have been completed, but I don't think it would have been intercepted. 

You could tell by Daniels' reaction after the play that #13 ran the route incorrectly. 

Very unfortunate way to lose, and it spoiled what was a pretty good performance by Daniels.

You'll have to elaborate on how you know all of this. Maybe you've played or coached a lot of football (which I have not). 

I did not see Daniels trying to blame Ayomanor for anything, but maybe I missed it. He just looked dejected to me.

Also, the ball was way overthrown, not underthrown. Why would he overthrow it if Ayomanor was supposed to cut to the sideline rather than go upfield? Maybe you meant the opposite?

I just think you have the wrong take on this one. But even if you're right, it was by definition a bad throw that ignored the presence of the safety, which at best would have led to a 50/50 ball in a situation where we didn't want or need that.

Daniels looked to the sideline and threw his hands up in the air after the INT. It was obvious that he thought Eric ran the wrong route. 

The intended route was a corner route or 7, not a square out or 5. #13 was supposed to accelerate to the corner angle after the initial move. 

This route, if run correctly, gives Ayomanor a decided advantage over DBs because of his superior size and leaping ability. Some of his best catches have been with these type of routes where he simply out jumps the defender. Elic usually wins those 50/50 battles. 

But I would agree that Taylor's call was stupid and risky. He should have called a relatively safe pass play, perhaps to #86, and set up the FG attempt.

[Red80]

Elic ran the wrong route on that final play. Agree that the call from Taylor was stupid, but it was Ayo who blew the play. #13 was supposed to cut to the sideline after the initial move, but instead ran straight upfield. Daniels threw the timing pattern to the spot where his receiver was supposed to be. I'm not sure if the pass would have been completed, but I don't think it would have been intercepted. 

You could tell by Daniels' reaction after the play that #13 ran the route incorrectly. 

Very unfortunate way to lose, and it spoiled what was a pretty good performance by Daniels.

You'll have to elaborate on how you know all of this. Maybe you've played or coached a lot of football (which I have not). 

I did not see Daniels trying to blame Ayomanor for anything, but maybe I missed it. He just looked dejected to me.

Also, the ball was way overthrown, not underthrown. Why would he overthrow it if Ayomanor was supposed to cut to the sideline rather than go upfield? Maybe you meant the opposite?

I just think you have the wrong take on this one. But even if you're right, it was by definition a bad throw that ignored the presence of the safety, which at best would have led to a 50/50 ball in a situation where we didn't want or need that.

Daniels looked to the sideline and threw his hands up in the air after the INT. It was obvious that he thought Eric ran the wrong route. 

The intended route was a corner route or 7, not a square out or 5. #13 was supposed to accelerate to the corner angle after the initial move. 

This route, if run correctly, gives Ayomanor a decided advantage over DBs because of his superior size and leaping ability. Some of his best catches have been with these type of routes where he simply out jumps the defender. Elic usually wins those 50/50 battles. 

But I would agree that Taylor's call was stupid and risky. He should have called a relatively safe pass play, perhaps to #86, and set up the FG attempt.

[Goose]

Also, the ball was way overthrown, not underthrown. Why would he overthrow it if Ayomanor was supposed to cut to the sideline rather than go upfield? Maybe you meant the opposite?

I just think you have the wrong take on this one. But even if you're right, it was by definition a bad throw that ignored the presence of the safety, which at best would have led to a 50/50 ball in a situation where we didn't want or need that.

Daniels looked to the sideline and threw his hands up in the air after the INT. It was obvious that he thought Eric ran the wrong route. 

The intended route was a corner route or 7, not a square out or 5. #13 was supposed to accelerate to the corner angle after the initial move.

That could be true. However Ayomanor would have needed to "accelerate" a whole lot more than he did to be even close to where the ball was thrown. As the OP says he was well short of where the ball was intercepted. Looking at the replay Ayomanor isn't all that far from the sideline. He reached the point whe the ball was intercepted well over a second late. The timing was off. Daniels could see what is happening when he pump faked. If Ayomanor is behind the single defender and where you expect him to be on the field at that moment (i.e. the timing is what you expect) you can throw the ball. If Ayomanor isn't where you expect at that point (maybe a little hard to read) or the safety is reacting (which he clearly was) to generate over-and-under double coverage, you don't throw it and check down. If Daniels is committed to that throw no matter what the defense does or what Ayomanor does there will be lots of bad results. Defenses have looked at the film. They know Ayomanor is our best receiver and that we like to use his athleticism. They are going to key on him and defend that play.

 
This route, if run correctly, gives Ayomanor a decided advantage over DBs because of his superior size and leaping ability. Some of his best catches have been with these type of routes where he simply out jumps the defender. Elic usually wins those 50/50 battles.

Except when he doesn't. If Ayomanor is single covered and Daniels gets the ball to the right spot at the right time Ayomanor has a good chance to win the battle. It is much like the way we used JJAW. If Ayomanor is behind the defender Daniels has to get the ball there with high enough elevation that the defender can't intercept it but not so high Ayomanor can't catch it. Daniels isn't accurate enough to do that reliably. If he under-throws it a pick is almost assured. Daniels also frequently misses in azimuth which allows defenders converging on the play to intercept as well.

If OTOH Ayomanor is covered high-and-low it isn't a 50/50 ball anymore. The high defender can knock the ball away and also can grab Ayomanor's arms as soon as any of the three touches the ball. He can also intercept it himself. It becomes a 70/30 ball or worse. Our experience with JJAW proved this. One on one it works, double covered it doesn't and results in an unacceptable number of interceptions. Near the goal line the safety can't get over to help unless he lines up way over shifted toward the receiver. On longer patterns he can react and get there. In this case he got there and Ayomanor didn't.

The other obvious problem is that the defender can sometimes disrupt the timing of the play.  He can deny Ayomanor the sideline and force him toward the middle of the field. That has happened a few times this year. Ayomanor is then very open, but Daniels has to recognize what happened and react accordingly. That so far hasn't happened.

But I would agree that Taylor's call was stupid and risky. He should have called a relatively safe pass play, perhaps to #86, and set up the FG attempt.

I don't criticize the call unless Daniels has no discretion on what he does. When he pump faked he could certainly see the safety coming over and maybe that Ayomanor wasn't where he normally would be if the play was "on time". Check down to one of the two open receivers facing him. Get maybe 6 yards. Maybe time for another play from scrimmage, maybe not. Best of both worlds. The primary isn't there, take the check-down.

[Goose]

Also, the ball was way overthrown, not underthrown. Why would he overthrow it if Ayomanor was supposed to cut to the sideline rather than go upfield? Maybe you meant the opposite?

I just think you have the wrong take on this one. But even if you're right, it was by definition a bad throw that ignored the presence of the safety, which at best would have led to a 50/50 ball in a situation where we didn't want or need that.

Daniels looked to the sideline and threw his hands up in the air after the INT. It was obvious that he thought Eric ran the wrong route. 

The intended route was a corner route or 7, not a square out or 5. #13 was supposed to accelerate to the corner angle after the initial move.

That could be true. However Ayomanor would have needed to "accelerate" a whole lot more than he did to be even close to where the ball was thrown. As the OP says he was well short of where the ball was intercepted. Looking at the replay Ayomanor isn't all that far from the sideline. He reached the point whe the ball was intercepted well over a second late. The timing was off. Daniels could see what is happening when he pump faked. If Ayomanor is behind the single defender and where you expect him to be on the field at that moment (i.e. the timing is what you expect) you can throw the ball. If Ayomanor isn't where you expect at that point (maybe a little hard to read) or the safety is reacting (which he clearly was) to generate over-and-under double coverage, you don't throw it and check down. If Daniels is committed to that throw no matter what the defense does or what Ayomanor does there will be lots of bad results. Defenses have looked at the film. They know Ayomanor is our best receiver and that we like to use his athleticism. They are going to key on him and defend that play.

 
This route, if run correctly, gives Ayomanor a decided advantage over DBs because of his superior size and leaping ability. Some of his best catches have been with these type of routes where he simply out jumps the defender. Elic usually wins those 50/50 battles.

Except when he doesn't. If Ayomanor is single covered and Daniels gets the ball to the right spot at the right time Ayomanor has a good chance to win the battle. It is much like the way we used JJAW. If Ayomanor is behind the defender Daniels has to get the ball there with high enough elevation that the defender can't intercept it but not so high Ayomanor can't catch it. Daniels isn't accurate enough to do that reliably. If he under-throws it a pick is almost assured. Daniels also frequently misses in azimuth which allows defenders converging on the play to intercept as well.

If OTOH Ayomanor is covered high-and-low it isn't a 50/50 ball anymore. The high defender can knock the ball away and also can grab Ayomanor's arms as soon as any of the three touches the ball. He can also intercept it himself. It becomes a 70/30 ball or worse. Our experience with JJAW proved this. One on one it works, double covered it doesn't and results in an unacceptable number of interceptions. Near the goal line the safety can't get over to help unless he lines up way over shifted toward the receiver. On longer patterns he can react and get there. In this case he got there and Ayomanor didn't.

The other obvious problem is that the defender can sometimes disrupt the timing of the play.  He can deny Ayomanor the sideline and force him toward the middle of the field. That has happened a few times this year. Ayomanor is then very open, but Daniels has to recognize what happened and react accordingly. That so far hasn't happened.

But I would agree that Taylor's call was stupid and risky. He should have called a relatively safe pass play, perhaps to #86, and set up the FG attempt.

I don't criticize the call unless Daniels has no discretion on what he does. When he pump faked he could certainly see the safety coming over and maybe that Ayomanor wasn't where he normally would be if the play was "on time". Check down to one of the two open receivers facing him. Get maybe 6 yards. Maybe time for another play from scrimmage, maybe not. Best of both worlds. The primary isn't there, take the check-down.

[paloalto]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

[paloalto]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

[BostonCard]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

I think FSU is probably more confident of its ability to return to the upper echelons of college football in short order through transfers, etc. than we are.

BC

[BostonCard]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

I think FSU is probably more confident of its ability to return to the upper echelons of college football in short order through transfers, etc. than we are.

BC

[Red80]

Also, the ball was way overthrown, not underthrown. Why would he overthrow it if Ayomanor was supposed to cut to the sideline rather than go upfield? Maybe you meant the opposite?

I just think you have the wrong take on this one. But even if you're right, it was by definition a bad throw that ignored the presence of the safety, which at best would have led to a 50/50 ball in a situation where we didn't want or need that.

Daniels looked to the sideline and threw his hands up in the air after the INT. It was obvious that he thought Eric ran the wrong route. 

The intended route was a corner route or 7, not a square out or 5. #13 was supposed to accelerate to the corner angle after the initial move.

That could be true. However Ayomanor would have needed to "accelerate" a whole lot more than he did to be even close to where the ball was thrown. As the OP says he was well short of where the ball was intercepted. Looking at the replay Ayomanor isn't all that far from the sideline. He reached the point whe the ball was intercepted well over a second late. The timing was off. Daniels could see what is happening when he pump faked. If Ayomanor is behind the single defender and where you expect him to be on the field at that moment (i.e. the timing is what you expect) you can throw the ball. If Ayomanor isn't where you expect at that point (maybe a little hard to read) or the safety is reacting (which he clearly was) to generate over-and-under double coverage, you don't throw it and check down. If Daniels is committed to that throw no matter what the defense does or what Ayomanor does there will be lots of bad results. Defenses have looked at the film. They know Ayomanor is our best receiver and that we like to use his athleticism. They are going to key on him and defend that play.

 
This route, if run correctly, gives Ayomanor a decided advantage over DBs because of his superior size and leaping ability. Some of his best catches have been with these type of routes where he simply out jumps the defender. Elic usually wins those 50/50 battles.

Except when he doesn't. If Ayomanor is single covered and Daniels gets the ball to the right spot at the right time Ayomanor has a good chance to win the battle. It is much like the way we used JJAW. If Ayomanor is behind the defender Daniels has to get the ball there with high enough elevation that the defender can't intercept it but not so high Ayomanor can't catch it. Daniels isn't accurate enough to do that reliably. If he under-throws it a pick is almost assured. Daniels also frequently misses in azimuth which allows defenders converging on the play to intercept as well.

If OTOH Ayomanor is covered high-and-low it isn't a 50/50 ball anymore. The high defender can knock the ball away and also can grab Ayomanor's arms as soon as any of the three touches the ball. He can also intercept it himself. It becomes a 70/30 ball or worse. Our experience with JJAW proved this. One on one it works, double covered it doesn't and results in an unacceptable number of interceptions. Near the goal line the safety can't get over to help unless he lines up way over shifted toward the receiver. On longer patterns he can react and get there. In this case he got there and Ayomanor didn't.

The other obvious problem is that the defender can sometimes disrupt the timing of the play.  He can deny Ayomanor the sideline and force him toward the middle of the field. That has happened a few times this year. Ayomanor is then very open, but Daniels has to recognize what happened and react accordingly. That so far hasn't happened.

But I would agree that Taylor's call was stupid and risky. He should have called a relatively safe pass play, perhaps to #86, and set up the FG attempt.

I don't criticize the call unless Daniels has no discretion on what he does. When he pump faked he could certainly see the safety coming over and maybe that Ayomanor wasn't where he normally would be if the play was "on time". Check down to one of the two open receivers facing him. Get maybe 6 yards. Maybe time for another play from scrimmage, maybe not. Best of both worlds. The primary isn't there, take the check-down.

I just watched the replay for the first time. Ayomanor did get knocked off of his route by a WF DB, keeping him away from the desired location. 

Daniels, if he was to check down on that final play, would have had to do so before the pump fake, imo. Small time and space window. 

The ACC crew pointed out that Ayomanor was gassed for that final play. He was targeted for 6 straight plays before that. 

Richt had perhaps the most salient comment about the final play. How often do you see the same double-move play work when called twice in a row?

[Red80]

Also, the ball was way overthrown, not underthrown. Why would he overthrow it if Ayomanor was supposed to cut to the sideline rather than go upfield? Maybe you meant the opposite?

I just think you have the wrong take on this one. But even if you're right, it was by definition a bad throw that ignored the presence of the safety, which at best would have led to a 50/50 ball in a situation where we didn't want or need that.

Daniels looked to the sideline and threw his hands up in the air after the INT. It was obvious that he thought Eric ran the wrong route. 

The intended route was a corner route or 7, not a square out or 5. #13 was supposed to accelerate to the corner angle after the initial move.

That could be true. However Ayomanor would have needed to "accelerate" a whole lot more than he did to be even close to where the ball was thrown. As the OP says he was well short of where the ball was intercepted. Looking at the replay Ayomanor isn't all that far from the sideline. He reached the point whe the ball was intercepted well over a second late. The timing was off. Daniels could see what is happening when he pump faked. If Ayomanor is behind the single defender and where you expect him to be on the field at that moment (i.e. the timing is what you expect) you can throw the ball. If Ayomanor isn't where you expect at that point (maybe a little hard to read) or the safety is reacting (which he clearly was) to generate over-and-under double coverage, you don't throw it and check down. If Daniels is committed to that throw no matter what the defense does or what Ayomanor does there will be lots of bad results. Defenses have looked at the film. They know Ayomanor is our best receiver and that we like to use his athleticism. They are going to key on him and defend that play.

 
This route, if run correctly, gives Ayomanor a decided advantage over DBs because of his superior size and leaping ability. Some of his best catches have been with these type of routes where he simply out jumps the defender. Elic usually wins those 50/50 battles.

Except when he doesn't. If Ayomanor is single covered and Daniels gets the ball to the right spot at the right time Ayomanor has a good chance to win the battle. It is much like the way we used JJAW. If Ayomanor is behind the defender Daniels has to get the ball there with high enough elevation that the defender can't intercept it but not so high Ayomanor can't catch it. Daniels isn't accurate enough to do that reliably. If he under-throws it a pick is almost assured. Daniels also frequently misses in azimuth which allows defenders converging on the play to intercept as well.

If OTOH Ayomanor is covered high-and-low it isn't a 50/50 ball anymore. The high defender can knock the ball away and also can grab Ayomanor's arms as soon as any of the three touches the ball. He can also intercept it himself. It becomes a 70/30 ball or worse. Our experience with JJAW proved this. One on one it works, double covered it doesn't and results in an unacceptable number of interceptions. Near the goal line the safety can't get over to help unless he lines up way over shifted toward the receiver. On longer patterns he can react and get there. In this case he got there and Ayomanor didn't.

The other obvious problem is that the defender can sometimes disrupt the timing of the play.  He can deny Ayomanor the sideline and force him toward the middle of the field. That has happened a few times this year. Ayomanor is then very open, but Daniels has to recognize what happened and react accordingly. That so far hasn't happened.

But I would agree that Taylor's call was stupid and risky. He should have called a relatively safe pass play, perhaps to #86, and set up the FG attempt.

I don't criticize the call unless Daniels has no discretion on what he does. When he pump faked he could certainly see the safety coming over and maybe that Ayomanor wasn't where he normally would be if the play was "on time". Check down to one of the two open receivers facing him. Get maybe 6 yards. Maybe time for another play from scrimmage, maybe not. Best of both worlds. The primary isn't there, take the check-down.

I just watched the replay for the first time. Ayomanor did get knocked off of his route by a WF DB, keeping him away from the desired location. 

Daniels, if he was to check down on that final play, would have had to do so before the pump fake, imo. Small time and space window. 

The ACC crew pointed out that Ayomanor was gassed for that final play. He was targeted for 6 straight plays before that. 

Richt had perhaps the most salient comment about the final play. How often do you see the same double-move play work when called twice in a row?

[Goose]

I just watched the replay for the first time. Ayomanor did get knocked off of his route by a WF DB, keeping him away from the desired location.

Yep, stuff like that happens. That is why you absolutely can't tell your QB definitively which receiver he must target. He has to read the field, at least minimally. If he doesn't he is going to get intercepted a lot.

Daniels, if he was to check down on that final play, would have had to do so before the pump fake, imo. Small time and space window.

I don't see it that way. Stop the video right as Daniels is throwing the ball toward Ayomanor. Stanford's #15 is down the field 6 yards facing Daniels with a defender completely behind him. He is to the right of Daniels. There is a clear throwing lane to #15. The defender can't get to the ball without going through #15. The defender will probably hit him when the ball gets there but it will still be a pass that can be caught. The defender might be too aggressive, hit early, and get a PI.  There is another receiver facing Daniels further off to the right that is 4 yards downfield. His defender is also behind our receiver but even further off him.  Either one of these receivers were available right after the pump-fake IMO.

The ACC crew pointed out that Ayomanor was gassed for that final play. He was targeted for 6 straight plays before that. 

Richt had perhaps the most salient comment about the final play. How often do you see the same double-move play work when called twice in a row?

Unfortunately I have seen it happen several times, against Stanford. The defender simply could not lay off the first move. It was the typical problem of a Stanford defender that is just too slow to play corner. He had to react immediately because if he hesitated he would for sure be beat. Of course, on a double move if he does react he will be beat because he reacted :-).  I do agree with your point though. It is more common to see the double move called after repeated catches in front of the defender gets said defender ready to react quickly to anything. The WF DB obviously decided to mess up the pattern and wreck the timing. Solved the problem for WF either way.

IMO Ayomanor being gassed was a good reason to use him as a decoy. He was too tired to outrun anybody. WF certainly knew we liked to throw to him. The safety was more than ready to com over and helped cover him. Keeping him on the field used up two of the defenders, at least. Pump-fake in his direction and throw back to the other side of the field.

[Goose]

I just watched the replay for the first time. Ayomanor did get knocked off of his route by a WF DB, keeping him away from the desired location.

Yep, stuff like that happens. That is why you absolutely can't tell your QB definitively which receiver he must target. He has to read the field, at least minimally. If he doesn't he is going to get intercepted a lot.

Daniels, if he was to check down on that final play, would have had to do so before the pump fake, imo. Small time and space window.

I don't see it that way. Stop the video right as Daniels is throwing the ball toward Ayomanor. Stanford's #15 is down the field 6 yards facing Daniels with a defender completely behind him. He is to the right of Daniels. There is a clear throwing lane to #15. The defender can't get to the ball without going through #15. The defender will probably hit him when the ball gets there but it will still be a pass that can be caught. The defender might be too aggressive, hit early, and get a PI.  There is another receiver facing Daniels further off to the right that is 4 yards downfield. His defender is also behind our receiver but even further off him.  Either one of these receivers were available right after the pump-fake IMO.

The ACC crew pointed out that Ayomanor was gassed for that final play. He was targeted for 6 straight plays before that. 

Richt had perhaps the most salient comment about the final play. How often do you see the same double-move play work when called twice in a row?

Unfortunately I have seen it happen several times, against Stanford. The defender simply could not lay off the first move. It was the typical problem of a Stanford defender that is just too slow to play corner. He had to react immediately because if he hesitated he would for sure be beat. Of course, on a double move if he does react he will be beat because he reacted :-).  I do agree with your point though. It is more common to see the double move called after repeated catches in front of the defender gets said defender ready to react quickly to anything. The WF DB obviously decided to mess up the pattern and wreck the timing. Solved the problem for WF either way.

IMO Ayomanor being gassed was a good reason to use him as a decoy. He was too tired to outrun anybody. WF certainly knew we liked to throw to him. The safety was more than ready to com over and helped cover him. Keeping him on the field used up two of the defenders, at least. Pump-fake in his direction and throw back to the other side of the field.

[d4cohn]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

I think FSU is probably more confident of its ability to return to the upper echelons of college football in short order through transfers, etc. than we are.

BC

Florida State are also burdened though with a much heavier coaching contract (so they are stuck with their HC for good or for bad). To be clear, I don't believe TT should be fired this year, but I am (very) disappointed with the results this year. This team had more talent than its win-loss record, and ultimately, the coach's job is to maximize that win-loss record.

[d4cohn]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

I think FSU is probably more confident of its ability to return to the upper echelons of college football in short order through transfers, etc. than we are.

BC

Florida State are also burdened though with a much heavier coaching contract (so they are stuck with their HC for good or for bad). To be clear, I don't believe TT should be fired this year, but I am (very) disappointed with the results this year. This team had more talent than its win-loss record, and ultimately, the coach's job is to maximize that win-loss record.

[Row80Critic]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

I think FSU is probably more confident of its ability to return to the upper echelons of college football in short order through transfers, etc. than we are.

BC

Florida State are also burdened though with a much heavier coaching contract (so they are stuck with their HC for good or for bad). To be clear, I don't believe TT should be fired this year, but I am (very) disappointed with the results this year. This team had more talent than its win-loss record, and ultimately, the coach's job is to maximize that win-loss record.

I don't understand the rationale when people say TT should get another season?  He took a bad team, did a fine job recruiting, and then made the team worse.  Does anyone genuinely believe the team will get meaningfully better next year under TT?  If so, why??   Or is it more about some sense of obligation to TT despite the likely results?

[Row80Critic]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

I think FSU is probably more confident of its ability to return to the upper echelons of college football in short order through transfers, etc. than we are.

BC

Florida State are also burdened though with a much heavier coaching contract (so they are stuck with their HC for good or for bad). To be clear, I don't believe TT should be fired this year, but I am (very) disappointed with the results this year. This team had more talent than its win-loss record, and ultimately, the coach's job is to maximize that win-loss record.

I don't understand the rationale when people say TT should get another season?  He took a bad team, did a fine job recruiting, and then made the team worse.  Does anyone genuinely believe the team will get meaningfully better next year under TT?  If so, why??   Or is it more about some sense of obligation to TT despite the likely results?

[SkiBum80]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

I think FSU is probably more confident of its ability to return to the upper echelons of college football in short order through transfers, etc. than we are.

BC

Florida State are also burdened though with a much heavier coaching contract (so they are stuck with their HC for good or for bad). To be clear, I don't believe TT should be fired this year, but I am (very) disappointed with the results this year. This team had more talent than its win-loss record, and ultimately, the coach's job is to maximize that win-loss record.

I don't understand the rationale when people say TT should get another season?  He took a bad team, did a fine job recruiting, and then made the team worse.  Does anyone genuinely believe the team will get meaningfully better next year under TT?  If so, why??   Or is it more about some sense of obligation to TT despite the likely results?

I think the best move right now is to stick with Coach TT and make the decision after the season.
This is actually not in defense of Coach TT, but is the best thing to do for of Stanford football.
Both for the rest of this season, but also for longer term.
If he were released now, who would take over as interim coach? Coach April?
I'm guessing (no inside knowledge) he may be more loyal to Coach TT than to SU.
An interim coach would miraculously and suddenly do better?
Also the toll on player morale to release Coach TT now might be devastating.
This based on (thin) anecdotal outsider observation that seems like the players are still onboard with Coach.
As Tafiti said in press conference, "we feel like we are close."
And also there are 4 important games left in the season, and things could look better, or of course worse, but either way, likely different, after these 4 games.
Lastly I would think much more attractive to a potential new head coach to come in off season when has time to bring in preferred coaching staff, and time to get geared up for a new season with a clean slate, rather than take over a sinking ship in the last dregs of a disappointing season.

[SkiBum80]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

I think FSU is probably more confident of its ability to return to the upper echelons of college football in short order through transfers, etc. than we are.

BC

Florida State are also burdened though with a much heavier coaching contract (so they are stuck with their HC for good or for bad). To be clear, I don't believe TT should be fired this year, but I am (very) disappointed with the results this year. This team had more talent than its win-loss record, and ultimately, the coach's job is to maximize that win-loss record.

I don't understand the rationale when people say TT should get another season?  He took a bad team, did a fine job recruiting, and then made the team worse.  Does anyone genuinely believe the team will get meaningfully better next year under TT?  If so, why??   Or is it more about some sense of obligation to TT despite the likely results?

I think the best move right now is to stick with Coach TT and make the decision after the season.
This is actually not in defense of Coach TT, but is the best thing to do for of Stanford football.
Both for the rest of this season, but also for longer term.
If he were released now, who would take over as interim coach? Coach April?
I'm guessing (no inside knowledge) he may be more loyal to Coach TT than to SU.
An interim coach would miraculously and suddenly do better?
Also the toll on player morale to release Coach TT now might be devastating.
This based on (thin) anecdotal outsider observation that seems like the players are still onboard with Coach.
As Tafiti said in press conference, "we feel like we are close."
And also there are 4 important games left in the season, and things could look better, or of course worse, but either way, likely different, after these 4 games.
Lastly I would think much more attractive to a potential new head coach to come in off season when has time to bring in preferred coaching staff, and time to get geared up for a new season with a clean slate, rather than take over a sinking ship in the last dregs of a disappointing season.

[CardinalSagehen]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

I think FSU is probably more confident of its ability to return to the upper echelons of college football in short order through transfers, etc. than we are.

BC

Florida State are also burdened though with a much heavier coaching contract (so they are stuck with their HC for good or for bad). To be clear, I don't believe TT should be fired this year, but I am (very) disappointed with the results this year. This team had more talent than its win-loss record, and ultimately, the coach's job is to maximize that win-loss record.

I don't understand the rationale when people say TT should get another season?  He took a bad team, did a fine job recruiting, and then made the team worse.  Does anyone genuinely believe the team will get meaningfully better next year under TT?  If so, why??   Or is it more about some sense of obligation to TT despite the likely results?

To add to this point, I think the worst part is that he said he could win almost entirely by recruiting, developing, and retaining high school recruits, with "love" and culture as the linchpin. This was the theory behind hiring TT rather than someone else with a bigger name, more charisma, or proven success at the P4 level. And this was also exactly what Muir and the administration wanted to hear because it enabled them to keep avoiding any uncomfortable decisions or bold changes. It was, in hindsight, a dangerous idea at Stanford if you care about football.

In today's press conference, TT blamed the lack of transfers as the main cause of our woes. (Something like - we lost a ton of transfers, and it's a one-way door at Stanford. So we're having to play all of these young guys.) I'm sorry, but this was known to be the case when he signed up, and he said he could build a winning program without a material number of transfers. Did he think he'd have four years to show any signs of progress, or did he overestimate his ability to turn things around more quickly without more transfers? Either way, it was a terrible miscalculation.

Now, after enabling the institution's inaction for two years, he is changing his tune. In hindsight, we needed a "Director of Football" (TT's title) more than we needed a "coach". A Director of Football is a passionate and effective advocate for the program's needs - in this case, money, admissions, and transfers.

I appreciate that TT has come to this realization, two years into his tenure and four years after nearly every other successful team that isn't named Alabama or Clemson. But at this point, I don't think he has the charisma, credibility, or early signs of progress to pull off the turnaround. He has burned up his new coach mandate and honeymoon period. He cannot overcome the deficit with X's and O's. And I don't believe he has the ability to pull great assistants, recruits, or transfers at this point. I hope that I'm wrong.

That said, Muir is the one who really needs to go first. The new AD needs to clear the path for transfers and admissions and obtain the necessary budget commitments. The combination of Muir and TT is particularly woeful because neither one seems capable of influencing the institution despite being among its very highest-paid employees.

[CardinalSagehen]

Things could be worse this season.  Florida State was 13-0 last year in the regular season and saying they were too good for the ACC.  Florida State is 1-7 so far this year.

I think FSU is probably more confident of its ability to return to the upper echelons of college football in short order through transfers, etc. than we are.

BC

Florida State are also burdened though with a much heavier coaching contract (so they are stuck with their HC for good or for bad). To be clear, I don't believe TT should be fired this year, but I am (very) disappointed with the results this year. This team had more talent than its win-loss record, and ultimately, the coach's job is to maximize that win-loss record.

I don't understand the rationale when people say TT should get another season?  He took a bad team, did a fine job recruiting, and then made the team worse.  Does anyone genuinely believe the team will get meaningfully better next year under TT?  If so, why??   Or is it more about some sense of obligation to TT despite the likely results?

To add to this point, I think the worst part is that he said he could win almost entirely by recruiting, developing, and retaining high school recruits, with "love" and culture as the linchpin. This was the theory behind hiring TT rather than someone else with a bigger name, more charisma, or proven success at the P4 level. And this was also exactly what Muir and the administration wanted to hear because it enabled them to keep avoiding any uncomfortable decisions or bold changes. It was, in hindsight, a dangerous idea at Stanford if you care about football.

In today's press conference, TT blamed the lack of transfers as the main cause of our woes. (Something like - we lost a ton of transfers, and it's a one-way door at Stanford. So we're having to play all of these young guys.) I'm sorry, but this was known to be the case when he signed up, and he said he could build a winning program without a material number of transfers. Did he think he'd have four years to show any signs of progress, or did he overestimate his ability to turn things around more quickly without more transfers? Either way, it was a terrible miscalculation.

Now, after enabling the institution's inaction for two years, he is changing his tune. In hindsight, we needed a "Director of Football" (TT's title) more than we needed a "coach". A Director of Football is a passionate and effective advocate for the program's needs - in this case, money, admissions, and transfers.

I appreciate that TT has come to this realization, two years into his tenure and four years after nearly every other successful team that isn't named Alabama or Clemson. But at this point, I don't think he has the charisma, credibility, or early signs of progress to pull off the turnaround. He has burned up his new coach mandate and honeymoon period. He cannot overcome the deficit with X's and O's. And I don't believe he has the ability to pull great assistants, recruits, or transfers at this point. I hope that I'm wrong.

That said, Muir is the one who really needs to go first. The new AD needs to clear the path for transfers and admissions and obtain the necessary budget commitments. The combination of Muir and TT is particularly woeful because neither one seems capable of influencing the institution despite being among its very highest-paid employees.

[MV72018]

I just watched the replay for the first time. Ayomanor did get knocked off of his route by a WF DB, keeping him away from the desired location.

Yep, stuff like that happens. That is why you absolutely can't tell your QB definitively which receiver he must target. He has to read the field, at least minimally. If he doesn't he is going to get intercepted a lot.

Daniels, if he was to check down on that final play, would have had to do so before the pump fake, imo. Small time and space window.

I don't see it that way. Stop the video right as Daniels is throwing the ball toward Ayomanor. Stanford's #15 is down the field 6 yards facing Daniels with a defender completely behind him. He is to the right of Daniels. There is a clear throwing lane to #15. The defender can't get to the ball without going through #15. The defender will probably hit him when the ball gets there but it will still be a pass that can be caught. The defender might be too aggressive, hit early, and get a PI.  There is another receiver facing Daniels further off to the right that is 4 yards downfield. His defender is also behind our receiver but even further off him.  Either one of these receivers were available right after the pump-fake IMO.

The ACC crew pointed out that Ayomanor was gassed for that final play. He was targeted for 6 straight plays before that. 

Richt had perhaps the most salient comment about the final play. How often do you see the same double-move play work when called twice in a row?

Unfortunately I have seen it happen several times, against Stanford. The defender simply could not lay off the first move. It was the typical problem of a Stanford defender that is just too slow to play corner. He had to react immediately because if he hesitated he would for sure be beat. Of course, on a double move if he does react he will be beat because he reacted :-).  I do agree with your point though. It is more common to see the double move called after repeated catches in front of the defender gets said defender ready to react quickly to anything. The WF DB obviously decided to mess up the pattern and wreck the timing. Solved the problem for WF either way.

IMO Ayomanor being gassed was a good reason to use him as a decoy. He was too tired to outrun anybody. WF certainly knew we liked to throw to him. The safety was more than ready to com over and helped cover him. Keeping him on the field used up two of the defenders, at least. Pump-fake in his direction and throw back to the other side of the field.

That's pretty funny, Goose. You took strong exception when I posted that given they'd already thrown to Ayom at least twice on the drive, TT went to the well too often on that last play, and that the play called was ridiculous and poorly executed. Now you seem to recognize that it wasn't a smart call after all, given the situation, and that they should have tried to hit someone else, which I also stated (someone who was open b/c of the multiple defenders on Ayom or at least someone who'd be single-coverage). Curious.

[MV72018]

I just watched the replay for the first time. Ayomanor did get knocked off of his route by a WF DB, keeping him away from the desired location.

Yep, stuff like that happens. That is why you absolutely can't tell your QB definitively which receiver he must target. He has to read the field, at least minimally. If he doesn't he is going to get intercepted a lot.

Daniels, if he was to check down on that final play, would have had to do so before the pump fake, imo. Small time and space window.

I don't see it that way. Stop the video right as Daniels is throwing the ball toward Ayomanor. Stanford's #15 is down the field 6 yards facing Daniels with a defender completely behind him. He is to the right of Daniels. There is a clear throwing lane to #15. The defender can't get to the ball without going through #15. The defender will probably hit him when the ball gets there but it will still be a pass that can be caught. The defender might be too aggressive, hit early, and get a PI.  There is another receiver facing Daniels further off to the right that is 4 yards downfield. His defender is also behind our receiver but even further off him.  Either one of these receivers were available right after the pump-fake IMO.

The ACC crew pointed out that Ayomanor was gassed for that final play. He was targeted for 6 straight plays before that. 

Richt had perhaps the most salient comment about the final play. How often do you see the same double-move play work when called twice in a row?

Unfortunately I have seen it happen several times, against Stanford. The defender simply could not lay off the first move. It was the typical problem of a Stanford defender that is just too slow to play corner. He had to react immediately because if he hesitated he would for sure be beat. Of course, on a double move if he does react he will be beat because he reacted :-).  I do agree with your point though. It is more common to see the double move called after repeated catches in front of the defender gets said defender ready to react quickly to anything. The WF DB obviously decided to mess up the pattern and wreck the timing. Solved the problem for WF either way.

IMO Ayomanor being gassed was a good reason to use him as a decoy. He was too tired to outrun anybody. WF certainly knew we liked to throw to him. The safety was more than ready to com over and helped cover him. Keeping him on the field used up two of the defenders, at least. Pump-fake in his direction and throw back to the other side of the field.

That's pretty funny, Goose. You took strong exception when I posted that given they'd already thrown to Ayom at least twice on the drive, TT went to the well too often on that last play, and that the play called was ridiculous and poorly executed. Now you seem to recognize that it wasn't a smart call after all, given the situation, and that they should have tried to hit someone else, which I also stated (someone who was open b/c of the multiple defenders on Ayom or at least someone who'd be single-coverage). Curious.

[Goose]

That's pretty funny, Goose. You took strong exception when I posted that given they'd already thrown to Ayom at least twice on the drive, TT went to the well too often on that last play, and that the play called was ridiculous and poorly executed. Now you seem to recognize that it wasn't a smart call after all, given the situation, and that they should have tried to hit someone else, which I also stated (someone who was open b/c of the multiple defenders on Ayom or at least someone who'd be single-coverage). Curious.

It seems I still haven't communicated. TT wasn't "going to the well once to often". Like most pass plays there is more than one option. The target of the play is not totally predetermined and immutable. If for some reason the double move DID fool WF (or WF just made a mistake), by all means throw it to Ayomanor. Granted, given the fact they had seen that pattern from Ayomanor several times in the recent past, they probably would cover it well. They did. The "under" defender knocked Ayomanor off this route and the safety rapidly came over to assist.

You and I agree that the play was poorly executed. You believe the play call was ridiculous. I did not and do not. There were other options on that play. There were two relatively short receivers open. Daniels should have checked down. The call "worked" fine. The QB did not read the field well and throw to the "correct" receiver. He was not pressured and had time to pump-fake. He had the opportunity to see the coverage and act accordingly. He did not. That isn't the play call. That is the execution of the call.

I get the impression from your "going to the well once to often" comment that you believe Daniels for some reason had no option other than Ayomanor. I simply don't believe TT runs an offense where the QB has to throw to a predetermined receiver. Even high schools don't do that. Like most passing offenses there is undoubtedly a "primary" receiver. Oftentimes that is Ayomanor, because he is our most athletically gifted receiver. That doesn't mean there are no secondary ones. Yes, Daniels should have tried to hit someone else. However that option was an integral part of the play that was called. There were at least four other receivers on the play. One was fairly well covered. Two were open and "available". The other one was off the screen so I don't know.

[Goose]

That's pretty funny, Goose. You took strong exception when I posted that given they'd already thrown to Ayom at least twice on the drive, TT went to the well too often on that last play, and that the play called was ridiculous and poorly executed. Now you seem to recognize that it wasn't a smart call after all, given the situation, and that they should have tried to hit someone else, which I also stated (someone who was open b/c of the multiple defenders on Ayom or at least someone who'd be single-coverage). Curious.

It seems I still haven't communicated. TT wasn't "going to the well once to often". Like most pass plays there is more than one option. The target of the play is not totally predetermined and immutable. If for some reason the double move DID fool WF (or WF just made a mistake), by all means throw it to Ayomanor. Granted, given the fact they had seen that pattern from Ayomanor several times in the recent past, they probably would cover it well. They did. The "under" defender knocked Ayomanor off this route and the safety rapidly came over to assist.

You and I agree that the play was poorly executed. You believe the play call was ridiculous. I did not and do not. There were other options on that play. There were two relatively short receivers open. Daniels should have checked down. The call "worked" fine. The QB did not read the field well and throw to the "correct" receiver. He was not pressured and had time to pump-fake. He had the opportunity to see the coverage and act accordingly. He did not. That isn't the play call. That is the execution of the call.

I get the impression from your "going to the well once to often" comment that you believe Daniels for some reason had no option other than Ayomanor. I simply don't believe TT runs an offense where the QB has to throw to a predetermined receiver. Even high schools don't do that. Like most passing offenses there is undoubtedly a "primary" receiver. Oftentimes that is Ayomanor, because he is our most athletically gifted receiver. That doesn't mean there are no secondary ones. Yes, Daniels should have tried to hit someone else. However that option was an integral part of the play that was called. There were at least four other receivers on the play. One was fairly well covered. Two were open and "available". The other one was off the screen so I don't know.

[MV72018]

That's pretty funny, Goose. You took strong exception when I posted that given they'd already thrown to Ayom at least twice on the drive, TT went to the well too often on that last play, and that the play called was ridiculous and poorly executed. Now you seem to recognize that it wasn't a smart call after all, given the situation, and that they should have tried to hit someone else, which I also stated (someone who was open b/c of the multiple defenders on Ayom or at least someone who'd be single-coverage). Curious.

It seems I still haven't communicated. TT wasn't "going to the well once to often". Like most pass plays there is more than one option. The target of the play is not totally predetermined and immutable. If for some reason the double move DID fool WF (or WF just made a mistake), by all means throw it to Ayomanor. Granted, given the fact they had seen that pattern from Ayomanor several times in the recent past, they probably would cover it well. They did. The "under" defender knocked Ayomanor off this route and the safety rapidly came over to assist.

You and I agree that the play was poorly executed. You believe the play call was ridiculous. I did not and do not. There were other options on that play. There were two relatively short receivers open. Daniels should have checked down. The call "worked" fine. The QB did not read the field well and throw to the "correct" receiver. He was not pressured and had time to pump-fake. He had the opportunity to see the coverage and act accordingly. He did not. That isn't the play call. That is the execution of the call.

I get the impression from your "going to the well once to often" comment that you believe Daniels for some reason had no option other than Ayomanor. I simply don't believe TT runs an offense where the QB has to throw to a predetermined receiver. Even high schools don't do that. Like most passing offenses there is undoubtedly a "primary" receiver. Oftentimes that is Ayomanor, because he is our most athletically gifted receiver. That doesn't mean there are no secondary ones. Yes, Daniels should have tried to hit someone else. However that option was an integral part of the play that was called. There were at least four other receivers on the play. One was fairly well covered. Two were open and "available". The other one was off the screen so I don't know.

Do you know of times this year where Daniels successfully checked off his primary receiver and threw the ball to his second or third option for a completion? I don't. (I do remember the dismal Clemson game in this regard, where he threw once into triple coverage at around Clemson's 30 and another time chucked it up in the endzone for an INT. If TT didn't have good evidence that Daniels can do the checkoff successfully, then he was calling that play intending to get the ball to Ayomanor, just like the times he did before that during the closing drive. Thus my "went to the well once too often." 

In any event, thanks for a good exchange. I respect your knowledge of football and your impressive knowledgeability about the war in Ukraine. Let's hope for a better outcome this Saturday. I shocked myself by picking us to beat NC State this week, mostly because the Tarheels' starting quarterback quit for health reasons and the replacement qb is a freshman.

[MV72018]

That's pretty funny, Goose. You took strong exception when I posted that given they'd already thrown to Ayom at least twice on the drive, TT went to the well too often on that last play, and that the play called was ridiculous and poorly executed. Now you seem to recognize that it wasn't a smart call after all, given the situation, and that they should have tried to hit someone else, which I also stated (someone who was open b/c of the multiple defenders on Ayom or at least someone who'd be single-coverage). Curious.

It seems I still haven't communicated. TT wasn't "going to the well once to often". Like most pass plays there is more than one option. The target of the play is not totally predetermined and immutable. If for some reason the double move DID fool WF (or WF just made a mistake), by all means throw it to Ayomanor. Granted, given the fact they had seen that pattern from Ayomanor several times in the recent past, they probably would cover it well. They did. The "under" defender knocked Ayomanor off this route and the safety rapidly came over to assist.

You and I agree that the play was poorly executed. You believe the play call was ridiculous. I did not and do not. There were other options on that play. There were two relatively short receivers open. Daniels should have checked down. The call "worked" fine. The QB did not read the field well and throw to the "correct" receiver. He was not pressured and had time to pump-fake. He had the opportunity to see the coverage and act accordingly. He did not. That isn't the play call. That is the execution of the call.

I get the impression from your "going to the well once to often" comment that you believe Daniels for some reason had no option other than Ayomanor. I simply don't believe TT runs an offense where the QB has to throw to a predetermined receiver. Even high schools don't do that. Like most passing offenses there is undoubtedly a "primary" receiver. Oftentimes that is Ayomanor, because he is our most athletically gifted receiver. That doesn't mean there are no secondary ones. Yes, Daniels should have tried to hit someone else. However that option was an integral part of the play that was called. There were at least four other receivers on the play. One was fairly well covered. Two were open and "available". The other one was off the screen so I don't know.

Do you know of times this year where Daniels successfully checked off his primary receiver and threw the ball to his second or third option for a completion? I don't. (I do remember the dismal Clemson game in this regard, where he threw once into triple coverage at around Clemson's 30 and another time chucked it up in the endzone for an INT. If TT didn't have good evidence that Daniels can do the checkoff successfully, then he was calling that play intending to get the ball to Ayomanor, just like the times he did before that during the closing drive. Thus my "went to the well once too often." 

In any event, thanks for a good exchange. I respect your knowledge of football and your impressive knowledgeability about the war in Ukraine. Let's hope for a better outcome this Saturday. I shocked myself by picking us to beat NC State this week, mostly because the Tarheels' starting quarterback quit for health reasons and the replacement qb is a freshman.

[cardcrimson]

Let's hope for a better outcome this Saturday. I shocked myself by picking us to beat NC State this week, mostly because the Tarheels' starting quarterback quit for health reasons and the replacement qb is a freshman.

The Tarheels' starting QB is out? Too bad we're playing the Wolfpack. . . . ;-)

[cardcrimson]

Let's hope for a better outcome this Saturday. I shocked myself by picking us to beat NC State this week, mostly because the Tarheels' starting quarterback quit for health reasons and the replacement qb is a freshman.

The Tarheels' starting QB is out? Too bad we're playing the Wolfpack. . . . ;-)

[MV72018]

Let's hope for a better outcome this Saturday. I shocked myself by picking us to beat NC State this week, mostly because the Tarheels' starting quarterback quit for health reasons and the replacement qb is a freshman.

The Tarheels' starting QB is out? Too bad we're playing the Wolfpack. . . . ;-)

My bad.

[MV72018]

Let's hope for a better outcome this Saturday. I shocked myself by picking us to beat NC State this week, mostly because the Tarheels' starting quarterback quit for health reasons and the replacement qb is a freshman.

The Tarheels' starting QB is out? Too bad we're playing the Wolfpack. . . . ;-)

My bad.

[thunder_chik]

I think I picked a good time to be away on an extended European vacation (since 9/22, no access to college football). I don't believe Coach TT should be replaced at this point, but it would be a wise move to recruit a new AD. Muir is ineffective; or in my vernacular, he is "helpless, hopeless, clueless and useless". Time for a change.
Go Dodgers!

[thunder_chik]

I think I picked a good time to be away on an extended European vacation (since 9/22, no access to college football). I don't believe Coach TT should be replaced at this point, but it would be a wise move to recruit a new AD. Muir is ineffective; or in my vernacular, he is "helpless, hopeless, clueless and useless". Time for a change.
Go Dodgers!

[Row80Critic]

To add to this point, I think the worst part is that he said he could win almost entirely by recruiting, developing, and retaining high school recruits, with "love" and culture as the linchpin. This was the theory behind hiring TT rather than someone else with a bigger name, more charisma, or proven success at the P4 level. And this was also exactly what Muir and the administration wanted to hear because it enabled them to keep avoiding any uncomfortable decisions or bold changes. It was, in hindsight, a dangerous idea at Stanford if you care about football.

In today's press conference, TT blamed the lack of transfers as the main cause of our woes. (Something like - we lost a ton of transfers, and it's a one-way door at Stanford. So we're having to play all of these young guys.) I'm sorry, but this was known to be the case when he signed up, and he said he could build a winning program without a material number of transfers. Did he think he'd have four years to show any signs of progress, or did he overestimate his ability to turn things around more quickly without more transfers? Either way, it was a terrible miscalculation.

Now, after enabling the institution's inaction for two years, he is changing his tune. In hindsight, we needed a "Director of Football" (TT's title) more than we needed a "coach". A Director of Football is a passionate and effective advocate for the program's needs - in this case, money, admissions, and transfers.

I appreciate that TT has come to this realization, two years into his tenure and four years after nearly every other successful team that isn't named Alabama or Clemson. But at this point, I don't think he has the charisma, credibility, or early signs of progress to pull off the turnaround. He has burned up his new coach mandate and honeymoon period. He cannot overcome the deficit with X's and O's. And I don't believe he has the ability to pull great assistants, recruits, or transfers at this point. I hope that I'm wrong.

That said, Muir is the one who really needs to go first. The new AD needs to clear the path for transfers and admissions and obtain the necessary budget commitments. The combination of Muir and TT is particularly woeful because neither one seems capable of influencing the institution despite being among its very highest-paid employees.

That settles it, I'm writing you in for President next week.

[Row80Critic]

To add to this point, I think the worst part is that he said he could win almost entirely by recruiting, developing, and retaining high school recruits, with "love" and culture as the linchpin. This was the theory behind hiring TT rather than someone else with a bigger name, more charisma, or proven success at the P4 level. And this was also exactly what Muir and the administration wanted to hear because it enabled them to keep avoiding any uncomfortable decisions or bold changes. It was, in hindsight, a dangerous idea at Stanford if you care about football.

In today's press conference, TT blamed the lack of transfers as the main cause of our woes. (Something like - we lost a ton of transfers, and it's a one-way door at Stanford. So we're having to play all of these young guys.) I'm sorry, but this was known to be the case when he signed up, and he said he could build a winning program without a material number of transfers. Did he think he'd have four years to show any signs of progress, or did he overestimate his ability to turn things around more quickly without more transfers? Either way, it was a terrible miscalculation.

Now, after enabling the institution's inaction for two years, he is changing his tune. In hindsight, we needed a "Director of Football" (TT's title) more than we needed a "coach". A Director of Football is a passionate and effective advocate for the program's needs - in this case, money, admissions, and transfers.

I appreciate that TT has come to this realization, two years into his tenure and four years after nearly every other successful team that isn't named Alabama or Clemson. But at this point, I don't think he has the charisma, credibility, or early signs of progress to pull off the turnaround. He has burned up his new coach mandate and honeymoon period. He cannot overcome the deficit with X's and O's. And I don't believe he has the ability to pull great assistants, recruits, or transfers at this point. I hope that I'm wrong.

That said, Muir is the one who really needs to go first. The new AD needs to clear the path for transfers and admissions and obtain the necessary budget commitments. The combination of Muir and TT is particularly woeful because neither one seems capable of influencing the institution despite being among its very highest-paid employees.

That settles it, I'm writing you in for President next week.

[SkiBum80]

Let's hope for a better outcome this Saturday. I shocked myself by picking us to beat NC State this week, mostly because the Tarheels' starting quarterback quit for health reasons and the replacement qb is a freshman.

The Tarheels' starting QB is out? Too bad we're playing the Wolfpack. . . . ;-)

My bad.

Kinda both right. Tarheels starting QB broke his leg earlier this season and the Wolfpacks starting QB got one to many concussions and medically retired.

[SkiBum80]

Let's hope for a better outcome this Saturday. I shocked myself by picking us to beat NC State this week, mostly because the Tarheels' starting quarterback quit for health reasons and the replacement qb is a freshman.

The Tarheels' starting QB is out? Too bad we're playing the Wolfpack. . . . ;-)

My bad.

Kinda both right. Tarheels starting QB broke his leg earlier this season and the Wolfpacks starting QB got one to many concussions and medically retired.