Play calling critiques?
For one thing, it’s much more suitable to criticize the adults, who are paid professionals, as opposed to the . . . oh wait . . . um . . .
Regardless, I sure would like to hear some rationale for the 1H decisions near the goal line. In particular, the fourth and goal (from the 4 yard line) decision. The game was tied 7-7 and the game was far removed from the comfortable W it turned out to be. I’m actually fine with having a “we're gonna go for it on fourth down" mind on third down and calling a running play accordingly. Hell, the lack of such basic foresight was one major critique (of many) of the Program Slayer. Now, one can quibble with the telegraphed Lamson keeper as too predictable, but still, not a bad way to get a couple yards (at least), setting you up well on fourth down. But it gets absolutely stuffed. So right then you gotta kick a FG, don’t you? And if you decide to still go for it, who thinks running the same play again is a good idea? I guess TT did (it was stuffed again).
Good lord that was a terrible sequence.
Combine that call with the TCU decision in Q4 to go for it on fourth and forever, and I think TT has moments where he loses his mind (kinda like Shanahan has shown on occasion). IDK, maybe TT thinks going for everything is the only way Stanford can win games. And I’m a bit concerned that scoring two fourth down TDs so far this season is reinforcing this attitude as a sound philosophy. It is not. Time and place for everything; awareness of particular game situation is critical; cookie-cutter approach does not (and should not) apply to all opponents.
Anyway, these play calling flags can get lost in what turned out to be an easy W; however, this is something that seems likely to recur. Maybe if a team is desperate it doesn’t matter; but I’d like to think Stanford isn’t/wasn’t already desperate in 2024.
P.S. Really hope the speculation that McLaughlin is getting benched - despite superior relative play - in favor of building for next year is not true. If true (and I have no clue on that), that's coaching malfeasance, and a sure way to fracture the locker room.
For one thing, it’s much more suitable to criticize the adults, who are paid professionals, as opposed to the . . . oh wait . . . um . . .
Regardless, I sure would like to hear some rationale for the 1H decisions near the goal line. In particular, the fourth and goal (from the 4 yard line) decision. The game was tied 7-7 and the game was far removed from the comfortable W it turned out to be. I’m actually fine with having a “we're gonna go for it on fourth down" mind on third down and calling a running play accordingly. Hell, the lack of such basic foresight was one major critique (of many) of the Program Slayer. Now, one can quibble with the telegraphed Lamson keeper as too predictable, but still, not a bad way to get a couple yards (at least), setting you up well on fourth down. But it gets absolutely stuffed. So right then you gotta kick a FG, don’t you? And if you decide to still go for it, who thinks running the same play again is a good idea? I guess TT did (it was stuffed again).
Good lord that was a terrible sequence.
Combine that call with the TCU decision in Q4 to go for it on fourth and forever, and I think TT has moments where he loses his mind (kinda like Shanahan has shown on occasion). IDK, maybe TT thinks going for everything is the only way Stanford can win games. And I’m a bit concerned that scoring two fourth down TDs so far this season is reinforcing this attitude as a sound philosophy. It is not. Time and place for everything; awareness of particular game situation is critical; cookie-cutter approach does not (and should not) apply to all opponents.
Anyway, these play calling flags can get lost in what turned out to be an easy W; however, this is something that seems likely to recur. Maybe if a team is desperate it doesn’t matter; but I’d like to think Stanford isn’t/wasn’t already desperate in 2024.
P.S. Really hope the speculation that McLaughlin is getting benched - despite superior relative play - in favor of building for next year is not true. If true (and I have no clue on that), that's coaching malfeasance, and a sure way to fracture the locker room.
