Stanford Duke Game Thread - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford Duke Game Thread (/thread-26309.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford Duke Game Thread (/thread-26309.html)
RE: Stanford Duke Game Thread - JeffInCorvallis - 09-19-2026
(09-19-2026, 05:33 PM)needle Wrote:(09-19-2026, 04:39 PM)simscitizen Wrote:(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance.
Isn't that part of the issue? They aren't first-time coordinators. Pritchard has a years-long (not very impressive) track record as OC during the downfall of Stanford football, and Richard has multiple years as a DC coordinating a defensive scheme that was impressive for its time, but for all intents and purposes has been solved at the pro level.
We can hope that they'll achieve better results now that they presumably have more autonomy than when they were under David Shaw and Pete Carroll, but it feels like exactly that--hope.
My mistake, as I had forgotten that Richard does have defensive coordinator experience (just not in college). I don't know enough about the Seahawks to say how much autonomy he truly had under Carroll.
While Pritchard did hold the title of offensive coordinator, I think it's pretty clear he was not an offensive playcaller at Stanford, so I'm (probably) justified in calling him new at the job of calling plays, at least.
Anyway, your points are good ones. But--it's just one game, as horrible as it was. So, I'm choosing to hold on to hope.
You guys put too much emphasis on playcalling. It's important, but a lot of these plays would result in positive yards IF the linemen held their blocks, IF the receivers ran the right routes and got separation, IF running backs hit the holes (if there are holes). There are a lot of one-on-one battles that we're losing right now, and while scheme can make up for some of that it can't overcome that deficit play after play.
RE: Stanford Duke Game Thread - fullmetal - 09-19-2026
I watched the game at a sports bar without looking at the online chatter...because I knew how it was going look online.
Both tackles were turnstiles against Duke's edge rushers. Warren should have been in two-minute drill mentality the whole game, e.g. get the ball out faster. His wind-up is Kevin Hogan-esque. He stares down his receivers. He needs to get the ball out. Why do we not have more alert routes (or protection) for Warren?
Warren threw high, behind, and short of his receivers. He is only slightly better than who Michigan thought he is because there were no interceptions, and he's made some good decisions to throw the ball away. If he couldn't figure out in-game that he needed to see the game more quickly, then I don't know how he can take his game to the next level. I think we need some other QBs to take snaps in games that have gotten away from the team, if only to protect Warren from injury and to see what we have behind him.
There was a lot of bad tackling from the Stanford defense. But that tends to happen when the opposing ball carrier is faster than you think or you're just too far out of position for more than an arm tackle. Also, wrapping up was sometimes absent today in favor of attempted big hits, which tended to whiff. If Stanford wasn't spying Sheppard all game, then there was coaching malpractice. And if Stanford was, then it didn't work. Sheppard is fast and shifty.
The defense didn't get much rest at all. The offense has to hold on to the ball for longer. But first downs were few and far between.
Duke won the ACC championship last season. "Mid-level ACC" doesn't apply imo. They put up a score reminiscent of the Miami game score against us, and that's where things are. Unless Stanford's OL and defense gets healthy, we're in for a long season.
SkiBum80 - SkiBum80 - 09-19-2026
A disappointing loss
Far more disappointing than Miami loss because I think Miami significantly better than Duke, and we had 2 weeks to prepare for this, and had more guys back than for Miami.
My guess now is that a 3 win season might be the optimistic upside expectation.
The only slim hope I see for significantly better than a dreary step-back season, is if we can show we play better at home.
Which means next week GT is like a must win.
RE: SkiBum80 - BostonCard - 09-19-2026
(09-19-2026, 06:16 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Which means next week GT is like a must win.
Narrator: we are probably not going to beat Georgia Tech.
It’s football, so anything can happen, but we are not a good, or even a mediocre team.
BC
RE: SkiBum80 - Row80Critic - 09-19-2026
(09-19-2026, 06:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-19-2026, 06:16 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Which means next week GT is like a must win.
Narrator: we are probably not going to beat Georgia Tech.
It’s football, so anything can happen, but we are not a good, or even a mediocre team.
BC
No apparent improvement this year over last. QB notwithstanding, last year's team looked better in many ways. It's unbecoming of the school really. They should either step up and compete at an institutional level, or join a league in which they can be competitive. Because this just ain't work'n.
RE: SkiBum80 - d4cohn - 09-19-2026
(09-19-2026, 06:49 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: No apparent improvement this year over last. QB notwithstanding, last year's team looked better in many ways. It's unbecoming of the school really. They should either step up and compete at an institutional level, or join a league in which they can be competitive. Because this just ain't work'n.
This. +1.
RE: Stanford Duke Game Thread - simscitizen - 09-19-2026
(09-19-2026, 05:54 PM)JeffInCorvallis Wrote:(09-19-2026, 05:33 PM)needle Wrote:(09-19-2026, 04:39 PM)simscitizen Wrote:(09-19-2026, 04:31 PM)needle Wrote: I pin my faint hopes on the idea that Pritchard and Richard, first-time coordinators, after all, can really find some lessons out of this extraordinarily poor and (at least for the offense) underachieving performance.
Isn't that part of the issue? They aren't first-time coordinators. Pritchard has a years-long (not very impressive) track record as OC during the downfall of Stanford football, and Richard has multiple years as a DC coordinating a defensive scheme that was impressive for its time, but for all intents and purposes has been solved at the pro level.
We can hope that they'll achieve better results now that they presumably have more autonomy than when they were under David Shaw and Pete Carroll, but it feels like exactly that--hope.
My mistake, as I had forgotten that Richard does have defensive coordinator experience (just not in college). I don't know enough about the Seahawks to say how much autonomy he truly had under Carroll.
While Pritchard did hold the title of offensive coordinator, I think it's pretty clear he was not an offensive playcaller at Stanford, so I'm (probably) justified in calling him new at the job of calling plays, at least.
Anyway, your points are good ones. But--it's just one game, as horrible as it was. So, I'm choosing to hold on to hope.
You guys put too much emphasis on playcalling. It's important, but a lot of these plays would result in positive yards IF the linemen held their blocks, IF the receivers ran the right routes and got separation, IF running backs hit the holes (if there are holes). There are a lot of one-on-one battles that we're losing right now, and while scheme can make up for some of that it can't overcome that deficit play after play.
I mean I agree that the main issue is the lack of talent, that's obvious. My objection was just that these are not first-time coordinators so expecting some sort of natural improvement as they gain experience seems unlikely. But I'll hope for the best.
RE: Stanford Duke Game Thread - needle - 09-19-2026
To all those in the camp saying it's much more the players than coaching: Last week, only one of 68 P4 teams scored fewer than 10 points, UCF (in a heavy rainstorm).
This week, it looks like only Stanford and Colorado (late kickoffs still pending) scored fewer than 10 points.
I just don't believe that player-for-player, Stanford's offensive talent ranks last out of 68 teams. I don't believe that's true of Stanford's offensive line as a unit, either.
It's coaching, and what we've seen so far is dragging the talent down, at least arguably.
But football is about match-ups and gameplans, which change ever week. So we shall see what happens next.
EDIT: Stanford now 111th out of 138 FBS teams in scoring so far this year, 16.7 pts per game. Among P4 teams, Stanford above Syracuse (15.5), Arkansas (13.5), and Colorado (10.5).
Last season, Stanford ranked 117th out of 136 FBS teams, with 18.8 pts per game. Among P4 teams, Stanford above Florida, UCLA, Purdue, North Carolina, Syracuse, Oklahoma State, and Wisconsin.
RE: Stanford Duke Game Thread - Card10Fan - 09-19-2026
I think most would say Stanford leadership (AD and Prez) are more invested in athletics and football's success then in a long time. But what do we have to show for it and why is there not a greater sense of urgency to win now? Rebuilding should not be regression and stagnation. There has to be some tangible progress and it can't take 5 years.
I will be shocked actually stunned if we win more than 3 games. More likely 2 wins.
RE: SkiBum80 - Goose - 09-19-2026
(09-19-2026, 06:49 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: No apparent improvement this year over last. QB notwithstanding, last year's team looked better in many ways.The one big advantage that last year had over this years team was two receivers, C.J. Williams and Sam Roush. Roush had some problems catching the ball, but he was quite effective lots of the time. Williams was the "go to" receiver. We don't appear to have any receivers that are that talented. That makes an immense difference in results. The announcers repeatedly pointed out the number of dropped balls in this last game. We already know about that problem from the first two games. IMO that is the one big difference. Last year's best running back was Ford, when he was not injured. He is certainly our best back this year. The offensive line was not good last year and often seemed to be disorganized and confused. This year's line doesn't look confused or disorganized (at least so far). They just aren't good enough physically.
IMO this offense looks better coached than last year's. It has a better QB with worse receivers. It has a line that isn't better. The end result is an offense that can't reliably move the ball. That is a recipe for disaster against "good" teams. We don't play enough "bad" teams this year to get 4 wins, unless Kal implodes again.
RE: SkiBum80 - BostonCard - 09-19-2026
(09-19-2026, 06:49 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: No apparent improvement this year over last. QB notwithstanding, last year's team looked better in many ways. It's unbecoming of the school really. They should either step up and compete at an institutional level, or join a league in which they can be competitive. Because this just ain't work'n.
Someone posted the correlation between money spent and results. Duke notwithstanding (who spends less than Stanford), I honestly think there are better uses of $40 million dollars than soothing the egos of the two dozen geezers (myself included) who frequent this thread. I watched the tail end of the Ole Miss/LSU game and the announcers literally talked about the QB that Ole Miss picked up in “Free Agency”. This is not college football anymore.
BC
RE: SkiBum80 - Mick - 09-19-2026
(09-19-2026, 08:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-19-2026, 06:49 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: No apparent improvement this year over last. QB notwithstanding, last year's team looked better in many ways. It's unbecoming of the school really. They should either step up and compete at an institutional level, or join a league in which they can be competitive. Because this just ain't work'n.
Someone posted the correlation between money spent and results. Duke notwithstanding (who spends less than Stanford), I honestly think there are better uses of $40 million dollars than soothing the egos of the two dozen geezers (myself included) who frequent this thread. I watched the tail end of the Ole Miss/LSU game and the announcers literally talked about the QB that Ole Miss picked up in “Free Agency”. This is not college football anymore.
BC
Agreed. I'd be happy to see the end of Stanford football. I always liked seeing athletes in class, I'm still in communications with some of them. But the NIL environment, instant transfers, no loyalty at all. I'm done with it. It doesn't make sense any more. Let the NFL fund its own minor football league.
RE: Stanford Duke Game Thread - marchballer - 09-19-2026
I think the era of trust the process is finally ending.
2021 and 2022 were the end of the Shaw era
2023 - excitement with Troy Taylor Trust the Process
2024 - year 2 fall short but hey Andrew is at the head of the program now.
2025 - Slightly better look under Reich
Offseason - lackluster transfer portal and coaches hiring after getting Tavita.
Besides 2020 we haven't seen a competitive team since 2018. I think everyone is ready to stop being a doormat and see a competitive team. We're ready to see results instead of trust the process.
Tavita and Andrew will likely get one more year but if next year is a dud again then it's time for a change all around.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 09-19-2026
(09-19-2026, 08:00 PM)needle Wrote: To all those in the camp saying it's much more the players than coaching: Last week, only one of 68 P4 teams scored fewer than 10 points, UCF (in a heavy rainstorm).
This week, it looks like only Stanford and Colorado (late kickoffs still pending) scored fewer than 10 points.
I just don't believe that player-for-player, Stanford's offensive talent ranks last out of 68 teams. I don't believe that's true of Stanford's offensive line as a unit, either.
It's coaching, and what we've seen so far is dragging the talent down, at least arguably.
But football is about match-ups and gameplans, which change ever week. So we shall see what happens next.
I should not pretend to be an expert on O lines but I have been around the block at least once… and besides if lack of expertise ruled me out of commenting, I would never venture an opinion.
I think the offensive line on the field tonight in the white unis may have been the worst in college football. They gave effort, they tried to hit hard but the were totally inept.
Injuries are a big factor . We are working with a back up center and back ups at least at two other spots and maybe three . If I understood the announcer correctly (and making the big assumption that he had any idea what he was talking about) our starting right tackle had been moved over from center where he was a backup ..which means he was third string. Injuries have forced almost everyone to play out of position . Finally, these guys are pretty young ..we simply have to find a way to keep our Offensive linemen Around until they mature… that means we start Seniors and Fifth year guys with rare exception.
I am pretty sure we could put together a decent O line from former Stanford players who have transferred elsewhere and have now grown up. This is my way of not criticizing the guys we put on the field . Injuries and transfers have reduced us to playing third string quality guys and guys who will be pretty damned good once they grow up but are just too young to compete against grown men.
I was one of the truly great third string tackles in the history of .stanford football and I can assure you that if I had seen the field more than ten minutes game time a year, .stanford would have many more losses than our record actually has. I respect the guys who played and honor their effort and guts. I do not respect the program that managed talent so poorly that they are the best we could field.
End of speech. Thanks for letting me vent.
RE: Mudhead - ADPinWDC - 09-19-2026
(09-19-2026, 10:17 PM)Mudhead Wrote:(09-19-2026, 08:00 PM)needle Wrote: To all those in the camp saying it's much more the players than coaching: Last week, only one of 68 P4 teams scored fewer than 10 points, UCF (in a heavy rainstorm).
This week, it looks like only Stanford and Colorado (late kickoffs still pending) scored fewer than 10 points.
I just don't believe that player-for-player, Stanford's offensive talent ranks last out of 68 teams. I don't believe that's true of Stanford's offensive line as a unit, either.
It's coaching, and what we've seen so far is dragging the talent down, at least arguably.
But football is about match-ups and gameplans, which change ever week. So we shall see what happens next.
I should not pretend to be an expert on O lines but I have been around the block at least once… and besides if lack of expertise ruled me out of commenting, I would never venture an opinion.
I think the offensive line on the field tonight in the white unis may have been the worst in college football. They gave effort, they tried to hit hard but the were totally inept.
Injuries are a big factor . We are working with a back up center and back ups at least at two other spots and maybe three . If I understood the announcer correctly (and making the big assumption that he had any idea what he was talking about) our starting right tackle had been moved over from center where he was a backup ..which means he was third string. Injuries have forced almost everyone to play out of position . Finally, these guys are pretty young ..we simply have to find a way to keep our Offensive linemen Around until they mature… that means we start Seniors and Fifth year guys with rare exception.
I am pretty sure we could put together a decent O line from former Stanford players who have transferred elsewhere and have now grown up. This is my way of not criticizing the guys we put on the field . Injuries and transfers have reduced us to playing third string quality guys and guys who will be pretty damned good once they grow up but are just too young to compete against grown men.
I was one of the truly great third string tackles in the history of .stanford football and I can assure you that if I had seen the field more than ten minutes game time a year, .stanford would have many more losses than our record actually has. I respect the guys who played and honor their effort and guts. I do not respect the program that managed talent so poorly that they are the best we could field.
End of speech. Thanks for letting me vent.
Sincere!
Now, what quality of Linemen could we get if we swung some NIL money that way?
$100,000 a year for linemen gets us -- what?
RE: Stanford Duke Game Thread - newguy - 09-20-2026
i turned this one off after Duke scored their fourth touchhdown.
disappointed, but who knows......maybe we'll get lucky next week against those engineers.
RE: Stanford Duke Game Thread - msqueri - 09-20-2026
1. That was no fun at all. Just a thoroughly demoralizing and boring game from a Stanford fan's perspective. Playing a solid but not good team (Duke isn't top 40 in Sagarin, SP+, or FEI) coming off a bye and getting beaten in all phases (dominated in some) reinforces that we remain one of the worst teams in the country. All of the happy talk about building culture and connection and finally having age and experience seems empty so far in the Luck and Pritchard eras. We have not yet started showing tangible progress to justify belief in our rebuild, sad to say, and it feels worse knowing that the mix of seniority/retention outlook and our recent recruiting makes it seem exceedingly probable that major roster problems will persist for the foreseeable future. We need the best transfer classes in our history one after another for several years to have any hope of turning the corner. Knowing that no light will be peering out of the tunnel until after the season and quite possibly not even then is just so, yeah, demoralizing. Anything the football world thought negatively about us going into the year has not changed, with embarrassment in both conference games, and current Sagarin (#83 compared to #78 last year) and SP+ (#101 compared to #112 last year) that don't look like progress.
2. The hope for this season has to be that we've gotten the worst out of the way and a first-time head coach will advance on an unusually steep learning curve. My worry is that the problems torpedoing us don't seem to be about how smoothly a new head coach operates in-game mechanics or how we are doing in the things he takes most responsibility for, like offensive scheme and playcalling. Rather, we are outmanned in the trenches (especially on offense), don't have enough difference makers across the roster, and don't seem like a team that truly believes in itself, despite the perennial happy talk. In other words, what we've seen for six years continually and the better part of a decade. I am especially worried that our leaders remain too invested in doing things the Stanford way, both in terms of roster construction and attitudinally. I liked Pritchard's tone in the press conference more than after the Miami game but only marginally. In all cases when Luck and Pritchard talk or when one observes the body language of anybody in our program on game days, there is no indication of fire, extreme dissatisfaction, or being pissed off for greatness. The questions many of us had in the offseason whether these leaders have the edge and intensity to drive a program from worst in the nation status are still very much alive.
3. I don't usually do so many big picture thoughts before going granular on the game, but we have to talk about travel. The ACC era has been us getting blasted on the road. Zero road wins of any sort in two calendar years (today the two year anniversary of beating Syracuse). Leaving the Pacific time zone for road games in the ACC era has been 1-10, with a whopping eight of those being blowouts. Even Vegas with all its data and cynicism can't predict or ever be counted on to account for how much travel destroys Stanford. Those games are 2-9 against the spread and our opponents average covering (bear in mind this is always with us being significant underdogs already) by 6.86 points in those games. People who minimize how much being in the ACC destroys us from a travel perspective are sticking their heads in the sand. It's devastating. Not even a 20 year old can cheat the body and the body clock. This is a big deal for our remaining schedule (Wake Forest, Notre Dame, Louisville, Virginia Tech still to come) and for our foreseeable future in this conference.
4. The points per drive margin was multiple points per drive in our opponent's favor for the second time in as many games. We fell to that ignominious low three times last year. Bad sign for this year demonstrating progress. This whole game was ugly but the offense fell on its face most of all. We scored 0.77 points per non-garbage drive, meaning we did so little as to make Duke look like the best defense in the country and/or ourselves look like the worst offense. This is tied for our ninth lowests points per drive in 63 NWO games. We gave up 3.11 points per non-garbage drive, meaning we made Duke's offense look like top 15 and/or our defense to look that bad. We have had so many games in which we've had no answer for an offense that this is only the 27th worst defensive points per drive of this era. We gained 4.09 yards per play, our worst in the last seven games and the worst anybody has done against Duke in 20 games (yes, including Elon), our 14th worst of the NWO. We allowed 6.62 yards per play, our 27th worst of the NWO. This discrepancy between how bad the offense and defense look happened despite Duke being a better offensive team (SP+ #31 compared to #64 on defense). There are many explanations for why the offense was so terrible, with pass blocking whiffs and receiver drops leading the way (with pass blocking and receiving the team's most glaring weaknesses overall this season according to PFF). As a result, the offense was woeful on third and fourth downs and we were dominated in time of possession.
RE: Stanford Duke Game Thread - msqueri - 09-20-2026
5. The brightest spot was our run game. While it was our lowest rushing output and efficiency of the season, that was a function of the four sacks allowed. A silver lining may be that seeing what our run game looks like when the line completely collapses in the face of a pass rush (remember that college does the goofy thing of counting sacks as run losses) arguably shows signs of improvement in the designed run play game. Not only were our run stats better than eight games last year, Duke may have a respectable run defense: the Blue Devils gave both Tulane and Illinois run games their biggest punches in the mouth on the young season. Pass defense was the next least bad phase, with fairly typical efficiency stats, below average in yards per attempt allowed and above average in opponent passer rating due to the interception. We defended the pass better than Illinois and worse than Tulane. This is pretty cold comfort though. Eget is one of the worst QBs in the country this year. Georgia Tech, Elon, and Cal are the only games remaining that don't have clearly difficult QB matchups (and pundits might argue otherwise on Cal). In the disaster category was our own passing game - the worst passing efficiency stats of our last seven games and the worst anybody has done against Duke in the last 20 games (falling just shy of Elon's efficiency) - and run defense, which was dominated on the ground the worst it has been since the 2024 NC State game. I am a really big fan of Sheppard and think he could be a Doak Walker finalist, but there are some indications that these early stats overrate the Duke run game. I don't want to chalk this up too much to the enemy gets a vote as Tulane did as badly against the run against Kansas State as they did against Duke and Illinois couldn't stop UAB either (and again neither the Wildcats nor Illini got carved like we did).
6. We probably should have known Warren would have a regression toward the mean. He had a very weak Total QBR, 106th of 127 QBs nationally this week. For him personally, it ranked 10th among his 12 career QB1 starts (so I would call this bad but not an outlier, a sobering reminder). Compared to last year's abysmal Stanford QB play, it was worse than 10 Gulbranson/Brown performances and better than only three (comparable to one). Warren is clearly capable of not looking very good out there, especially when he comes under pressure, and our PFF #127 pass blocking on the year is probably a better predictor of protection to come than our #89 sacks allowed (which is itself bad). We should measure our expectations of what we expect Warren to do this year. He is currently 78th of 140 QBs in Total QBR on the year. I would take that if he could go the whole year at that level, that's how bad I think we are. It would be stabilizing for us if Warren could have three games like these last three three more times. Sad but true. By the way, for those inclined to defend Warren on the basis of drops, Total QBR accounts for drops. Nonetheless, drops have been an utter killer on our ability to sustain drives. PFF views Warren's drop percentage as 147th of 150 QBs in the nation (for those asking, that's 16 of Warren's passes dropped, with LaNorris Sellers' 11 the next closest in the nation). Warren definitely deserves a share of the blame for not putting balls on target but receivers are not doing him any favors. There are 406 receivers with at least nine targets and we have three guys 380th or worse (Hall, Robinson, High). Drops are killing the offense. It's been an every game thing so this is a thing.
7. It really sucked to see the afflicted welcome to their ranks Caden High (who I would say aside from those drops has been the best player on the roster this year....but drops count so he's only top three along with Warren and Nicholson). He's the least of my worries long-term, one of the only players on our roster who looks like he would start for most good power teams. I can only imagine where we would have been in this game were it not for High and Ford, who had the fourth highest yards from scrimmage of his career and third best career game on a per touch basis. I am relieved Hall had two catches moving the chains and for once didn't drop any. [Moving the chains (first down) leaderboard: Ford (5), High (4), Hall (2), Blackburn (2), Irvin, Hampton] Many have lamented Nico Brown only playing 15 snaps and then having one of the plays of the year in garbage time. I think it's pretty obvious he was on the same recovery reintroduction as High the previous game and will be one of our key guys next week. That will be nice to see Warren with his full receiver complement, which is good timing because Georgia Tech has a good pass defense. Regarding the line play, the eye test was ugly and PFF didn't miss the obvious, that House was brutalized, Hoitink was a weak link, and no linemen were good.
RE: Stanford Duke Game Thread - msqueri - 09-20-2026
8. The eye test and tape/play-by-play evaluation differed when it came to our defensive line. Watching last night and again in the condensed version this morning, I thought the DL was pitiful. No push. Clear loss at the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. To my surprise, PFF had several DL grade well and thought it was really Rowell and Bachhuber who struggled, not the others, and they thought Briehler and BMO were straight-up good. And then when I did my box score analysis counting up on paper positive plays, Briehler and BMO showed 3-4 times each. What eye test, PFF, and box score converge on for me is that Tafiti (three positive plays) is a helpful player and, without Kaminski, we get nothing on the edge. Overall the team generates zero pass rush, 127th in the nation and last in Power Four in sacks per game. Our most reliable player in my book is Nicholson, and yesterday he had a goal line run stuff, tackle for loss to force a punt, and a pass breakup. But yes, his bulletin board material on nobody being able to run on us was very dumb. Davis' interception was the play of the game for us and he also had a pass breakup but also a number of not good plays. Our linebackers were a Jekyll and Hyde performance yesterday. Rose showed up big-time in the first quarter and then had a disappointing game thereafter, but he's not why we lost. Mattingly stepped in for Galvan (and Pritchard made it sound like it was impressive to do so given Rose's position being the more natural one for Mattingly) and led our team in positive plays, four in the main portion of the game, two more wiped out by penalties we accepted, and two more in garbage time. He played with a motor and kept it going when the game was out of hand, unfortunately to the tune of a stupid/selfish/undisciplined roughing penalty (one of two personal fouls for the team in garbage time....yikes). Johnson was a poor man's Mattingly, making good and bad plays. Cooper, Staples, and Williams each had two positive plays and are examples of why 3+ good plays is a much better standard for a solid game than two. I would call Green the most disappointing player through three games and that continued yesterday, though I will say he made two plays in run defense and, like Mattingly, played through the whistle in garbage time. A number of young players took advantage of their opportunity in garbage time (Umeh, Shovlin, Cunningham.....Howard also made a play but generally looked horrible). The main thing to say about the defense overall was that the tackling is just so bad.
9. Special teams were not an advantage. Flintoft had net punts of 38 to the 32 (bad), 37 to the 16 (sub-par), 34 to the 10 (ok), 40 to the 4 (great), 37 to the 27 (bad), 36 to the 43 (really bad), and 46 to the 29 (solid). The offense was so bad that Kenney got essentially no work. It looked to me like Cahoon and Johnson were the slumbering culprits responsible for the opening onside kick sneak attack. Chris Davis had a bad return and a good return, the good one in garbage time. Thorpe had a couple good returns but the bigger of the two was wiped out and then some due to a Jackson holding penalty. Tre Williams and Kuo were in on the tackle on the one bad punt that got returned. Lugolobi had the garbage time punt return unnecessary roughness.
10. Game balls: Micah Ford, Kole Briehler, Liam Thorpe, Malcolm Agnew
11. As we've seen since many of our players were in grammar school, it's hard to build momentum for a rebuild when your team is so routinely reminded how far it is from belonging on the field with the teams it needs to compete with. We've seen this story many times and under a procession of coaches trying to rebuild faith. That we've had a worse yards per play margin than yesterday in more than a quarter of our games since 2021 makes it impossible to view yesterday as surprising or non-illustrative. We are who we are. Hopefully at some point we start showing we're better. There is still a lot of season left. I am not going to give up on this season showing improvement. Right now it's stagnant with last year. If we play better going forward we can improve. This is gut check time to see how a Pritchard-led team rebounds from consecutive humiliations. Next up is Georgia Tech, the best chance for a win aside from Elon the rest of the way. Anybody who wants to see 4+ wins this year should have next Saturday circled as the most crucial game yet.
RE: Mudhead - Mudhead - 09-20-2026
(09-19-2026, 10:35 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(09-19-2026, 10:17 PM)Mudhead Wrote:(09-19-2026, 08:00 PM)needle Wrote: To all those in the camp saying it's much more the players than coaching: Last week, only one of 68 P4 teams scored fewer than 10 points, UCF (in a heavy rainstorm).
This week, it looks like only Stanford and Colorado (late kickoffs still pending) scored fewer than 10 points.
I just don't believe that player-for-player, Stanford's offensive talent ranks last out of 68 teams. I don't believe that's true of Stanford's offensive line as a unit, either.
It's coaching, and what we've seen so far is dragging the talent down, at least arguably.
But football is about match-ups and gameplans, which change ever week. So we shall see what happens next.
I should not pretend to be an expert on O lines but I have been around the block at least once… and besides if lack of expertise ruled me out of commenting, I would never venture an opinion.
I think the offensive line on the field tonight in the white unis may have been the worst in college football. They gave effort, they tried to hit hard but the were totally inept.
Injuries are a big factor . We are working with a back up center and back ups at least at two other spots and maybe three . If I understood the announcer correctly (and making the big assumption that he had any idea what he was talking about) our starting right tackle had been moved over from center where he was a backup ..which means he was third string. Injuries have forced almost everyone to play out of position . Finally, these guys are pretty young ..we simply have to find a way to keep our Offensive linemen Around until they mature… that means we start Seniors and Fifth year guys with rare exception.
I am pretty sure we could put together a decent O line from former Stanford players who have transferred elsewhere and have now grown up. This is my way of not criticizing the guys we put on the field . Injuries and transfers have reduced us to playing third string quality guys and guys who will be pretty damned good once they grow up but are just too young to compete against grown men.
I was one of the truly great third string tackles in the history of .stanford football and I can assure you that if I had seen the field more than ten minutes game time a year, .stanford would have many more losses than our record actually has. I respect the guys who played and honor their effort and guts. I do not respect the program that managed talent so poorly that they are the best we could field.
End of speech. Thanks for letting me vent.
Sincere!
Now, what quality of Linemen could we get if we swung some NIL money that way?
$100,000 a year for linemen gets us -- what?
I don’t have access to accurate numbers but I believe that number would work. Not to go out into the portal to recruit established linemen but rather to keep,the ones we recruit. We were way too starry eyed about the “40 year decision” and the magic of the Stanford experience , yes. But the kids we recruit buy into some of that story. They know they are t coming to Texas or Miami when they sign . I think most would stay if ;1) we can show we are moving toward relevance if not excellence AND we don’t make them feel economically stupid for staying . I don’t k ow about you but when I was a nineteen year old Soph , $10,000 would have told me I was loved and bowled over any thoughts I had about the value of education and School A vs School B. I think the $100k number is today’s equivalent..I think it would work .
Now if I had a few million to back up my hunch , we would have a program. I do plead guilty to being quite comfortable spending someone else’s money. In my defense, I would gladly contribute what I could to a program focused on keeping the Offensive linemen we recruit to Stanford right here in good ol’ Palo
Alto. It would,be a hell of a lot. Ore satisfying then contributing to man ADs fund to upgrade them
Stadium to “make the game day experience more enjoyable “. Winning would make the game day experience more enjoyable, thank you.