10-27-2017, 05:41 PM
I, of course, disdain baroque, speculation-stuffed theories for anything unless they're my own. So here's my baroque theory (requiring speculation) for last night's game: sandbagging.
Cast your minds back four years ago, to 2013, when the team visited Oregon State. Stanford skated by a so-so Beaver team 20-12, with the team needing to try until the very play to avoid an upset to a pretty poor opponent. Everyone was very angry, especially because the team hadn't shown much effort or creativity. It was deemed a poor foreshadowing for the next week's game, #2 Oregon. We all know what happened next: Stanford came out with a fury and won perhaps Shaw's signature win in his entire tenure.
My theory is that Shaw was sandbagging then, as he periodically does from time to time. And my theory is that he's sandbagging now. The situations are superficially similar in a few ways: as in 2013, the Oregon State game precedes a tough stretch of games. And, as in 2013, the gameplan was stripped of novelty:
1) the past two weeks, Shaw made a deliberate effort to get significant snaps to Costello despite a hue and cry that it was disrupting rhythm and so on and so forth. Against Oregon State, Shaw went out of the way to do the "normal" thing -- as if he wanted to introduce confusion for future opponents as to how much Costello they'd see.
2) no real oddity or creative plays; in fact, a very constrained menu of plays. Take an opponent like Utah as an example: the team showed off some real novelty plays that produced spectacular gains. Against good opponents the coaches usually have some stuff they've specially prepared for the situation. Not so against Oregon State.
3) a general conservatism: Chryst is of course the main example, but there were no play action plays, no reverses, a lot of short routes. And for the first half they seemed content to simply pound it up the middle, before running it to the edges to gain an advantage. Again, seemingly a way of holding back the true capabilities.
4) No Love: who knows how much he's actually injured, right? Seems at least vaguely plausible that, were the opponents from Washington, Love'd be out there.
So my completely speculative theory is that Shaw underestimated the Beavers' motivation, overestimated Chryst and in particular his ability to march the offense down the field with short passes, and overestimated the offensive line and running backs' ability to manufacture yardage with simple plays. That, of course, is the risk with sandbagging.
And of course the damage isn't contained to the game; barely beating Oregon State has wider consequences. Holder is seemingly out for the season. And Chryst is so bad that even Shaw was unable to defend him, or unable to forthrightly endorse him as the starter going forward. So instead of increasing uncertainty (will there be Costello?) I'm guessing the Cougar coaches will simply assume they'll see some Costello and prepare accordingly.
In other words, according to this theory, the sandbagging was a very failed strategem.
Cast your minds back four years ago, to 2013, when the team visited Oregon State. Stanford skated by a so-so Beaver team 20-12, with the team needing to try until the very play to avoid an upset to a pretty poor opponent. Everyone was very angry, especially because the team hadn't shown much effort or creativity. It was deemed a poor foreshadowing for the next week's game, #2 Oregon. We all know what happened next: Stanford came out with a fury and won perhaps Shaw's signature win in his entire tenure.
My theory is that Shaw was sandbagging then, as he periodically does from time to time. And my theory is that he's sandbagging now. The situations are superficially similar in a few ways: as in 2013, the Oregon State game precedes a tough stretch of games. And, as in 2013, the gameplan was stripped of novelty:
1) the past two weeks, Shaw made a deliberate effort to get significant snaps to Costello despite a hue and cry that it was disrupting rhythm and so on and so forth. Against Oregon State, Shaw went out of the way to do the "normal" thing -- as if he wanted to introduce confusion for future opponents as to how much Costello they'd see.
2) no real oddity or creative plays; in fact, a very constrained menu of plays. Take an opponent like Utah as an example: the team showed off some real novelty plays that produced spectacular gains. Against good opponents the coaches usually have some stuff they've specially prepared for the situation. Not so against Oregon State.
3) a general conservatism: Chryst is of course the main example, but there were no play action plays, no reverses, a lot of short routes. And for the first half they seemed content to simply pound it up the middle, before running it to the edges to gain an advantage. Again, seemingly a way of holding back the true capabilities.
4) No Love: who knows how much he's actually injured, right? Seems at least vaguely plausible that, were the opponents from Washington, Love'd be out there.
So my completely speculative theory is that Shaw underestimated the Beavers' motivation, overestimated Chryst and in particular his ability to march the offense down the field with short passes, and overestimated the offensive line and running backs' ability to manufacture yardage with simple plays. That, of course, is the risk with sandbagging.
And of course the damage isn't contained to the game; barely beating Oregon State has wider consequences. Holder is seemingly out for the season. And Chryst is so bad that even Shaw was unable to defend him, or unable to forthrightly endorse him as the starter going forward. So instead of increasing uncertainty (will there be Costello?) I'm guessing the Cougar coaches will simply assume they'll see some Costello and prepare accordingly.
In other words, according to this theory, the sandbagging was a very failed strategem.
