Tweets by @StanfordSports

RT @alexaphilippou: I wrote this 2 months ago but it seems even more fitting now, as @StanfordMSoccer plays in 1st College Cup since '02 ht…: 2 hours ago, StanfordDaily Sports
RT @dohyoungpark: It's official: No. 6 @StanfordFball will face No. 5 Iowa in the 102nd Rose Bowl Game presented by Northwestern Mutual. (J…: 4 days ago, StanfordDaily Sports

Instant Replay: The only thing the prevent defense does is prevent you from winning

What a game.

Goodness gracious, what a finish. Thirty seconds and three timeouts, with Stanford stuck on its own 27-yard-line? No problem.

The thing about wins like these is that when all is said and done, you can easily point to the reasons why Stanford defied the odds to beat then-No. 4 Notre Dame on Saturday. Notre Dame hadn’t really stopped Stanford all night. A blitz-happy Fighting Irish defense was always getting close to Kevin Hogan, but Hogan was not rattled. Notre Dame’s secondary, depleted by injuries, was particularly weak down the middle – and Devon Cajuste had set the Irish on fire the entire game. Also, the prevent defense isn’t really a great play when you stand to lose with a field goal. Was it really that inconceivable that Stanford could connect on a couple long throws against soft zone coverage?

But even though hindsight is 20/20, that insight doesn’t change the fact that most people – myself included – thought the Fighting Irish were going to win the game. Well done, Stanford.

***

Let’s take a look at the 27-yard completion to Cajuste that got Stanford within field goal range. One thing I don’t think we could have predicted was that ND defensive coordinator Brian Van Gorder was going to do utterly un-BVG things with the game on the line. Brian Van Gorder blitzes. It’s what you pay him to do.

So why was Van Gorder running a prevent defense on Notre Dame’s last stand? The prevent defense is terrible. Moreover, it’s a passive defense, which is not very Brian Van Gorder. Last year Van Gorder stopped Hogan cold on Stanford’s last-ditch drive with a daring blitz. This year Van Gorder blitzed and blitzed…until the game was on the line. (Check out the video here.)

Stanford vs. ND_playNotre Dame is running what’s basically a 2-5 zone coverage, just 10-15 yards further back than usual. It rushed three, kept one linebacker shallow to stop QB scrambles and crossed its fingers that Kevin Hogan would do something stupid.

First off, let’s look at the players that opened things up for Cajuste (X) down the middle. McCaffrey (R) doesn’t do very much on this play (he just checks for a blitz and releases to the flat), but he distorts Notre Dame’s defense right at the start. Notre Dame drops linebackers Jaylon Smith (S) and Joe Schmidt (M) deep to cover Austin Hooper (Y), first because Hogan is well known for his chemistry with Hooper, and second because if Stanford ran an RB screen for McCaffrey on the left, Stanford would pick up about 15 yards easily unless ND devoted that extra man to Hooper. But when you have four guys around the pocket and two safeties deep, and then put two defenders on Hooper, there’s only three men on the other three receivers. And it’s a little difficult to stop Cajuste one-on-one when he’s got a full head of steam.

Cajuste’s route is dictated by the defense: He runs up the field against Cover 2 (a middle-of-the-field-open “MOFO” read) and heads upfield against Cover 1 or Cover 3 (middle-of-the-field-closed/“MOFC”). The route name is instructive. It’s formally called a seam route. Some West Coast offense coaches just call it “win.” Win your matchup and run towards space. After the game, Cajuste told me that all he was thinking about during the play was how he could “bend the route” – the middle of the field was open, so that’s where he ran.

After the snap, no deep pass is easy, but this one was easier than most. Van Gorder clearly does not trust nickelback Matthias Farley (N) and his safeties – in other words, the defensive backs that patrol the middle of the field, where Cajuste has historically done the most damage. Notre Dame is giving Cajuste massive cushions even before the play begins. And in the prevent, ND’s backfield is so spread-out that if Hooper could hold ND’s linebackers 10 yards deep on his dig route, Cajuste is going to get open behind them. ND is also setting up the defense so far down the field that Cajuste can hit top speed.

Free safety Max Redfield (F/S) focuses on the route on the left sideline. Strong safety Elijah Shumate ($) messes up in coverage; since Farley is playing with outside leverage and funneling Cajuste inwards, Shumate needs to aggressively cover Cajuste on the inside, and doesn’t. For his own part, Farley gives Cajuste too much space and Cajuste adjusts by breaking inwards a little earlier than Farley expects.

“We got to close down inside-out on that seam route,” Notre Dame head coach Brian Kelly admitted after the game. “I thought we probably played it a little bit too much outside-in, worried about backing up. We got to be more aggressive to a seam route.”

With space, Hogan and Cajuste made the play look easy. “I didn’t even see the ball coming,” Cajuste explained. That’s chemistry right there – that’s the legacy of five years of practice for the Hogan-Cajuste duo. Hogan hit Cajuste in stride 14 yards deep and Cajuste dragged Notre Dame defenders down the field for another 13. Two plays later, Conrad Ukropina sank Notre Dame’s national championship hopes.

All credit to the Fighting Irish. They battled through a lot of adversity and somehow got to No. 4 in the country. They were a great team, with a dominating offense and (for most of the season) a very solid defense. Notre Dame huffed, and puffed, and when it was about to blow the house down it decided to run the prevent defense.

Both teams deserved to win the game. But only one team could, and it ended up being the one that wasn’t giving Devon Cajuste massive holes in zone coverage.

***

Some points on David Shaw’s decisions at the end of the game.

During the game, I’ll admit that I was utterly shocked by – if not apoplectic towards – Shaw’s decision to hoard his timeouts on Notre Dame’s clock-killing final drive. Shaw said that the coaches talked about what to do with the TOs, and decided that they were going to ride or die with the defense. Somehow Stanford got away with it.

It became increasingly clear with hindsight that:

1) Even if Shaw was rightly confident in Stanford’s red zone defense, not calling timeouts was excessively risky. To be fair, Stanford’s red-zone TD allowed percentage is 44 percent, which is otherworldly. And ND has had red-zone problems all season long. But that TD percentage is artificially depressed by the fact that most teams are operating on three downs on offense. For Notre Dame, it was TD or bust, and Brian Kelly was working with four downs. Moreover, it was clear that Notre Dame was not going to be limited by the clock – it had two timeouts left on its final drive. Notre Dame was methodical on offense even in the final minute of the game. Stanford was not going to win by forcing Notre Dame into a hurried, last-ditch prayer to the end zone. The Irish have a fantastically well-drilled offense – and they are going to be downright terrifying next season.

2) To be fair to Shaw, calling timeouts on defense would have imposed a very real opportunity cost on the offense. Shaw wanted to save timeouts in order to throw posts and seams into the middle of the field, because that was where the big-play opportunities were – and first downs down the middle like Cajuste’s win route in crunch time don’t stop the clock for very long. Moreover, throwing deep down the middle is easier than throwing deep down the sideline. It’s fair to say that Shaw’s decision-making, though perplexing, made some sense. That doesn’t mean that Shaw made the right decisions, but these decisions weren’t baseless either.

If you want to complain about a coaching decision, I’d say that Shaw’s decision to run Christian McCaffrey up the middle on Stanford’s penultimate play was the real shocker. McCaffrey did a great job on Saturday of grinding out yardage, even when the yards weren’t blocked for him, but running up the middle is rarely a recipe for a solid gain. Even Power, Stanford’s signature play, is off-tackle. Just because Ukropina converted a 45-yarder doesn’t mean that his odds of success wouldn’t have been much higher if he had been kicking a 35-yarder instead.

But I don’t know who made the call on that play. It might not have been Shaw. The decision is more complicated than you might expect.

The best way for Stanford to pick up yardage would likely have been speed out routes, and at the very least, Stanford could have taken more time to gauge how much of a cushion Notre Dame was giving Stanford’s wideouts on the outside. But completing out routes would have forced Ukropina to kick the ball from a hash mark. Running the ball up the middle was the only way to guarantee that Stanford would center the field goal attempt. And if the kicker wants the ball in the center, he gets the ball in the center. I’d have preferred a slant route if Stanford was going to center the ball. But all in all, if Stanford handles kickers like many football teams, the decision to center the ball or go for extra yardage would ultimately have been Ukropina’s to make.

 

Contact Winston Shi at wshi94 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

About Winston Shi

Winston Shi is an opinions and sports columnist and senior staff writer for The Stanford Daily, and was the Managing Editor of Opinions for Volume 245 (February-June 2014). He also sits on The Daily's Editorial Board. He is an coterminal BA/MA student in his senior year from Thousand Oaks, California, studying America's history and foreign policy. In his free time, he likes to read, travel and write about himself in the third person. Contact him at wshi94@stanford.edu.
  • Candid One

    WS, that last C-Mac run for positioning and setup for that final FG was a stock strategy, a traditional effort to optimize to whatever extent, and to burn a tad more clock in that situation….old-school stuff.

    BTW, you had to notice that Ukropina’s kick would’ve been good from 55 yards. Cajuste’s turn upfield for yardage, instead of going down to stop the clock for a first down, was to Shaw’s advantage. Otherwise, C-Mac’s positioning play might’ve be replaced by choices more like what you envisioned.

    On Shaw’s apparent rationing of time-outs, it’s easy to apply hindsight but there was no way to foresee the salient details. That was a 15-play drive…enough time to goad a universe of second-guessers. As you must know, when Kizer’s quasi-TD was confirmed by review, Stanford’s remaining opportunities were provided in those final 30 seconds. If that play–on a 1st down–had been ruled dead on the 1-foot line, ND had 3 plays remaining to score while burning the remainder of the game clock. That’s when Shaw would’ve used his time-outs in desperation, defensively. Instead, he had a chance to use them offensively.

    Hindsight is always downstream from happenstance.

  • Winston Shi

    Correct. I’m not happy with the clock management at all. But it’s important to know that there is some logic to what Shaw is doing, because it means that Shaw’s going to dig in his heels there. You shouldn’t expect the guy to change.

    Just because Ukropina has range up to 55+ and delivered his kick on the money doesn’t mean that he’s always going to be accurate from long range. I would have been happy with a 35-yarder. Instead Stanford got a 45-yarder.

    There were still opportunities to throw the ball, with timeout for play #1, timeout, play #2, spike, field goal on 4th down.

  • Candid One

    WS, respectfully, passing in that kind of situation isn’t generally considered as less than hazardous. In the 2009 Sun Bowl, Harbaugh was badmouthed for electing to have Tavita Pritchard pass to Toby Gerhart in that final drive–instead of using Gerhart as a runner. Does “Dance with the one what brung ya!” sound familiar?

    Also, a more pithy comparison…what happened in last year’s Super Bowl when Seattle chose to pass instead of using Marshawn Lynch on the ground? The second guessing after that brilliance gone awry was exponential…which is why the run is old school stuff. Sometimes gambling against the odds is confused with brilliance…but not often.

  • Winston Shi

    No offense taken. I sincerely appreciate that you’re taking the time to deuces your concerns.

    I don’t want to relive the 2012 Fiesta Bowl ever again. It cuts both ways. Passing’s worth it in my estimation when you’re at the 30.

    The Seahawks were at the goal line. With Marshawn, you gotta try to punch it in. Bad decision by Carroll. Apples and oranges here.

    Gerhart (32 for 135) vs. Pritchard (8/18, 118, 1 INT) is a very different case than CMC (27 for 94) vs. Hogan (16/20, 242, 0 INT) that game.

  • Winston Shi

    *to discuss

  • Candid One

    Perhaps we both use apple versus rutabagas in the comparison of Shaw’s one-play intentions last game against ND to a 2009 drive that had to score more than a FG. David Shaw was only thinking of that FG–not beyond that. He was also thinking that Ukropina wasn’t a gamble–although the TV camera caught him dynamically grimacing and closing his eyes as Ukropina waited for that fateful snap. Positioning was his intent…risking a pass was not. He’s still conservative in a pinch.

  • Winston Shi

    I wasn’t even thinking about a potential touchdown. But the inflection point for college kickers seems to be around 38-40 yards and I wanted something like that.

    Why only “one play?” Why not two? Why just throw once and run the ball to end, even, if we are being concerned about time?

    Sadly I do not have any more appropriate fruit idioms but you get what I mean.

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    Regardless of Hogan’s stats and the precision they imply, a qb is always just one pass play away from a sack or an INT if any of a number of things go awry (miscommunication on a route, the ball is tipped, a pass rusher gets into Hogan’s face, the DB jams the receiver off the ball, etc etc etc) and in the Dame game, either scenario would have been disastrous under those circumstances.
    Shaw’s game management comes from decades of experience at all levels of the game, and clearly he made the right calls. Who would you rather have making the calls ? Shi ? Candid ? Me ?
    Hahaha.. second guessers are just that, coming in second.
    Furthermore, I totally disagree that Shaw is a “conservative” play-caller and coach. The team is built, especially with great depth and talent on the OL, specifically to RUN THE BALL…!! ..why stray from what got you to this point ? Deviation from your strengths is akin panic mode and just nuts, especially in crunch time. You don’t like it..? ..you’re apoplectic..? Tough cookies !
    As for Ukropina, I talked with him and his snappers, CJ Keller and
    Reed Miller, at the end of summer.. and they were emphatic that ever since the spring game place-kicking fiasco, Uk. has been lights-out perfection. He’s only continued in that vein since. Why doubt him at this point ?
    I like the way ShawBloom call the game and trust in their players.. it’s smart, efficient and proven…
    Go with what gotcha here.

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    First of all, Shaw’s stated reason for saving his timeouts and not just giving the TD to ND were both in the best interests of #1) his players on D, #2) his players on O.
    Any defender on the team would be pissed (inwardly or outwardly, it makes no diff) if their own coach didn’t think they could achieve the task in front of them, especially when the game’s on the line. I believe that trust (Shaw trusted his D to stop the Dames, and then trusted his O to get into position for a score in the waning moments) that Shaw showed to both units pays major dividends in the long run… ie a player consciously or unconsciously recognizes that trust and naturally will play his heart out to maintain that trust. It’s a critical reciprocal relationship.
    Obviously, once the Dames scored, Shaw had to get his team into position for at least a FG. He trusted Hogan to get the ball to Cajuste and correctly had saved his TOs for the occasion that called for a completion in the middle of the field, which ND coaches probably expected less than some sort of out pattern that would get the receiver to the sidelines and out of bounds to stop the clock.
    In essence, Shaw crossed ’em up, which, for a coach and play-caller, is the first order of brilliance.
    Of course, the coup de grace for the Dames was Shaw’s trust in his place-kicker, who’s repaid that trust by being nearly perfect for the entire season.
    For a commentator to think they could do better is just hubris and fantasy.