Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - 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: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon (/thread-23521.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: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon (/thread-23521.html)
Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - msqueri - 10-02-2022
1. We are who we thought we were. This is one of the worst teams in Power Five football. I imagine some watching the game were surprised by the stat on the broadcast that Stanford has the longest active FBS losing streak in the nation. But long stretches between FBS wins is not new for us. From the end of 2019 to the pandemic season, we went 398 days in between wins. Come Friday (the day before our next game), we'll be at 370 days and counting in between wins over an FBS opponent. Going a year without beating a major college football team is something that has happened to Stanford fans twice in the last few years. Previously that kind of thing happened for us about once every generation (1947, 1960, 1983, 2006). It is very hard for national media and casual Stanford fans to grasp given Shaw's legendary lifetime achievements, but what he's done the last 3-4 years is worst stretch of football in Stanford history/worst current coach in America level of futility.
2. It seems silly to micro-analyze what's going on when the big picture remains so stark. I don't want to give the impression that what ails us is fixable. Nonetheless, it helps me understand and diagnose to crunch the results. The big story of our season has been the pitiful offense. It's not just turnovers and sacks, though those are big factors. The offense simply has not been anything like advertised. We knew it would need to carry the team and it hasn't been even close to being able to do so. At times it's even been worse than the defense. Last night was a case in point: the defense gave up 0.49 yards per play worse than Oregon's average while the offense gained 1.22 fewer yards per play than the Duck average. I would never let the defense off the hook as its miserable state the last half decade has been the prime driver of Stanford football's irrelevance, but the offense is equally culpable and far more disappointing this year.
3. The way we've been losing seems to perfectly encapsulate the plight of the bad team. From game to game, we can get some things right. But in the aggregate it's nowhere close to competitive and opponents can just pick how they want to beat us, leaving us to our pyrrhic victories. Once again the second half became a time for moral victories and stat padding. When the game was still being contested, the Ducks played with their food. Due to a combination of indiscipline, sloppiness, and officials routinely bailing Stanford out, Oregon had 135 penalty yards, nearly doubling the FBS average for penalty yards in a game in the first half alone. And yet still it was a 31-3 halftime score.
4. As in past losses, we had bright spots but who cares? The pass defense was the stingiest Oregon has faced other than Georgia and was closer to Georgia than to any other team and the stingiest we've been since the Vanderbilt game over a year ago. But Oregon could just pick the way it would beat us, which in this case was on the ground with a whopping 9.5 yards per carry, 71 percent more than the next worst run defense against Oregon this year (Cougs giving up 5.56 yards per carry, which was even worse than FCS Eastern Washington). We've regressed into the 2021 Utah/Cal games range of historically hapless run defense. The same whack-a-mole/pick your poison dynamic happened when we had the ball: we ran more effectively than anybody but Georgia has against them, but even with Oregon's very bad defense they had their way with us, holding us to the lowest (4.61) yards per play they've given up in nine games, thanks to a pitiful passing effort by Stanford.
5. Sorry, I use the word pitiful advisedly when describing our passing game last night. Unlike last week when McKee spun it when he could get the ball off, this was miserable even when he threw. He had a few good ones, like the touchdown to Higgins, but overall it was a crappy game. We had almost two yards per attempt and almost 20 passer rating points worse output than the next worst FBS opponent against Oregon this year. Folks, Oregon's pass defense sucks (111th in the nation even after containing us). This was awful by McKee and, as has been the case for non-Wilson receiving targets all year, the receivers and tight ends. McKee's Total QBR for the week was 108th of 120 QBs nationally. Especially given the opponent, this was a terrible showing. But even on the year writ large, a third of the way into our season the passing attack is nothing like we imagined. We're in the 40-50 range nationally in the major passing stats, pathetic given our personnel.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - msqueri - 10-02-2022
6. Shaw talked in the press conference that we have "options" for addressing these failings and later seemed to clarify that he is not talking about benching players and instead is focused on ways to start games faster. I don't really know what this means and if it has bearing on the slow mesh experiment. The offense has laid an egg to start the year and I don't have faith in the brain trust to clean it up to an acceptable level, though Yurosek and the receivers have been so bad that reversion to the mean offers some hope. Against Oregon, there were two bright spots. The obvious one is Casey Filkins. I don't think he's a world-beater, but he runs with patience, wiggles and fights for yards crucial for first downs all-too-difficult for us to come up with otherwise, offers a good receiving target, and plays with heart. He's #5 in the Pac-12 in yards from scrimmage per game, in the ballpark with Austin Jones' 2020 as our most significant back in the last half decade. This week's moving the chains (first down) list: Filkins (6), Wilson (3), Higgins (2), Tremayne (2), Humphreys, Yurosek, Roush, Bowman, Daniels, Reuben. The second bright spot is less obvious: PFF assesses that the beleaguered right side of the offensive line - dealing with Bragg's retirement, Hinton's continued absence, and Miller's new injury (I assume season-ending or close given Shaw being immediately definitive it will be a "weeks" thing - the right side graded nicely. In fact, our fourth string right tackle, redshirt freshman Jack Leyrer, played the entire game after the first three plays (coming in when Miller got hurt) and came out of last night (his collegiate debut outside of two field goal unit plays last week) with the highest PFF grade of any Stanford player on either side of the ball yesterday. Rogers also graded nicely. Way to go Leyrer!
7. There were also individual performance bright spots on defense. Last week I mentioned that I track impact plays and nobody had more than two against Washington. Against Oregon, Sinclair (tackle for loss to force a field goal, tackle for no gain on 2nd and 12, interception), Bailey (five good tackles given down and distance including a tackle for loss, QB hurry/hitting the QB's hand to force the interception), Bonner (two pass breakups, tackle for loss, another good tackle given down and distance), and Armitage (albeit mostly garbage time) all had 3+ impact plays. Going forward, I'd like Sinclair to take snaps from his (horrible) linebacker compatriots. Bailey looks to be on a very good trajectory and is a very exciting prospect I hope stays at Stanford long enough to play great football. Bonner is having a solid year (I'm eating some crow on that one, though not my skepticism of Kelly and Turner-Muhammad, sadly validated). Armitage is a hit and miss player but his role is growing weekly and the day Herron is gone and Armitage takes those snaps will be a good one for the defense.
8. Special teams is fine but not a major asset. It was great to see Karty get on the board with his first two field goals of the season and a 53 yarder is awesome to see. Sanborn was very busy but only did ok, with net punts of 46, 30 (ugh), 43, 32 (before the penalty was assessed), 38, 47, and 39. Farrell never seems to get out to the 25 on kick returns, which begs the questions of why we return at all and why he's back there. With Farrell last in the Pac-12 in return average and Barrow showing burst on his garbage time return, I'd like to see Barrow get some chances.
9. Game balls: Leyrer, Bailey, Karty, Heffernan
10. The big question for our season, to the extent anybody still retains hope, is what kind of attitude and resilience the players have. So far, we've had three straight losses in which we've seen effort as the team battles in the second half. But how sustainable is it when players see that their best isn't even close to good enough? There may be some initial signs of fraying discipline and composure. Herron, Fields, and Armitage all had bad personal fouls to keep the defense on the field. I also think I see signs of a loser's mentality ossifying - players celebrating individual achievements in blowout losses, coaches and players alike moving on from any sort of pissed off for greatness/righteous anger to focusing on individual triumphs/learning opportunities, etc. From what we've seen so far, I don't know if I'd say Shaw has lost the team or that they've given up, but I imagine it's close. And if you can't compete even when you're giving your all that's just as damning.
11. Shaw says Oregon State isn't a must win. In a sense he's right for the reason he says - every game is vital, they're all important. In a self-preservation sense he may be trying to downplay the calamity of individual losses. But based on his body language in recent press conferences and on the sidelines I think it's equally likely he's past gaming for his own survival and understands, whether consciously or subconsciously, that it's too late. I suspect he's running out the string this year and will reflect when the season is done on what he probably already understands: his time is past. Until then, fans face the classic loser's dilemma of hoping against hope for surprise wins while knowing that abject failure may make the decision that needs to happen blessedly clearer for any stubborn holdouts (whether Muir, university leadership, or Shaw himself).
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - Austroturf - 10-02-2022
Really appreciate the effort you put into these summaries. This must cost you a couple hours every Sunday morning.
During the glory years, I invested similar blocks of time delving into the data and looking for the good, the bad and the ugly. Just don't care enough anymore to expend that much time. Glad to see somebody still does! Always look forward to your Sunday debriefs.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - chrisk - 10-02-2022
Thanks for the analysis.
The three straight blow-out losses to ranked teams have erased any doubt about not being a very good team.
The next three weeks are against mediocre unbanked teams will go a long way to classify how bad Stanford is. Where in the second division does Stanford end up?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - lex24 - 10-02-2022
I’m convinced Oregon could have run the ball every down and scored 40. My analysis is simple: Stanford is back to Wlat.
Oh one other point. I hate this offense. More importantly, it does not fit the personnel and particularly McKee.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - Snorlax94 - 10-02-2022
Following up on item 11, I was wondering, does anyone know what the process is at Stanford for replacing Muir and probably Shaw.
Is it driven by super-donors? I imagine overall alumni sentiment plays a role.
Although I’ve been a strong supporter of Shaw, last season I felt it was clear Muir needed to go, and I pointed out how Muir had become one of the longest-serving ADs at Stanford. Because so many previous ADs had been coveted by other universities, unfortunately we get stuck with the least successful one that apparently no one else wants.
So last season, I felt the Varsity Blues scandal made clear and gave cause to replace Muir.
I didn’t feel like the university needed to replace Shaw in 2021, but they should replace Muir, and the new AD could’ve worked with Shaw to try to make the needed changes.
Shaw still has (had) strengths and assets. Shaw has recruited well, and he knows a lot about the game, and the team has done some great things, and then of course there are his past successes. But the team has been in a downward spiral.
Last season, I felt like the program needed to replace several coaching positions. I think I listed strength and conditioning and I can’t remember which I listed out of dline, oline, linebackers and both coordinators.
But somehow, inexplicably, no one was replaced last season. As the deadline to make replacements passed, I was stunned, and I guessed that the program doubled down to keep everythig as it was — Muir, Shaw, and the exact same coaching and training staff. I guess they doubled down because the “needed changes” would be schematic ones — and they did make big changes in offense and defense this year. I think the mesh still has potential, and we have faced several of the fastest defenses already (though Wazoo is still out there), and while the defense has some strong individual leaders playing with attitude, it feels like the scheme is letting everyone down.
So when you double down and lose big, then what?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - MV72018 - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 11:10 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: Following up on item 11, I was wondering, does anyone know what the process is at Stanford for replacing Muir and probably Shaw.
Is it driven by super-donors? I imagine overall alumni sentiment plays a role.
Although I’ve been a strong supporter of Shaw, last season I felt it was clear Muir needed to go, and I pointed out how Muir had become one of the longest-serving ADs at Stanford. Because so many previous ADs had been coveted by other universities, unfortunately we get stuck with the least successful one that apparently no one else wants.
So last season, I felt the Varsity Blues scandal made clear and gave cause to replace Muir.
I didn’t feel like the university needed to replace Shaw in 2021, but they should replace Muir, and the new AD could’ve worked with Shaw to try to make the needed changes.
Shaw still has (had) strengths and assets. Shaw has recruited well, and he knows a lot about the game, and the team has done some great things, and then of course there are his past successes. But the team has been in a downward spiral.
Last season, I felt like the program needed to replace several coaching positions. I think I listed strength and conditioning and I can’t remember which I listed out of dline, oline, linebackers and both coordinators.
But somehow, inexplicably, no one was replaced last season. As the deadline to make replacements passed, I was stunned, and I guessed that the program doubled down to keep everythig as it was — Muir, Shaw, and the exact same coaching and training staff. I guess they doubled down because the “needed changes” would be schematic ones — and they did make big changes in offense and defense this year. I think the mesh still has potential, and we have faced several of the fastest defenses already (though Wazoo is still out there), and while the defense has some strong individual leaders playing with attitude, it feels like the scheme is letting everyone down.
So when you double down and lose big, then what?
Over the last few years, Shaw's teams have consistently underperformed with respect to the rankings of his classes of recruits. Nuff said?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - PAsportsfan - 10-02-2022
Fans and alumni got Michigan AD Dave Brandon
(A brobdingnagian prick) to resign.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/10/31/michigan-athletic-director-dave-brandon/18236245/
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - lex24 - 10-02-2022
There is a simple question that needs answering: Does the University care about football? I think the probable answer is “no.”
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - MV72018 - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 11:36 AM)lex24 Wrote: There is a simple question that needs answering: Does the University care about football? I think the probable answer is “no.”
Superb analysis. Thank you.
I think Lex24 is right. I seriously doubt whether MTL, Drell, or most faculty give a hoot about football or basketball. I'd wager they think Stanford wouldn't be any worse and might be better off without them, but especially football.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - gailtate - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 10:59 AM)Austroturf Wrote: Really appreciate the effort you put into these summaries. This must cost you a couple hours every Sunday morning.
During the glory years, I invested similar blocks of time delving into the data and looking for the good, the bad and the ugly. Just don't care enough anymore to expend that much time. Glad to see somebody still does! Always look forward to your Sunday debriefs.
+1
(10-02-2022, 11:47 AM)MV72018 Wrote:(10-02-2022, 11:36 AM)lex24 Wrote: There is a simple question that needs answering: Does the University care about football? I think the probable answer is “no.”
Superb analysis. Thank you.
I think Lex24 is right. I seriously doubt whether MTL, Drell, or most faculty give a hoot about football or basketball. I'd wager they think Stanford wouldn't be any worse and might be better off without them, but especially football.
Stanford may come to a point where MTL Drell, et.al., no longer have the votes. I suspect that Athletics may be too big to fail today.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - Giants - 10-02-2022
Since I am a proponent of “never replace your coach until you are absolutely certain you can find someone who can do a better job than the incumbent”, the outstanding question has to be - who is the person who meets that criteria?
In this era, are there candidates who could do a better job than Shaw AND (most importantly) would want to coach at Stanford (given all the PERCEIVED barriers to success)?
The world of college athletics is in turmoil and a number of schools are going to have to decide whether to be a serious player or just a player. Once Stanford makes that decision, I think the answer to the question in paragraph two will become evident.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - qwerty49 - 10-02-2022
Excellent post as always, Matt.
What bothers me about Farrell's KORs is that he hardly ever gets by the first man untouched, and that he goes down way too easy on an ankle tackle. Maybe he's quicker and shiftier than the guys he practices against, but he's not quicker or shiftier than our opponents.
As I think about it, perhaps who we practice against does play a role in defining (and limiting) who we are. Can someone clarify -- Do the 1's still practice against the 2's? Is our meek OL practicing against our anemic #2 front seven? Does the QB sneak work in practice against our second-string defense? Do our WRs get separation and YAC against our DBs?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - gailtate - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 01:48 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Excellent post as always, Matt.
What bothers me about Farrell's KORs is that he hardly ever gets by the first man untouched, and that he goes down way too easy on an ankle tackle. Maybe he's quicker and shiftier than the guys he practices against, but he's not quicker or shiftier than our opponents.
As I think about it, perhaps who we practice against does play a role in defining (and limiting) who we are. Can someone clarify -- Do the 1's still practice against the 2's? Is our meek OL practicing against our anemic #2 front seven? Does the QB sneak work in practice against our second-string defense? Do our WRs get separation and YAC against our DBs?
Somehow, I was under the impression that practice ain't what it used to be in terms of "spirited contact". Haven't attended since spring of 2016.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - msqueri - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 01:03 PM)Giants Wrote: Since I am a proponent of “never replace your coach until you are absolutely certain you can find someone who can do a better job than the incumbent”, the outstanding question has to be - who is the person who meets that criteria?
In this era, are there candidates who could do a better job than Shaw AND (most importantly) would want to coach at Stanford (given all the PERCEIVED barriers to success)?
The world of college athletics is in turmoil and a number of schools are going to have to decide whether to be a serious player or just a player. Once Stanford makes that decision, I think the answer to the question in paragraph two will become evident.
That's a reasonable question to ask if your coach is mediocre but, to be blunt, a crazy one in this context. Anybody would do better, or at least close enough to anybody if we halfway tried with a hire. As I've laid out, Shaw is the losingest coach in America and has been losing at a level Stanford hasn't seen aside from Paul Wiggin and Walt Harris, who got fired for it. And, predictably, our next coaches did much better. They did much better because it's really, really easy to do better than worst in America.
If you're asking for specific names, Bryan Harsin is reviled at Auburn and would be a much better coach than Shaw at Stanford. Troy Taylor is coaching FCS and would presumably jump at the opportunity. Brent Brennan coaching Group of Five.
Personally I think we could put together a package to entice a Power Five rising star like Liebold or Klieman, but even if not, we'd have Group of Five and FCS guys beating down our door due to sheer career ambition and pecuniary interest, no matter how negative one gets on the perceived barriers to our success (which I think some exaggerate).
Your question is an analytically good one, but it's one you ask when your coach is 2018 David Shaw or 2022 Chip Kelly. 2022 David Shaw is the easiest thing to replace. You or I wouldn't do worse than this.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - george - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 02:09 PM)msqueri Wrote: Anybody would do better, or at least close enough to anybody if we halfway tried with a hire.Well, we ended up with Walt after we fired Teevens. At the time of Buddy's dismissal it was hard to believe that we could do worse, but we clearly could.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - Snorlax94 - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 01:03 PM)Giants Wrote: Since I am a proponent of “never replace your coach until you are absolutely certain you can find someone who can do a better job than the incumbent”, the outstanding question has to be - who is the person who meets that criteria?I used to be worried about this, but I can think of about 6 million reasons why Stanford would be able to find a good new coach.
In this era, are there candidates who could do a better job than Shaw AND (most importantly) would want to coach at Stanford (given all the PERCEIVED barriers to success)?
The world of college athletics is in turmoil and a number of schools are going to have to decide whether to be a serious player or just a player. Once Stanford makes that decision, I think the answer to the question in paragraph two will become evident.
The Stanford football job is one of the top 15 highest-profile college football jobs around, and just a few years ago, other Pac 12 coaches were complaining about the recruiting edge Stanford has. It's not for everyone, but for coaches who can embrace the inherent advantages and disadvantages, it's an attractive job. Plus, you wouldn't worry about financial stability the way you might worry about it at places like Cal.
Before this season, one might argue it'd be hard for a Pac-12 team to find a new head coach because it doesn't have as much revenue as the SEC and Big 10, but, Washington, Oregon, and USC all seemed to do OK finding new coaches. A few years ago BYU seemed to struggle in their search for a new coach -- and that place also has unique constraints and isn't even in a Power 5 conference -- and they seemed to do well.
I think Stanford could find another great coach, but it'd take the right AD to find that coach. Which takes us back to the AD problem...
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - cardcrimson - 10-02-2022
(10-02-2022, 02:25 PM)george Wrote:Hard to believe that Walt was up for the head coaching job at Alabama at one point. . . .(10-02-2022, 02:09 PM)msqueri Wrote: Anybody would do better, or at least close enough to anybody if we halfway tried with a hire.Well, we ended up with Walt after we fired Teevens. At the time of Buddy's dismissal it was hard to believe that we could do worse, but we clearly could.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - Canalejas - 10-02-2022
So how do we go about clamoring for a new AD?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon - BostonCard - 10-02-2022
2022 Chip Kelly is 5-0. The time to have asked the question was back in 2019, when he went 4-8 a season after going 3-9, and there were open questions about whether what he accomplished at Oregon was replicable at UCLA (or if what he accomplished at Oregon was due to Mike Belloti’s legacy (never mind that as OC, Kelly helped build that legacy). Regardless, though, Kelly was on the hot seat in his early UCLA days, but he has been steadily building since the pandemic year (8-4 last year, 5-0 so far this year). UCLA fans would be nuts to contemplate replacing Kelly.
BC