[Leftcoast]

One point, criticism of the coaching staff, if not mean-spirited, should NOT be out of bounds. 

Shaw is a first year coach and a very good one.  If he's lucky enough to be our coach in five years he will admit to learning on the job and changing his approach based upon what he learns.  If he will admit to growing than I don't know why we, the fans, shouldn't speculate on the same thing. 

For me that means I can believe two things are true.  First, Coach Shaw was a great coach who won Stanford 10 games this year.  Second, after a great game filled with great play-calling, he played the last series of the Fiesta Bowl too conservatively.

I thought this from the stands in Arizona BEFORE Williamson missed and see no reason to think differently after he missed. 

Furthermore, if you are the coach at Stanford you should EXPECT the highly engaged and talented fanbase to ask tough questions - civilly and respectfully.  I doubt he's offended when we do so.  He shouldn't be.

[Leftcoast]

One point, criticism of the coaching staff, if not mean-spirited, should NOT be out of bounds. 

Shaw is a first year coach and a very good one.  If he's lucky enough to be our coach in five years he will admit to learning on the job and changing his approach based upon what he learns.  If he will admit to growing than I don't know why we, the fans, shouldn't speculate on the same thing. 

For me that means I can believe two things are true.  First, Coach Shaw was a great coach who won Stanford 10 games this year.  Second, after a great game filled with great play-calling, he played the last series of the Fiesta Bowl too conservatively.

I thought this from the stands in Arizona BEFORE Williamson missed and see no reason to think differently after he missed. 

Furthermore, if you are the coach at Stanford you should EXPECT the highly engaged and talented fanbase to ask tough questions - civilly and respectfully.  I doubt he's offended when we do so.  He shouldn't be.

[Leftcoast]

One point, criticism of the coaching staff, if not mean-spirited, should NOT be out of bounds. 

Shaw is a first year coach and a very good one.  If he's lucky enough to be our coach in five years he will admit to learning on the job and changing his approach based upon what he learns.  If he will admit to growing than I don't know why we, the fans, shouldn't speculate on the same thing. 

For me that means I can believe two things are true.  First, Coach Shaw was a great coach who won Stanford 10 games this year.  Second, after a great game filled with great play-calling, he played the last series of the Fiesta Bowl too conservatively.

I thought this from the stands in Arizona BEFORE Williamson missed and see no reason to think differently after he missed. 

Furthermore, if you are the coach at Stanford you should EXPECT the highly engaged and talented fanbase to ask tough questions - civilly and respectfully.  I doubt he's offended when we do so.  He shouldn't be.

[Leftcoast]

One point, criticism of the coaching staff, if not mean-spirited, should NOT be out of bounds. 

Shaw is a first year coach and a very good one.  If he's lucky enough to be our coach in five years he will admit to learning on the job and changing his approach based upon what he learns.  If he will admit to growing than I don't know why we, the fans, shouldn't speculate on the same thing. 

For me that means I can believe two things are true.  First, Coach Shaw was a great coach who won Stanford 10 games this year.  Second, after a great game filled with great play-calling, he played the last series of the Fiesta Bowl too conservatively.

I thought this from the stands in Arizona BEFORE Williamson missed and see no reason to think differently after he missed. 

Furthermore, if you are the coach at Stanford you should EXPECT the highly engaged and talented fanbase to ask tough questions - civilly and respectfully.  I doubt he's offended when we do so.  He shouldn't be.

[Leftcoast]

One point, criticism of the coaching staff, if not mean-spirited, should NOT be out of bounds. 

Shaw is a first year coach and a very good one.  If he's lucky enough to be our coach in five years he will admit to learning on the job and changing his approach based upon what he learns.  If he will admit to growing than I don't know why we, the fans, shouldn't speculate on the same thing. 

For me that means I can believe two things are true.  First, Coach Shaw was a great coach who won Stanford 10 games this year.  Second, after a great game filled with great play-calling, he played the last series of the Fiesta Bowl too conservatively.

I thought this from the stands in Arizona BEFORE Williamson missed and see no reason to think differently after he missed. 

Furthermore, if you are the coach at Stanford you should EXPECT the highly engaged and talented fanbase to ask tough questions - civilly and respectfully.  I doubt he's offended when we do so.  He shouldn't be.

[Leftcoast]

One point, criticism of the coaching staff, if not mean-spirited, should NOT be out of bounds. 

Shaw is a first year coach and a very good one.  If he's lucky enough to be our coach in five years he will admit to learning on the job and changing his approach based upon what he learns.  If he will admit to growing than I don't know why we, the fans, shouldn't speculate on the same thing. 

For me that means I can believe two things are true.  First, Coach Shaw was a great coach who won Stanford 10 games this year.  Second, after a great game filled with great play-calling, he played the last series of the Fiesta Bowl too conservatively.

I thought this from the stands in Arizona BEFORE Williamson missed and see no reason to think differently after he missed. 

Furthermore, if you are the coach at Stanford you should EXPECT the highly engaged and talented fanbase to ask tough questions - civilly and respectfully.  I doubt he's offended when we do so.  He shouldn't be.

[Leftcoast]

One point, criticism of the coaching staff, if not mean-spirited, should NOT be out of bounds. 

Shaw is a first year coach and a very good one.  If he's lucky enough to be our coach in five years he will admit to learning on the job and changing his approach based upon what he learns.  If he will admit to growing than I don't know why we, the fans, shouldn't speculate on the same thing. 

For me that means I can believe two things are true.  First, Coach Shaw was a great coach who won Stanford 10 games this year.  Second, after a great game filled with great play-calling, he played the last series of the Fiesta Bowl too conservatively.

I thought this from the stands in Arizona BEFORE Williamson missed and see no reason to think differently after he missed. 

Furthermore, if you are the coach at Stanford you should EXPECT the highly engaged and talented fanbase to ask tough questions - civilly and respectfully.  I doubt he's offended when we do so.  He shouldn't be.

[Leftcoast]

One point, criticism of the coaching staff, if not mean-spirited, should NOT be out of bounds. 

Shaw is a first year coach and a very good one.  If he's lucky enough to be our coach in five years he will admit to learning on the job and changing his approach based upon what he learns.  If he will admit to growing than I don't know why we, the fans, shouldn't speculate on the same thing. 

For me that means I can believe two things are true.  First, Coach Shaw was a great coach who won Stanford 10 games this year.  Second, after a great game filled with great play-calling, he played the last series of the Fiesta Bowl too conservatively.

I thought this from the stands in Arizona BEFORE Williamson missed and see no reason to think differently after he missed. 

Furthermore, if you are the coach at Stanford you should EXPECT the highly engaged and talented fanbase to ask tough questions - civilly and respectfully.  I doubt he's offended when we do so.  He shouldn't be.

[washingtonismoney]

To my recollection, we attempted to score touchdowns ALL 64 times we made it into the red zone, but "failed" to do so on 14 of those attempts [for a touchdown "success" rate of 78%].  On those 14 "failed" touchdown attempts, we attempted 14 field goals and were successful on 13 of them [for a field goal "success" rate of almost 93%].  In other words, our remarkable scoring percentage inside the red zone owes a fair bit to our successful field goal percentage.

But this is exactly my point! If you fail to score a touchdown, most of the time, you kick a FG anyway.

Instead of heaping everything on one particular scoring chance, why not diversify your risks and try and score all the time? This is why I think discussions of how likely Williamson was to miss a pass to be largely irrelevant. You need to score, you have multiple opportunities to score, you take as many of them as you can.

[washingtonismoney]

To my recollection, we attempted to score touchdowns ALL 64 times we made it into the red zone, but "failed" to do so on 14 of those attempts [for a touchdown "success" rate of 78%].  On those 14 "failed" touchdown attempts, we attempted 14 field goals and were successful on 13 of them [for a field goal "success" rate of almost 93%].  In other words, our remarkable scoring percentage inside the red zone owes a fair bit to our successful field goal percentage.

But this is exactly my point! If you fail to score a touchdown, most of the time, you kick a FG anyway.

Instead of heaping everything on one particular scoring chance, why not diversify your risks and try and score all the time? This is why I think discussions of how likely Williamson was to miss a pass to be largely irrelevant. You need to score, you have multiple opportunities to score, you take as many of them as you can.

[washingtonismoney]

To my recollection, we attempted to score touchdowns ALL 64 times we made it into the red zone, but "failed" to do so on 14 of those attempts [for a touchdown "success" rate of 78%].  On those 14 "failed" touchdown attempts, we attempted 14 field goals and were successful on 13 of them [for a field goal "success" rate of almost 93%].  In other words, our remarkable scoring percentage inside the red zone owes a fair bit to our successful field goal percentage.

But this is exactly my point! If you fail to score a touchdown, most of the time, you kick a FG anyway.

Instead of heaping everything on one particular scoring chance, why not diversify your risks and try and score all the time? This is why I think discussions of how likely Williamson was to miss a pass to be largely irrelevant. You need to score, you have multiple opportunities to score, you take as many of them as you can.

[washingtonismoney]

To my recollection, we attempted to score touchdowns ALL 64 times we made it into the red zone, but "failed" to do so on 14 of those attempts [for a touchdown "success" rate of 78%].  On those 14 "failed" touchdown attempts, we attempted 14 field goals and were successful on 13 of them [for a field goal "success" rate of almost 93%].  In other words, our remarkable scoring percentage inside the red zone owes a fair bit to our successful field goal percentage.

But this is exactly my point! If you fail to score a touchdown, most of the time, you kick a FG anyway.

Instead of heaping everything on one particular scoring chance, why not diversify your risks and try and score all the time? This is why I think discussions of how likely Williamson was to miss a pass to be largely irrelevant. You need to score, you have multiple opportunities to score, you take as many of them as you can.

[washingtonismoney]

To my recollection, we attempted to score touchdowns ALL 64 times we made it into the red zone, but "failed" to do so on 14 of those attempts [for a touchdown "success" rate of 78%].  On those 14 "failed" touchdown attempts, we attempted 14 field goals and were successful on 13 of them [for a field goal "success" rate of almost 93%].  In other words, our remarkable scoring percentage inside the red zone owes a fair bit to our successful field goal percentage.

But this is exactly my point! If you fail to score a touchdown, most of the time, you kick a FG anyway.

Instead of heaping everything on one particular scoring chance, why not diversify your risks and try and score all the time? This is why I think discussions of how likely Williamson was to miss a pass to be largely irrelevant. You need to score, you have multiple opportunities to score, you take as many of them as you can.

[washingtonismoney]

To my recollection, we attempted to score touchdowns ALL 64 times we made it into the red zone, but "failed" to do so on 14 of those attempts [for a touchdown "success" rate of 78%].  On those 14 "failed" touchdown attempts, we attempted 14 field goals and were successful on 13 of them [for a field goal "success" rate of almost 93%].  In other words, our remarkable scoring percentage inside the red zone owes a fair bit to our successful field goal percentage.

But this is exactly my point! If you fail to score a touchdown, most of the time, you kick a FG anyway.

Instead of heaping everything on one particular scoring chance, why not diversify your risks and try and score all the time? This is why I think discussions of how likely Williamson was to miss a pass to be largely irrelevant. You need to score, you have multiple opportunities to score, you take as many of them as you can.

[washingtonismoney]

To my recollection, we attempted to score touchdowns ALL 64 times we made it into the red zone, but "failed" to do so on 14 of those attempts [for a touchdown "success" rate of 78%].  On those 14 "failed" touchdown attempts, we attempted 14 field goals and were successful on 13 of them [for a field goal "success" rate of almost 93%].  In other words, our remarkable scoring percentage inside the red zone owes a fair bit to our successful field goal percentage.

But this is exactly my point! If you fail to score a touchdown, most of the time, you kick a FG anyway.

Instead of heaping everything on one particular scoring chance, why not diversify your risks and try and score all the time? This is why I think discussions of how likely Williamson was to miss a pass to be largely irrelevant. You need to score, you have multiple opportunities to score, you take as many of them as you can.

[washingtonismoney]

To my recollection, we attempted to score touchdowns ALL 64 times we made it into the red zone, but "failed" to do so on 14 of those attempts [for a touchdown "success" rate of 78%].  On those 14 "failed" touchdown attempts, we attempted 14 field goals and were successful on 13 of them [for a field goal "success" rate of almost 93%].  In other words, our remarkable scoring percentage inside the red zone owes a fair bit to our successful field goal percentage.

But this is exactly my point! If you fail to score a touchdown, most of the time, you kick a FG anyway.

Instead of heaping everything on one particular scoring chance, why not diversify your risks and try and score all the time? This is why I think discussions of how likely Williamson was to miss a pass to be largely irrelevant. You need to score, you have multiple opportunities to score, you take as many of them as you can.

[81alum]

Within an hour of the end of the game I observed here that I was disappointed that we put the outcome of the game on an extremely nervous freshman rather than in the hands of Andrew Luck.  And while emotionally I still feel that way, some of the excellent analysis made earlier in this thread has persuaded me that the need to leave no time on the clock probably outweighed the 25% chance of a miss--given that a miss only meant a trip to overtime--and given that we won our earlier overtime game. 

Being conservative when the worst possible outcome was overtime is not the same thing as being conservative when the worst possible outcome was defeat.  And we have to remember that the missed field goal at the end of regulation did not cause defeat.  The game was lost in overtime-due possibly  to bad play calling and certainly to bad play execution. 

So Shaw's decision, once we got to that last series in regulation, does now seem understandable to me.  I do wonder, though, if the thought crossed anyone's mind that at some point Shaw  might have used Eric Whitaker, who filled in for Jordan earlier in the year and went 3-3 in the 30 yard range? 

[81alum]

Within an hour of the end of the game I observed here that I was disappointed that we put the outcome of the game on an extremely nervous freshman rather than in the hands of Andrew Luck.  And while emotionally I still feel that way, some of the excellent analysis made earlier in this thread has persuaded me that the need to leave no time on the clock probably outweighed the 25% chance of a miss--given that a miss only meant a trip to overtime--and given that we won our earlier overtime game. 

Being conservative when the worst possible outcome was overtime is not the same thing as being conservative when the worst possible outcome was defeat.  And we have to remember that the missed field goal at the end of regulation did not cause defeat.  The game was lost in overtime-due possibly  to bad play calling and certainly to bad play execution. 

So Shaw's decision, once we got to that last series in regulation, does now seem understandable to me.  I do wonder, though, if the thought crossed anyone's mind that at some point Shaw  might have used Eric Whitaker, who filled in for Jordan earlier in the year and went 3-3 in the 30 yard range? 

[81alum]

Within an hour of the end of the game I observed here that I was disappointed that we put the outcome of the game on an extremely nervous freshman rather than in the hands of Andrew Luck.  And while emotionally I still feel that way, some of the excellent analysis made earlier in this thread has persuaded me that the need to leave no time on the clock probably outweighed the 25% chance of a miss--given that a miss only meant a trip to overtime--and given that we won our earlier overtime game. 

Being conservative when the worst possible outcome was overtime is not the same thing as being conservative when the worst possible outcome was defeat.  And we have to remember that the missed field goal at the end of regulation did not cause defeat.  The game was lost in overtime-due possibly  to bad play calling and certainly to bad play execution. 

So Shaw's decision, once we got to that last series in regulation, does now seem understandable to me.  I do wonder, though, if the thought crossed anyone's mind that at some point Shaw  might have used Eric Whitaker, who filled in for Jordan earlier in the year and went 3-3 in the 30 yard range? 

[81alum]

Within an hour of the end of the game I observed here that I was disappointed that we put the outcome of the game on an extremely nervous freshman rather than in the hands of Andrew Luck.  And while emotionally I still feel that way, some of the excellent analysis made earlier in this thread has persuaded me that the need to leave no time on the clock probably outweighed the 25% chance of a miss--given that a miss only meant a trip to overtime--and given that we won our earlier overtime game. 

Being conservative when the worst possible outcome was overtime is not the same thing as being conservative when the worst possible outcome was defeat.  And we have to remember that the missed field goal at the end of regulation did not cause defeat.  The game was lost in overtime-due possibly  to bad play calling and certainly to bad play execution. 

So Shaw's decision, once we got to that last series in regulation, does now seem understandable to me.  I do wonder, though, if the thought crossed anyone's mind that at some point Shaw  might have used Eric Whitaker, who filled in for Jordan earlier in the year and went 3-3 in the 30 yard range? 

[81alum]

Within an hour of the end of the game I observed here that I was disappointed that we put the outcome of the game on an extremely nervous freshman rather than in the hands of Andrew Luck.  And while emotionally I still feel that way, some of the excellent analysis made earlier in this thread has persuaded me that the need to leave no time on the clock probably outweighed the 25% chance of a miss--given that a miss only meant a trip to overtime--and given that we won our earlier overtime game. 

Being conservative when the worst possible outcome was overtime is not the same thing as being conservative when the worst possible outcome was defeat.  And we have to remember that the missed field goal at the end of regulation did not cause defeat.  The game was lost in overtime-due possibly  to bad play calling and certainly to bad play execution. 

So Shaw's decision, once we got to that last series in regulation, does now seem understandable to me.  I do wonder, though, if the thought crossed anyone's mind that at some point Shaw  might have used Eric Whitaker, who filled in for Jordan earlier in the year and went 3-3 in the 30 yard range? 

[81alum]

Within an hour of the end of the game I observed here that I was disappointed that we put the outcome of the game on an extremely nervous freshman rather than in the hands of Andrew Luck.  And while emotionally I still feel that way, some of the excellent analysis made earlier in this thread has persuaded me that the need to leave no time on the clock probably outweighed the 25% chance of a miss--given that a miss only meant a trip to overtime--and given that we won our earlier overtime game. 

Being conservative when the worst possible outcome was overtime is not the same thing as being conservative when the worst possible outcome was defeat.  And we have to remember that the missed field goal at the end of regulation did not cause defeat.  The game was lost in overtime-due possibly  to bad play calling and certainly to bad play execution. 

So Shaw's decision, once we got to that last series in regulation, does now seem understandable to me.  I do wonder, though, if the thought crossed anyone's mind that at some point Shaw  might have used Eric Whitaker, who filled in for Jordan earlier in the year and went 3-3 in the 30 yard range? 

[81alum]

Within an hour of the end of the game I observed here that I was disappointed that we put the outcome of the game on an extremely nervous freshman rather than in the hands of Andrew Luck.  And while emotionally I still feel that way, some of the excellent analysis made earlier in this thread has persuaded me that the need to leave no time on the clock probably outweighed the 25% chance of a miss--given that a miss only meant a trip to overtime--and given that we won our earlier overtime game. 

Being conservative when the worst possible outcome was overtime is not the same thing as being conservative when the worst possible outcome was defeat.  And we have to remember that the missed field goal at the end of regulation did not cause defeat.  The game was lost in overtime-due possibly  to bad play calling and certainly to bad play execution. 

So Shaw's decision, once we got to that last series in regulation, does now seem understandable to me.  I do wonder, though, if the thought crossed anyone's mind that at some point Shaw  might have used Eric Whitaker, who filled in for Jordan earlier in the year and went 3-3 in the 30 yard range? 

[81alum]

Within an hour of the end of the game I observed here that I was disappointed that we put the outcome of the game on an extremely nervous freshman rather than in the hands of Andrew Luck.  And while emotionally I still feel that way, some of the excellent analysis made earlier in this thread has persuaded me that the need to leave no time on the clock probably outweighed the 25% chance of a miss--given that a miss only meant a trip to overtime--and given that we won our earlier overtime game. 

Being conservative when the worst possible outcome was overtime is not the same thing as being conservative when the worst possible outcome was defeat.  And we have to remember that the missed field goal at the end of regulation did not cause defeat.  The game was lost in overtime-due possibly  to bad play calling and certainly to bad play execution. 

So Shaw's decision, once we got to that last series in regulation, does now seem understandable to me.  I do wonder, though, if the thought crossed anyone's mind that at some point Shaw  might have used Eric Whitaker, who filled in for Jordan earlier in the year and went 3-3 in the 30 yard range? 

[DC]

Remember that extra point against SC that almost didn't make it?

[DC]

Remember that extra point against SC that almost didn't make it?

[DC]

Remember that extra point against SC that almost didn't make it?

[DC]

Remember that extra point against SC that almost didn't make it?

[DC]

Remember that extra point against SC that almost didn't make it?

[DC]

Remember that extra point against SC that almost didn't make it?

[DC]

Remember that extra point against SC that almost didn't make it?

[DC]

Remember that extra point against SC that almost didn't make it?

[fullmetal]

Unfortunate, but empirically true.  Remember the Oregon game?  Not to say that Whitaker hasn't continued improving, but Williamson is obviously the guy now and for the foreseeable future.

[fullmetal]

Unfortunate, but empirically true.  Remember the Oregon game?  Not to say that Whitaker hasn't continued improving, but Williamson is obviously the guy now and for the foreseeable future.

[fullmetal]

Unfortunate, but empirically true.  Remember the Oregon game?  Not to say that Whitaker hasn't continued improving, but Williamson is obviously the guy now and for the foreseeable future.

[fullmetal]

Unfortunate, but empirically true.  Remember the Oregon game?  Not to say that Whitaker hasn't continued improving, but Williamson is obviously the guy now and for the foreseeable future.

[fullmetal]

Unfortunate, but empirically true.  Remember the Oregon game?  Not to say that Whitaker hasn't continued improving, but Williamson is obviously the guy now and for the foreseeable future.

[fullmetal]

Unfortunate, but empirically true.  Remember the Oregon game?  Not to say that Whitaker hasn't continued improving, but Williamson is obviously the guy now and for the foreseeable future.

[fullmetal]

Unfortunate, but empirically true.  Remember the Oregon game?  Not to say that Whitaker hasn't continued improving, but Williamson is obviously the guy now and for the foreseeable future.

[fullmetal]

Unfortunate, but empirically true.  Remember the Oregon game?  Not to say that Whitaker hasn't continued improving, but Williamson is obviously the guy now and for the foreseeable future.