[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16412.msg185739#msg185739 date=1484016132]
Dirty or not, Alabama is toying with Clemson.  This year it has been clear that Alabama was far and away the best team, Clemson was the best of the rest, and there is a big gap between them and all of the pretenders.

BC

Umm . . . what was that again?  ;)
[/quote]

What's the joke? All models are wrong but some are useful? In this case BC's model turned out to be wrong, but useful. What changed between BC's post and the endgame? Why, it was DeShaun Watson going nova -- maybe the best single-game performance I've seen since Vince Young.

If you look at Alabama's rare losses, they're almost always to:
1) A great quarterback playing somewhere between "damn well" and "out of his mind" (e.g. Watson, Manziel, etc.)
2) A not-so-great quarterback playing "out of his mind" (e.g. Trevor Knight, Cardale Jones, Stephen Garcia, Chad Kelly)

But if you don't have really top-tier QB play you're just going to get destroyed by the Tide. This underlines the craziness of the effort needed to turn them back: you need a legendary QB performance to barely prevail. This game made be respect Saban all the more, in some odd way. Despite having a true freshman quarterback playing like a true freshman quarterback, despite having a new-on-the-job offensive coordinator, he still only could be beaten by a herculean effort by an all-time-great. Insane.

So, there's that. On the other hand this does give hope to, say, teams all the way down to the top fifteen. Say, us. Just find yourself a great quarterback and you too can take a spin at Alabama.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16412.msg185739#msg185739 date=1484016132]
Dirty or not, Alabama is toying with Clemson.  This year it has been clear that Alabama was far and away the best team, Clemson was the best of the rest, and there is a big gap between them and all of the pretenders.

BC

Umm . . . what was that again?  ;)
[/quote]

What's the joke? All models are wrong but some are useful? In this case BC's model turned out to be wrong, but useful. What changed between BC's post and the endgame? Why, it was DeShaun Watson going nova -- maybe the best single-game performance I've seen since Vince Young.

If you look at Alabama's rare losses, they're almost always to:
1) A great quarterback playing somewhere between "damn well" and "out of his mind" (e.g. Watson, Manziel, etc.)
2) A not-so-great quarterback playing "out of his mind" (e.g. Trevor Knight, Cardale Jones, Stephen Garcia, Chad Kelly)

But if you don't have really top-tier QB play you're just going to get destroyed by the Tide. This underlines the craziness of the effort needed to turn them back: you need a legendary QB performance to barely prevail. This game made be respect Saban all the more, in some odd way. Despite having a true freshman quarterback playing like a true freshman quarterback, despite having a new-on-the-job offensive coordinator, he still only could be beaten by a herculean effort by an all-time-great. Insane.

So, there's that. On the other hand this does give hope to, say, teams all the way down to the top fifteen. Say, us. Just find yourself a great quarterback and you too can take a spin at Alabama.

[OutsiderFan]

Yes, switching is a good idea.  Only problem is, when you switch, you create space.  And unlike basketball, in football, if the guy crosses the line with the ball, you lose, and a good QB can zip a ball in a tight window. They'd be really vulnerable to a quick slant from the X receiver if they switched, but I'd rather force a QB to thread the needle than have a wide open guy because a DB can get around the other DB/WR. 




 

[OutsiderFan]

Yes, switching is a good idea.  Only problem is, when you switch, you create space.  And unlike basketball, in football, if the guy crosses the line with the ball, you lose, and a good QB can zip a ball in a tight window. They'd be really vulnerable to a quick slant from the X receiver if they switched, but I'd rather force a QB to thread the needle than have a wide open guy because a DB can get around the other DB/WR. 




 

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=16412.msg185810#msg185810 date=1484067522]

I'm no defensive genius, but why don't the defenders switch like they do in basketball. . . .

This is actually the theory behind Nick Saban's "pattern matching" style of defensive back play: http://grantland.com/features/Richard-le...one-blitz/
[/quote]

Interesting article. Didn't look like the defense employed Saban's technique. . . .

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=16412.msg185810#msg185810 date=1484067522]

I'm no defensive genius, but why don't the defenders switch like they do in basketball. . . .

This is actually the theory behind Nick Saban's "pattern matching" style of defensive back play: http://grantland.com/features/Richard-le...one-blitz/
[/quote]

Interesting article. Didn't look like the defense employed Saban's technique. . . .

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16412.msg185739#msg185739 date=1484016132]
Dirty or not, Alabama is toying with Clemson.  This year it has been clear that Alabama was far and away the best team, Clemson was the best of the rest, and there is a big gap between them and all of the pretenders.

BC

Umm . . . what was that again?  ;)
[/quote]

I ate my humble pie:

Since I made my pronouncement, Clemson has gone on a 28-10 run.

Not as bad as John Dvorak saying that Apple should abandon the iPhone, but stilll feeling sheepish.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16412.msg185739#msg185739 date=1484016132]
Dirty or not, Alabama is toying with Clemson.  This year it has been clear that Alabama was far and away the best team, Clemson was the best of the rest, and there is a big gap between them and all of the pretenders.

BC

Umm . . . what was that again?  ;)
[/quote]

I ate my humble pie:

Since I made my pronouncement, Clemson has gone on a 28-10 run.

Not as bad as John Dvorak saying that Apple should abandon the iPhone, but stilll feeling sheepish.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

Just find yourself a great quarterback and you too can take a spin at Alabama.

This is why Mills, Little, and Sarell, are such big deals for Stanford to land. Mills has the mobility needed to play against elite defensive fronts, and the superior arm talent to beat strong secondaries.

Just an FYI, Clemson started a True Frosh LT in 2015 and played a True Frosh RT this year since the half-way point of the season.  I remember they had all kinds of OL issues when Tajh Boyd and Chad Kelly were there before Watson.  So as good as Watson is, what put Clemson over the top was better OL, particularly OT play.  They've always had good DL, but they also had True Frosh (and who I thought might be a Stanford commit) Christian Wilkins play in 2015 and that monster True Frosh Lawrence play in 2016.

As you can see, it takes prodigious talent on both sides of the ball to get in the playoff and win.  Stanford's 2010 team actually was the most talented team it's had in the Harbaugh/Shaw renaissance.  No wonder it was a hair's breath from playing for the National Title.

[OutsiderFan]

Just find yourself a great quarterback and you too can take a spin at Alabama.

This is why Mills, Little, and Sarell, are such big deals for Stanford to land. Mills has the mobility needed to play against elite defensive fronts, and the superior arm talent to beat strong secondaries.

Just an FYI, Clemson started a True Frosh LT in 2015 and played a True Frosh RT this year since the half-way point of the season.  I remember they had all kinds of OL issues when Tajh Boyd and Chad Kelly were there before Watson.  So as good as Watson is, what put Clemson over the top was better OL, particularly OT play.  They've always had good DL, but they also had True Frosh (and who I thought might be a Stanford commit) Christian Wilkins play in 2015 and that monster True Frosh Lawrence play in 2016.

As you can see, it takes prodigious talent on both sides of the ball to get in the playoff and win.  Stanford's 2010 team actually was the most talented team it's had in the Harbaugh/Shaw renaissance.  No wonder it was a hair's breath from playing for the National Title.

[washingtonismoney]

As you can see, it takes prodigious talent on both sides of the ball to get in the playoff and win.  Stanford's 2010 team actually was the most talented team it's had in the Harbaugh/Shaw renaissance.  No wonder it was a hair's breath from playing for the National Title.

I think if the d-line stays healthy in 2013 it might've gone to the national championship that year...and gotten stomped by the Winston FSU team. But still -- Stanford (likely) would've gone to the playoff at least once over the Shaw/Harbaugh era had the playoff been, well, invented.

[washingtonismoney]

As you can see, it takes prodigious talent on both sides of the ball to get in the playoff and win.  Stanford's 2010 team actually was the most talented team it's had in the Harbaugh/Shaw renaissance.  No wonder it was a hair's breath from playing for the National Title.

I think if the d-line stays healthy in 2013 it might've gone to the national championship that year...and gotten stomped by the Winston FSU team. But still -- Stanford (likely) would've gone to the playoff at least once over the Shaw/Harbaugh era had the playoff been, well, invented.

[fullmetal]

I like this analysis: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/earl...egal-play/

So the defender covering Renfrow should have just run into the blocking WR...

[fullmetal]

I like this analysis: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/earl...egal-play/

So the defender covering Renfrow should have just run into the blocking WR...

[CTcard]

I think if the d-line stays healthy in 2013 it might've gone to the national championship that year...and gotten stomped by the Winston FSU team.

You made me go look up the 2013 season.
I don't quite remember having that thought at the time, but you might be correct.

Stanford at 11-2 finished #5 in the final BCS poll, behind 13-0 FSU, 12-1 Auburn, 11-1 Alabama, and 12-1 Michigan State. I think I remember a lot of talk that Stanford had one of the tougher schedules that year, and Stanford was the highest ranked 2 loss team, ahead of 1 loss Ohio State and Baylor.

Our DL starters were Henry Anderson, Dave Parry, and Ben Gardner.
Our losses were in game #6 at Utah (where we couldn't score after getting down to the Utah 6 with third and 2 and fourth and 2 incomplete passes), and in game #10 at U$C (where we first threw an INT on 3rd and goal early in the fourth in a tie game, then threw and INT on second and 2 from our own 40 with three minutes left, and finally allowed a fourth and two conversion that led to the winning 47 yard FG).

Anderson was out for the Utah game, Gardner for the $C game.

While the proximate causes of both losses seems to have been failures by the offense, in both games the bad guys were running well early on - U$C going TD, TD, FG on long drives their first three possessions and Utah scoring TDs on three of its first five possessions all long drives.

So, I think there is a good chance that a healthy DL could have tipped the balance in one of those games, and a good chance that a one loss Stanford team could have made the championship game - though it would have had to been voted in over two one loss SEC teams.

------
I also kind of remember thinking that in 2001, had our guy held onto the wide open deep ball late vs WSU that Stanford might have made the championship game that year, though I don't entirely remember the logic. Stanford was as high as #6 in week 9 but then got stuck at #9 after the WSU loss.

--------------
Stanford's final standings in BCS/CFP rankings:
2001  #9
2009  #21
2010  #4
2011  #4
2012  #6
2013  #5
2015  #6
2016  #18

[CTcard]

I think if the d-line stays healthy in 2013 it might've gone to the national championship that year...and gotten stomped by the Winston FSU team.

You made me go look up the 2013 season.
I don't quite remember having that thought at the time, but you might be correct.

Stanford at 11-2 finished #5 in the final BCS poll, behind 13-0 FSU, 12-1 Auburn, 11-1 Alabama, and 12-1 Michigan State. I think I remember a lot of talk that Stanford had one of the tougher schedules that year, and Stanford was the highest ranked 2 loss team, ahead of 1 loss Ohio State and Baylor.

Our DL starters were Henry Anderson, Dave Parry, and Ben Gardner.
Our losses were in game #6 at Utah (where we couldn't score after getting down to the Utah 6 with third and 2 and fourth and 2 incomplete passes), and in game #10 at U$C (where we first threw an INT on 3rd and goal early in the fourth in a tie game, then threw and INT on second and 2 from our own 40 with three minutes left, and finally allowed a fourth and two conversion that led to the winning 47 yard FG).

Anderson was out for the Utah game, Gardner for the $C game.

While the proximate causes of both losses seems to have been failures by the offense, in both games the bad guys were running well early on - U$C going TD, TD, FG on long drives their first three possessions and Utah scoring TDs on three of its first five possessions all long drives.

So, I think there is a good chance that a healthy DL could have tipped the balance in one of those games, and a good chance that a one loss Stanford team could have made the championship game - though it would have had to been voted in over two one loss SEC teams.

------
I also kind of remember thinking that in 2001, had our guy held onto the wide open deep ball late vs WSU that Stanford might have made the championship game that year, though I don't entirely remember the logic. Stanford was as high as #6 in week 9 but then got stuck at #9 after the WSU loss.

--------------
Stanford's final standings in BCS/CFP rankings:
2001  #9
2009  #21
2010  #4
2011  #4
2012  #6
2013  #5
2015  #6
2016  #18

[teejers1]

CTCard, the failures in the 2013 regular season losses were on the coach(es).

Stanford NEVER should have been passing on 3rd and 2 against Utah; nor should Stanford have been passing on second and short against SC.  Those brain locks are near the top o list of "no sense of game situation/correct tactics" under this regime.  Fortunately, those AYFKM calls seem to be receding . . . although they still surface on occasion.

[teejers1]

CTCard, the failures in the 2013 regular season losses were on the coach(es).

Stanford NEVER should have been passing on 3rd and 2 against Utah; nor should Stanford have been passing on second and short against SC.  Those brain locks are near the top o list of "no sense of game situation/correct tactics" under this regime.  Fortunately, those AYFKM calls seem to be receding . . . although they still surface on occasion.

[BostonCard]

In 2013 on 3rd and 1 to 3 yards to go:

Rushing: 52 attempts, 32 first downs and 6 touchdowns for a 73% conversion rate.
Passing: 24 attempts, 11 completions, 1 TD 11 first downs for a 50% conversion rate.

The numbers clearly support running the ball, as intuition would surmise.  And, indeed, we ran almost 70% of the time.  But there is a bit of a game theory, optimization problem here, because you can't always run or the opposition will stack the box and ignore the passing threat.  Moreover, when the opponent does align its defense against the run giving you a more favorable passing scenario, you have to be willing and able to take advantage, at least some of the time.  And you also have to take into account that USC was 16th in run defense and Utah 20th.  Utah's run defense on 3rd and 1-3 yards was 14 1st downs and 1 TD in 28 attempts for a 54% opponent conversion rate, while they gave up 10 first downs in 21 passing attempts 48% opponent conversion rate passing; that's not too dissimilar.  USC, meanwhile gave up 16 first downs on 23 attempts rushing on third and 1-3, a 70% opponent conversion rate, while 6 first downs in 20 attempts passing the ball for a 30% conversion rate.

Factoring everything, it is hard for me to label either situation as "are you friggin kidding me".  Sure, we are generally better running than passing the ball on third and short, but Utah had a pretty good third and short run defense and a fairly stout run defense overall.  If passing the ball on third and short is labelled as "are you friggin kidding me" then we are going to have the problem of our offense being too predictable, which is an allegation that has been leveled against Shaw many times here.  Plus, we were pretty effective passing against Utah for the day: 15/27, 246 yards, 9.1 ypa, 1 TD, 0 INT, PER 144.3.

As for the pass against USC, usually second and short is the perfect time to run a pass play.  The opponent generally gears its defense to stop the run, AND, if the pass play doesn't work because of an incompletion, you get another chance to run either a run or pass.  That being said, we were running well against USC (ended with 210 yards on 35 caries for 6 ypc), while we had one of our worst passing weeks.  The balance of evidence suggests run until they stop you, but still, I don't think the decision would qualify as a brain lock or support the accusation that our coach has "no sense of game situation/correct tactics".

[BostonCard]

In 2013 on 3rd and 1 to 3 yards to go:

Rushing: 52 attempts, 32 first downs and 6 touchdowns for a 73% conversion rate.
Passing: 24 attempts, 11 completions, 1 TD 11 first downs for a 50% conversion rate.

The numbers clearly support running the ball, as intuition would surmise.  And, indeed, we ran almost 70% of the time.  But there is a bit of a game theory, optimization problem here, because you can't always run or the opposition will stack the box and ignore the passing threat.  Moreover, when the opponent does align its defense against the run giving you a more favorable passing scenario, you have to be willing and able to take advantage, at least some of the time.  And you also have to take into account that USC was 16th in run defense and Utah 20th.  Utah's run defense on 3rd and 1-3 yards was 14 1st downs and 1 TD in 28 attempts for a 54% opponent conversion rate, while they gave up 10 first downs in 21 passing attempts 48% opponent conversion rate passing; that's not too dissimilar.  USC, meanwhile gave up 16 first downs on 23 attempts rushing on third and 1-3, a 70% opponent conversion rate, while 6 first downs in 20 attempts passing the ball for a 30% conversion rate.

Factoring everything, it is hard for me to label either situation as "are you friggin kidding me".  Sure, we are generally better running than passing the ball on third and short, but Utah had a pretty good third and short run defense and a fairly stout run defense overall.  If passing the ball on third and short is labelled as "are you friggin kidding me" then we are going to have the problem of our offense being too predictable, which is an allegation that has been leveled against Shaw many times here.  Plus, we were pretty effective passing against Utah for the day: 15/27, 246 yards, 9.1 ypa, 1 TD, 0 INT, PER 144.3.

As for the pass against USC, usually second and short is the perfect time to run a pass play.  The opponent generally gears its defense to stop the run, AND, if the pass play doesn't work because of an incompletion, you get another chance to run either a run or pass.  That being said, we were running well against USC (ended with 210 yards on 35 caries for 6 ypc), while we had one of our worst passing weeks.  The balance of evidence suggests run until they stop you, but still, I don't think the decision would qualify as a brain lock or support the accusation that our coach has "no sense of game situation/correct tactics".

[winflop]

In 2013 on 3rd and 1 to 3 yards to go:

Rushing: 52 attempts, 32 first downs and 6 touchdowns for a 73% conversion rate.
Passing: 24 attempts, 11 completions, 1 TD 11 first downs for a 50% conversion rate.

The numbers clearly support running the ball, as intuition would surmise.  And, indeed, we ran almost 70% of the time.  But there is a bit of a game theory, optimization problem here, because you can't always run or the opposition will stack the box and ignore the passing threat.  Moreover, when the opponent does align its defense against the run giving you a more favorable passing scenario, you have to be willing and able to take advantage, at least some of the time.  And you also have to take into account that Under Stanford Control (again) was 16th in run defense and Utah 20th.  Utah's run defense on 3rd and 1-3 yards was 14 1st downs and 1 TD in 28 attempts for a 54% opponent conversion rate, while they gave up 10 first downs in 21 passing attempts 48% opponent conversion rate passing; that's not too dissimilar.  Under Stanford Control (again), meanwhile gave up 16 first downs on 23 attempts rushing on third and 1-3, a 70% opponent conversion rate, while 6 first downs in 20 attempts passing the ball for a 30% conversion rate.

Factoring everything, it is hard for me to label either situation as "are you friggin kidding me".  Sure, we are generally better running than passing the ball on third and short, but Utah had a pretty good third and short run defense and a fairly stout run defense overall.  If passing the ball on third and short is labelled as "are you friggin kidding me" then we are going to have the problem of our offense being too predictable, which is an allegation that has been leveled against Shaw many times here.  Plus, we were pretty effective passing against Utah for the day: 15/27, 246 yards, 9.1 ypa, 1 TD, 0 INT, PER 144.3.

As for the pass against Under Stanford Control (again), usually second and short is the perfect time to run a pass play.  The opponent generally gears its defense to stop the run, AND, if the pass play doesn't work because of an incompletion, you get another chance to run either a run or pass.  That being said, we were running well against Under Stanford Control (again) (ended with 210 yards on 35 caries for 6 ypc), while we had one of our worst passing weeks.  The balance of evidence suggests run until they stop you, but still, I don't think the decision would qualify as a brain lock or support the accusation that our coach has "no sense of game situation/correct tactics".

I call this "overthinking things" and I wish Shaw would apply the KISS principle more often.  In crunch time, do what you do best and force the opponent to beat you at it.  Happened most recently in the Sun Bowl on 3rd & goal from the 1-foot line, so I think it's safe to say that Shaw hasn't learned this yet.

[winflop]

In 2013 on 3rd and 1 to 3 yards to go:

Rushing: 52 attempts, 32 first downs and 6 touchdowns for a 73% conversion rate.
Passing: 24 attempts, 11 completions, 1 TD 11 first downs for a 50% conversion rate.

The numbers clearly support running the ball, as intuition would surmise.  And, indeed, we ran almost 70% of the time.  But there is a bit of a game theory, optimization problem here, because you can't always run or the opposition will stack the box and ignore the passing threat.  Moreover, when the opponent does align its defense against the run giving you a more favorable passing scenario, you have to be willing and able to take advantage, at least some of the time.  And you also have to take into account that Under Stanford Control (again) was 16th in run defense and Utah 20th.  Utah's run defense on 3rd and 1-3 yards was 14 1st downs and 1 TD in 28 attempts for a 54% opponent conversion rate, while they gave up 10 first downs in 21 passing attempts 48% opponent conversion rate passing; that's not too dissimilar.  Under Stanford Control (again), meanwhile gave up 16 first downs on 23 attempts rushing on third and 1-3, a 70% opponent conversion rate, while 6 first downs in 20 attempts passing the ball for a 30% conversion rate.

Factoring everything, it is hard for me to label either situation as "are you friggin kidding me".  Sure, we are generally better running than passing the ball on third and short, but Utah had a pretty good third and short run defense and a fairly stout run defense overall.  If passing the ball on third and short is labelled as "are you friggin kidding me" then we are going to have the problem of our offense being too predictable, which is an allegation that has been leveled against Shaw many times here.  Plus, we were pretty effective passing against Utah for the day: 15/27, 246 yards, 9.1 ypa, 1 TD, 0 INT, PER 144.3.

As for the pass against Under Stanford Control (again), usually second and short is the perfect time to run a pass play.  The opponent generally gears its defense to stop the run, AND, if the pass play doesn't work because of an incompletion, you get another chance to run either a run or pass.  That being said, we were running well against Under Stanford Control (again) (ended with 210 yards on 35 caries for 6 ypc), while we had one of our worst passing weeks.  The balance of evidence suggests run until they stop you, but still, I don't think the decision would qualify as a brain lock or support the accusation that our coach has "no sense of game situation/correct tactics".

I call this "overthinking things" and I wish Shaw would apply the KISS principle more often.  In crunch time, do what you do best and force the opponent to beat you at it.  Happened most recently in the Sun Bowl on 3rd & goal from the 1-foot line, so I think it's safe to say that Shaw hasn't learned this yet.

[CTcard]

  Happened most recently in the Sun Bowl on 3rd & goal from the 1-foot line, so I think it's safe to say that Shaw hasn't learned this yet.

As Goose pointed out, that was a fascinating (if overly fancy) play.

The presnap shift completely flumoxed UNC. In the video link below, pause around 1:17:42 or so. Just as the ball is snapped, Stanford had six blockers on the left side to four defenders for UNC (or 7 on 5 if you include the center and the nose). A simply dive play to the strong side would have been about as easy a TD as you can get.

However, Stanford apparently had intended for UNC to react properly to the shift, or even over-react to the shift, and ran a play to the weakside, where UNC had four/five defenders to Stanford's two/three blockers.

It would seem that play would have to have a contingency for the QB to audible towards a strong-side run under those circumstances, but it didn't happen.

Of course a simple repeat of the second down play probably would have scored a TD as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDaEUekg1C0#t=1h17m27s

If the time stamp doesn't work, the third down play starts about 1:17:27 in.

[CTcard]

  Happened most recently in the Sun Bowl on 3rd & goal from the 1-foot line, so I think it's safe to say that Shaw hasn't learned this yet.

As Goose pointed out, that was a fascinating (if overly fancy) play.

The presnap shift completely flumoxed UNC. In the video link below, pause around 1:17:42 or so. Just as the ball is snapped, Stanford had six blockers on the left side to four defenders for UNC (or 7 on 5 if you include the center and the nose). A simply dive play to the strong side would have been about as easy a TD as you can get.

However, Stanford apparently had intended for UNC to react properly to the shift, or even over-react to the shift, and ran a play to the weakside, where UNC had four/five defenders to Stanford's two/three blockers.

It would seem that play would have to have a contingency for the QB to audible towards a strong-side run under those circumstances, but it didn't happen.

Of course a simple repeat of the second down play probably would have scored a TD as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDaEUekg1C0#t=1h17m27s

If the time stamp doesn't work, the third down play starts about 1:17:27 in.

[fullmetal]

That puts the fault on Burns primarily and Shaw secondarily, though Shaw was trying to get a timeout called and failed.  Burns needs to check out of that. 

[fullmetal]

That puts the fault on Burns primarily and Shaw secondarily, though Shaw was trying to get a timeout called and failed.  Burns needs to check out of that. 

[BostonCard]

Wasn't the criticism of Shaw in our Rose Bowl loss against Michigan State that he was too stubborn for trying to run it?

Lots of hindsight bias going on.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wasn't the criticism of Shaw in our Rose Bowl loss against Michigan State that he was too stubborn for trying to run it?

Lots of hindsight bias going on.

BC

[CowboyIndian]

No wonder it was a hair's breath from playing for the National Title.

Just like Kal, you're missing a 'd'.

[CowboyIndian]

No wonder it was a hair's breath from playing for the National Title.

Just like Kal, you're missing a 'd'.

[washingtonismoney]

Just like Kal, you're missing a 'd'.

this explains why the golden bears are extinct!

[washingtonismoney]

Just like Kal, you're missing a 'd'.

this explains why the golden bears are extinct!

[CompSci87]

That puts the fault on Burns primarily and Shaw secondarily, though Shaw was trying to get a timeout called and failed.  Burns needs to check out of that.

Yes, seems like there should have been an option for Burns to keep the ball and run left.

[CompSci87]

That puts the fault on Burns primarily and Shaw secondarily, though Shaw was trying to get a timeout called and failed.  Burns needs to check out of that.

Yes, seems like there should have been an option for Burns to keep the ball and run left.

[fullmetal]

Or Burns could have just called a dive left or a toss left or a sweep left...or counter trey left, etc etc.  Whatever they were set up for.  Just...the *other* way...!  Gah.

[fullmetal]

Or Burns could have just called a dive left or a toss left or a sweep left...or counter trey left, etc etc.  Whatever they were set up for.  Just...the *other* way...!  Gah.

[larkinforever]

Wasn't the criticism of Shaw in our Rose Bowl loss against Michigan State that he was too stubborn for trying to run it?

Lots of hindsight bias going on.

BC

Isn't that part of being a fan? :D We can always be smarter than the coaches and smarter and more athletically skilled than the players, except in the rare instance where we see a play before it happens and anticipate the bad outcome - "no, no, no, no.... yes!" - when it unexpectedly turns out better than we had hoped? Even in that instance, we can later claim we never said what we said and claim we knew it would work out all along! (I guess an exception to the exception is writing it here on the Cardboard as no doubt another member will find and re-post that quote for all to see. :) )

[larkinforever]

Wasn't the criticism of Shaw in our Rose Bowl loss against Michigan State that he was too stubborn for trying to run it?

Lots of hindsight bias going on.

BC

Isn't that part of being a fan? :D We can always be smarter than the coaches and smarter and more athletically skilled than the players, except in the rare instance where we see a play before it happens and anticipate the bad outcome - "no, no, no, no.... yes!" - when it unexpectedly turns out better than we had hoped? Even in that instance, we can later claim we never said what we said and claim we knew it would work out all along! (I guess an exception to the exception is writing it here on the Cardboard as no doubt another member will find and re-post that quote for all to see. :) )

[Goose]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16412.msg185930#msg185930 date=1484109043]
That puts the fault on Burns primarily and Shaw secondarily, though Shaw was trying to get a timeout called and failed.  Burns needs to check out of that.

Yes, seems like there should have been an option for Burns to keep the ball and run left.
[/quote]

Or Burns could have just called a dive left or a toss left or a sweep left...or counter trey left, etc etc.  Whatever they were set up for.  Just...the *other* way...!  Gah.

It is not possible in any system I am aware of to audible into any play in the playbook. I am sure Burn's options were limited. I would assume they at least include an "automatic" quarterback sneak, which would have been better that what we got. Or he could have just done a run left on his own, without changing the play. That would have left 21 players asking "WTFO?" and we would have 6 points. That would have taken much more courage and recognition that I think one can expect from a backup that wasn't expected to play. But, as I said before, they couldn't bench him for it, there was nobody else ;D.
Probably the "right thing" to do was call time out, but even that takes being pretty decisive.

[Goose]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16412.msg185930#msg185930 date=1484109043]
That puts the fault on Burns primarily and Shaw secondarily, though Shaw was trying to get a timeout called and failed.  Burns needs to check out of that.

Yes, seems like there should have been an option for Burns to keep the ball and run left.
[/quote]

Or Burns could have just called a dive left or a toss left or a sweep left...or counter trey left, etc etc.  Whatever they were set up for.  Just...the *other* way...!  Gah.

It is not possible in any system I am aware of to audible into any play in the playbook. I am sure Burn's options were limited. I would assume they at least include an "automatic" quarterback sneak, which would have been better that what we got. Or he could have just done a run left on his own, without changing the play. That would have left 21 players asking "WTFO?" and we would have 6 points. That would have taken much more courage and recognition that I think one can expect from a backup that wasn't expected to play. But, as I said before, they couldn't bench him for it, there was nobody else ;D.
Probably the "right thing" to do was call time out, but even that takes being pretty decisive.