1 hour ago
1. The road woes continue, with little sign we belong in Power Four but at least with some signs of life. Are we the worst power team (dropped to Sagarin #97 and SP+ #118)? Yes, with Big Game shaping up to be a clash over who avoids the dunce cap. Are we playing better in the last three games than we did earlier in the season? Also yes, with scoreboard outcomes befitting #95, #61, and #118 reinforcing how miserable this team is yet undeniably also being better than the first six games befitting #83, #151, #141, #70, #233, and #182. In the big picture, it's hard to get past the bleakness of a program that's so bad that SP+ views it as competing for worst in the land in offense (with Cal), defense (with West Virginia), and special teams (with Cal and Colorado) and for which the recruiting pipeline under supposedly turnaround leadership looks like it's somehow taking a step backward. Belief in where this program is going is not very rational. Nonetheless, Luck and Pritchard aren't going anywhere and neither are the program's most incorrigible diehards. What's left to us surveying the wreckage is to find enough glimmers of hope that this interminably long crawl phase of the third post-Shaw reboot can spin its way into a better situation this offseason. The most obvious source of spin is four wins with a better than even chance for one more win. There are also obscure statistical insights such as our yards per play margin on the season being right on track with last season as the best of this bleak era. Those still inclined to saintlike patience in the belief that a rebuild from shattered foundations requires multi-year culture and program building may still choose forbearance. For the rest, it gets increasingly frustrating each game that goes on without the team showing it belongs in power football. Both camps understand that what matters much more than the games is what we do in talent acquisition after the season. But for now, games are all we have so let's turn over the stones in the rubble.
2. I came into the Louisville game with subterranean expectations and, as a result, found myself less despondent than some compatriots. We were tied with 11 minutes left in the third quarter, an entire quarter more of sticking with an opponent on the road than we've seen this season. Mathematically, garbage time didn't start until there was only 10:13 left in the game. Our -1.62 points per non-garbage drive margin was bad but much better than the -4.11 against Notre Dame, -5.04 against Wake Forest, and -2.72 against Duke. Yesterday was the first road game this season the offense even scored more than a point per drive. The defense was in the ballpark of what they allowed in the Duke and Notre Dame games. In other words, it was terrible but not quite as terrible as all the other road games. One can believe that the degree of improvement is just polishing a turd or that the longest journey begins with single steps. My vote is that there's always a greater risk Stanford's complacency and country club coddling fails to light a fire than there is that insufficient patience leads us to change course from something that would have worked. Still, I have to acknowledge yesterday wasn't as bad as the previous road humiliations.
3. Louisville is a very good team (now joining Notre Dame, Miami, and Wake Forest as Sagarin top 25 teams), coming in with a yards per play advantage over its opponents of +2.08. Unfortunately, we made them look even better, +3.70, a pretty comprehensive beating. We scored 2.18 points per non-garbage drive, making the #93 points per drive defense look like #65. We allowed 3.8 points per non-garbage drive, making the #21 points per drive offense look like #2. Not captured in either stat was another seven points coughed up on a badly-executed trick play that became a scoop and score in the opposite direction. The offense and defense both came up short relative to Louisville's norm. The Stanford offense's 5.09 yards per play is the most we've had in a road game since last September's Virginia game, but it must be noted Louisville has a crappy defense and we had about half a yard per play less than Louisville's average allowed. The other side of the ball was a contrast in terms of facing a dynamic opponent but not in terms of the subpar result. Louisville came in as one of the nation's most explosive offenses and we gave up a yard more per play than even their stellar average, giving up a whopping 8.79 yards per play. As bad as the Stanford defense has frequently been, those are the most video game numbers on a per play basis in three years, going back to the Oregon State and USC blowouts in 2023. This is the second worst yards per play margin we've had this season, ahead of only Wake Forest. The Isaac Brown 75 yard touchdown came in garbage time, so while the margin was pathetic I don't think it swamps the evidence that it was a relatively competitive road game for us. But competitive for us is still really bad.
4. The one thing that wasn't bad was the pass defense. That's hard to understand as you watch an opponent connect on passes of 44, 30, 22 (touchdown), 18 (touchdown), 18, and 19 yards, but this is an explosive opponent we contained through the air. Pass defense wasn't our problem. Louisville is fourth in the nation in yards per attempt and would have been higher today except we held them a yard and a half under their average (and also under their passer rating average). The problem was that Louisville demolished us on the ground, gaining 296 yards on a comical 8.97 yards per carry, over two and a half yards per carry more than their norm coming in. They are as explosive on the ground as they are in the air, but five of their other seven opponents did better in this phase than we did whereas five of their seven opponents did worse than us in yards per attempt and a sixth was right in our ballpark. We've seen this throughout the year that Richard's defense does better against the pass than the run. The holistic picture is ugly.
5. The passing game was also a relatively bright spot for us when we had the ball. We threw for about half a yard less per attempt than Louisville's average allowed and a slightly better passer rating than their average, and the passer rating would have been better but for an interception they snagged that hurt them. While Ford and Irvin battled, the ultimate output of our run game was quite bleak, 39 yards less than any FBS team has had against the lame Louisville run defense and the worst yards per carry of anybody, even Villanova. I had thought (hoped) that the run game had turned a corner, but this was a step backward. Between the passing and the running, while the former was better for us the commonality for both phases was a debilitating inability to convert on third downs.....2 for 16 is no way to succeed on offense. A handful of big plays kept the scoreboard interesting for a while. The underlying performance was considerably less competitive than a tie in the third quarter suggested.
2. I came into the Louisville game with subterranean expectations and, as a result, found myself less despondent than some compatriots. We were tied with 11 minutes left in the third quarter, an entire quarter more of sticking with an opponent on the road than we've seen this season. Mathematically, garbage time didn't start until there was only 10:13 left in the game. Our -1.62 points per non-garbage drive margin was bad but much better than the -4.11 against Notre Dame, -5.04 against Wake Forest, and -2.72 against Duke. Yesterday was the first road game this season the offense even scored more than a point per drive. The defense was in the ballpark of what they allowed in the Duke and Notre Dame games. In other words, it was terrible but not quite as terrible as all the other road games. One can believe that the degree of improvement is just polishing a turd or that the longest journey begins with single steps. My vote is that there's always a greater risk Stanford's complacency and country club coddling fails to light a fire than there is that insufficient patience leads us to change course from something that would have worked. Still, I have to acknowledge yesterday wasn't as bad as the previous road humiliations.
3. Louisville is a very good team (now joining Notre Dame, Miami, and Wake Forest as Sagarin top 25 teams), coming in with a yards per play advantage over its opponents of +2.08. Unfortunately, we made them look even better, +3.70, a pretty comprehensive beating. We scored 2.18 points per non-garbage drive, making the #93 points per drive defense look like #65. We allowed 3.8 points per non-garbage drive, making the #21 points per drive offense look like #2. Not captured in either stat was another seven points coughed up on a badly-executed trick play that became a scoop and score in the opposite direction. The offense and defense both came up short relative to Louisville's norm. The Stanford offense's 5.09 yards per play is the most we've had in a road game since last September's Virginia game, but it must be noted Louisville has a crappy defense and we had about half a yard per play less than Louisville's average allowed. The other side of the ball was a contrast in terms of facing a dynamic opponent but not in terms of the subpar result. Louisville came in as one of the nation's most explosive offenses and we gave up a yard more per play than even their stellar average, giving up a whopping 8.79 yards per play. As bad as the Stanford defense has frequently been, those are the most video game numbers on a per play basis in three years, going back to the Oregon State and USC blowouts in 2023. This is the second worst yards per play margin we've had this season, ahead of only Wake Forest. The Isaac Brown 75 yard touchdown came in garbage time, so while the margin was pathetic I don't think it swamps the evidence that it was a relatively competitive road game for us. But competitive for us is still really bad.
4. The one thing that wasn't bad was the pass defense. That's hard to understand as you watch an opponent connect on passes of 44, 30, 22 (touchdown), 18 (touchdown), 18, and 19 yards, but this is an explosive opponent we contained through the air. Pass defense wasn't our problem. Louisville is fourth in the nation in yards per attempt and would have been higher today except we held them a yard and a half under their average (and also under their passer rating average). The problem was that Louisville demolished us on the ground, gaining 296 yards on a comical 8.97 yards per carry, over two and a half yards per carry more than their norm coming in. They are as explosive on the ground as they are in the air, but five of their other seven opponents did better in this phase than we did whereas five of their seven opponents did worse than us in yards per attempt and a sixth was right in our ballpark. We've seen this throughout the year that Richard's defense does better against the pass than the run. The holistic picture is ugly.
5. The passing game was also a relatively bright spot for us when we had the ball. We threw for about half a yard less per attempt than Louisville's average allowed and a slightly better passer rating than their average, and the passer rating would have been better but for an interception they snagged that hurt them. While Ford and Irvin battled, the ultimate output of our run game was quite bleak, 39 yards less than any FBS team has had against the lame Louisville run defense and the worst yards per carry of anybody, even Villanova. I had thought (hoped) that the run game had turned a corner, but this was a step backward. Between the passing and the running, while the former was better for us the commonality for both phases was a debilitating inability to convert on third downs.....2 for 16 is no way to succeed on offense. A handful of big plays kept the scoreboard interesting for a while. The underlying performance was considerably less competitive than a tie in the third quarter suggested.
