Nothing earthshaking here (it’s gonna suck, and we’re gonna need money), but it’s worth a read.

Muir talks scheduling

Check that out here.

I'm avoiding a task right now, so I've decided to direct my energy to an urgent matter: Here are the extended highlights of Stanford's three games. This thread can be the home of future extended highlights of Stanford and opponents, where people can comment with observations. All the highlights are from a channel called Matthew Loves Ball and average about 27 minutes long, featuring key plays for both teams.

Hawaii
USC
Sacramento State

I have a couple thoughts about what I saw in the Sacramento State video.

• I'm glad that the defensive line has received compliments on this forum for their performance against Sacramento State and overall through three games. I retract my implied criticism of them in my first post in @msqueri's last Sunday Morning Thoughts thread. Those players and Ross Kolodziej are probably the top unit right now on the rebuild report card.
• It's not haha funny, but it's kind of funny that the best tactic for success in the passing game this season is probably 50-50 balls. This is probably part of the reason Bryce Farrell is playing so much. Both our quarterback play and pass protection are ... meh, so maybe we should just throw jump balls up seam and sidelines like old times.
• Sac State's double coverage of Yurosek appeared to throw off Daniels and Lamson at times. There were a couple times that they looked to Yurosek first, saw he was doubled, and either didn't have enough time to look to the second option or didn't move on from Yurosek quickly enough. I bet Taylor regrets that he didn't do a better job adjusting to this. Will we see a plan to address this from the start against Arizona?
• There were a couple coverage miscues that looked like our guys aren't comfortable yet with the scheme. On one third down conversion, three defenders in zone coverage clustered around one Sac State player in the middle of the field and left a receiver wide open. Tristan Sinclair was in zone coverage on another big conversion, but he closed on Bennett when Bennett scrambled on a rollout to his right, leaving a crossing receiver wide open. Bernadel handed off the receiver to Sinclair's area. Also, our guys are slow.
• Speaking of Bernadel, the roughing the passer penalty was BS, but he probably would have avoided it if he targeted Bennett's middle and wrapped up. Show him clips of Chase Thomas, the dude was great at that.
• How quickly can Paul Williams work his magic with the corners? Manley got beat when he let a receiver get behind him on a scramble drill, a big no-no. It's one thing to get beat because the receiver is sprinting toward the quarterback in that situation, but don't give up a huge play downfield when the defense is chasing the quarterback. It would have been a third-down conversion even if Manley got it right, though. Leigber tackled a receiver in the middle of the field who was about to go by him. We're slow and not comfortable yet with coverage assignments.
• Wright had a couple really bad moments. He also delivered confident tackles on consecutive plays, I think just before Edwards' interception. Wright's first tackle was in a gap on a run play. Man, if his knee was down on the interception then he just barely trimmed the top of the grass.
• Both of Lamson's and Daniels' interceptions were bad. Lamson's was terrible. That was a total panic throw. Daniels was locked on his target so long it was like he was lining up his shot to take out the Death Star — sometimes that's Ok but not in a goal-to-go situation with the defense bunched up.
• We converted a third and long on the opening drive with a run play out of a passing formation. I almost cried. This is not in the video, but Taylor was furious with the officials after Filkins' touchdown run because the officials stopped us from snapping the ball to give Sac State a chance to bring in subs. We didn't make any substitutions, though. Taylor wanted to catch the Hornets off guard and with guys running onto the field. Remember when we almost stole a win at Washington in 2018 but Shaw forgot about the substitution rule for the entire potential game-winning drive? Woohoo, a moment to celebrate a coaching upgrade!

ARROW UP

0 Bernadel - Played just about every snap and had best game from start to finish IMO.
0 Reuben - Got the start and out there for the majority of snaps. Still hoping for a little more from him.
3 Farrell - Continues to be involved in the run/pass game plan. Another rushing TD.
4 Manley - Out there for every play like always. It feels like teams are starting to go his way more frequently.
6 Wright - Our top cover guy is kind of a sneaky good tackler.
8 Lamson - About 1/3 of the snaps in the 2 QB system that CTT is obviously very comfortable with. Could/should have placed him in the arrow down list as he has not been able to take more advantage. Made a couple of damn nice runs. Runs downhill with some purpose.
8 Sinclair - Still starting and getting a lot more snaps than he probably should be.
10 Jorgensen - A dozen snaps for the main ILB backup.
11 Tafiti - OLB3 just lacking agility. Man I hate that knee brace.
13 Ayomanor - Led the position group in snaps, targets and receptions.
14 Daniels - Still appears to be QB1. Still a young player. Helluva throw to Tiger in the end zone. The QB position was not really the problem as far as being able to win the game. It wasn't perfect of course, but damn it isn't easy playing behind this OL. However, that miss to Filkins was BAD. And there were a couple others. And throwing a pass TEN FEET past the LOS?! I dunno man.
20 Slocum - Back at NB and playing a ton after missing the Sac St game (injured?). Thought I saw him in uniform pregame. Anyway, Cats decided not to go after him much.
21 Edwards - Starter at FS still needs to clean up the tackling. Had a chance to prevent 2Q TD pass but TE ran right thru his arms. Interestingly played like 20 snaps as kind of a hybrid OLB. Did not return after injury.
23 Bailey - Back at one of the starting OLB spots. He is closer to playing like one of our worst strarting defenders than one of our best. Was actually in coverage and #7 ran right into his 1 sack.
24 Bachmeier - Kid has some juice. Snaps, targets and catches all on the rise. Right on Reuben's heels for more playing time. But that drop in the end zone was brutal.
26 Irvin - Well, I didn't see the freshman being our lead back in GM4 coming. Was pretty good in pass pro too although I'm skeptical of that holding up moving forward. Feels like there are a lot of layers here on the huge snap increase.
33 Gilman - SS played them all. I think the staff knows exactly what they are going to get from the player each week. Left a big INT on the field.
40 Phillips - Didn't get the start and snaps were down but that was due to game plan going with less NT vs Arizona after ironman work LW. Solid game.
44 - Cooper - Saw his highest snap count total so far. Was surprisingly used as the 'spy' on obvi passing downs. Came after the QB a couple times. PLAY THIS GUY MORE.
51 Moi - Still getting 20+ snaps in a backup role but those snaps are decreasing. Has been the weak link of a pretty solid position group.
57 Rogers - Nice bounce back game especially in pass pro
71 McLaughlin - Played every snap at RT. He has played better.
72 Uke - Got the start for the injured Pale but I'm not so sure this would not have happened anyway. Played the 1H and I can tell you he was solid in pass pro.
76 Leyrer - Played thru the first 3Q's then benched. Going to have to make a change at LT.
77 Berzins - Well I was pretty confident there was going to be change within the interior ("amateur thinking"). I was not confident it was going to be #77. Every snap. Played the 1H at LG and the 2H at RG. HOLY MOLY. The guy looked like he knew what he was doing in pass pro. too. He and Uke are a way better pass pro combo than Mayberry and Pale.
84 Yurosek - Well, the good news is we looked his way a few more times this week. That contested ball in the end zone is a play your DUDE has to make. And my God what an awful read/miss by Daniels as 84 was running wide ass open early down the side.
86 Roush - LFG . Stop playing 10 vs 11 on offense. TE2 more involved with 3 catches.
91 Caughey - Only 1 snap in the previous 2 games, Pat got in there early on some passing downs to get after the QB.
92 Keneley - I want to like the player - he gives an honest effort - but I also want my edge guys making the QB uncomfortable, and he hasn't got near one in 3 weeks.
94 Franklin - As you know, I really like the player. Led the DL in snap count by a bunch. Solid game.
98 Buckey - Received some of Phillips snaps this week to get after the QB a little more. Got home once and had a solid game.

* 31 Morris - Freshman made a very nice play on punt cover. Something to keep an eye on. You start gaining the trust of the staff on ST's and all of a sudden you are getting more reps at your position.

ARROW DOWN

2 Filkins - Only 11 snaps. Zero rushing attempts. Did have 3 targets. We shall see....
11 Patu - Still no role for QB3
14 Aybar - Looks like he has settled in for about a dozen snaps per game now as Tafiti has moved ahead.
15 Butler - Only on the field for 5 snaps. Gave up a sack in pass pro on 1 of them. No carries.
15 Weselman - Benched mid game. CTT is holding EVERYONE accountable.
22 Smith - Only 10 snaps. 1 carry. We shall see....
27 Porter/29 Williams - Nothing since the USC game.
32 Leigber - Saw the field only after the Edwards injury.
35 Rose - 3 snaps.
57 Lytle - Didn't see the field.
58 Bank - BIG arrow down. Looks buried.
61 Mayberry - Player was benched for the 1H after 3 very subpar performances. Back to his LG spot for the 2H and played better.
67 Anderson - Replaced Leyrer in the 4Q. Surprised he wasn't in the mix earlier.
74 Pogorelc - The veteran OL did not see the field.
85 Taylor - Not part of the game plan this week only 2 snaps.

Read that here.

Read that here.

Read that here.

1. This is one of those games where I think one needs to be able to hold two contradictory thoughts in one's head simultaneously: that it was a moral victory (for those who believe in such things) and that it showed we still have the DNA of a loser (hat tip to Mustertheballcarrier on the 247 site for the trenchant point on the latter). If there's such a thing as being able to say we needed that after a loss, last night may be it. We needed to play a solid team and be competitive. Showing that we belong on the same field as a conference opponent is important for our players' (and coaches') confidence and to put some substance behind the talk of steady improvement. Using Sagarin as a baseline, in Taylor's first four games we've produced a result befitting the #61, #188, #153, and #85 teams in the nation. We shouldn't be crowing about looking like the #85 team last night. The 2023 team still looks to be in the running for worst Stanford team of all time. But we need to show that improvement is possible and that we can compete. Last night was a big relief in those departments. At the same time, we still don't know how to do the things you need to do to win close games. We have a very long way to go.

2. The reason this felt like a relief is that we battled a bona fide (albeit lower half) Power Five team evenly. We out-gained a Power Five opponent on a yards per play basis! If that doesn't feel worthy of an exclamation point to you, consider that, if I'm not mistaken, that's the first time we've done that in almost exactly two years, going all the way back to the 2021 UCLA game. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was our best game in two years. Last year's awful team had two games with results befitting a top 20 team. Taylor hasn't sniffed that yet and may or may not this season. But he did out-gain, on both a total yards and per play basis, a legitimate opponent. That's real progress.

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

4. I wasn't quite as impressed by the offense but there were glimmers. The offense did a tick worse than Mississippi State (solid offense) and UTEP (bad offense) on a yard per play basis, which is not good but better than we might have feared. The thing I'm noticing is that all four games this year have been in a narrow (about half a yard per play) window in the mid 5s in terms of yards per play. I don't want to read too much in to it just yet, especially as we haven't started playing elite defenses, but it seems like we might be getting a picture coming into some focus when it comes to Taylor's offense in a few respects. First, it's consistent. It's been pretty bad, which is no surprise given the talent and inexperience, but it kind of does the same thing each game so far. Second, the floor for Taylor's offense may be higher than the floor for Shawfense. All four games this year have had a better yards per play than the 2021 or 2022 Shawfense averages. That may change as competition goes up (we've only played the #60 schedule and eventually will be top ten in all likelihood) but so far we haven't had a game of complete offensive futility like the 14 games the last two years in which we had five or fewer yards per play. When you consider that those offenses were led by Tanner McKee, Drake Nugent, Mike Wilson, Ben Yurosek, and Elijah Higgins and now the offense is led by Ashton Daniels, Justin Lamson, Yurosek, Connor McLaughlin, and Elic Ayomanor, I think we may already be seeing evidence of improved offensive coaching. It's not going to show up in terms of actually good offensive output until a lot changes with our personnel and experience levels but there are signs. The actual output....not good. Only Northern Arizona has passed worse against Arizona. We did a bit better in yards per pass and passer rating than our average but that's likely because Arizona struggles on pass defense. If we don't improve the passing game will be a struggle all year. We don't play anyone the rest of the way with a worse yards per pass allowed than Arizona so it could get ugly, though Colorado, Oregon State, and Cal could be vulnerable in that phase if we improve. We can chalk up another data point that we're better on the ground than through the air. It was our least successful run game of the season (swapping Pale for Berzins is significant) but our yards per carry, even with all the sacks, was better than Arizona's average allowed and Arizona is the stoutest run defense we've faced (and in fact the lowest yards per carry allowed on our schedule outside UCLA and Oregon State). We're building something that doesn't suck in the run game.

5. This game provided clarity on how Taylor intends to play Daniels and Lamson. It's the passing QB who can run/break tendency in Daniels and the running QB who can pass/break tendency in Lamson, like how Taylor used Dunniway and O'Hara last year. As at Sacramento State, Taylor is perfectly willing (and it seems capable) of having them juggle responsibilities on a play-by-play basis, rather than series or drives or quarters or halves. The more segmented division of playing time in the earlier games may have been the audition phase and now that we know that neither is very good or very separated from the other, Taylor can move on to the 2022 Hornets model, albeit at a lower level of performance. This would drive me insane if I had to decide which QB to play on every down, but we know from past experience Taylor can do it. I can already tell this is going to be very controversial among Stanford fans but I don't mind it. Neither guy is good enough to end the competition and this way we get continued meaningful data points on both and some resilience if either gets injured. In terms of performance last night, among 133 QBs nationally this week Lamson's Total QBR was #71 and Daniels' was #87. Daniels played right on his average while this is the best we've seen Lamson. I continue to think nothing we've seen suggests either is more than a backup level bridge as they're both in the running to be the worst QB in the Pac-12. If we are going to see Daniels continue to get his name called on more pass plays, I really hope his decision-making gets better. He's been a bit of a bonehead this season. He got bailed out on yet another red zone interception due to the pass interference penalty, the illegal forward pass, and other plays that should make worries about his processing and decision-making persist, and that's not to mention the physical error on the missed 3rd down pass to Filkins that was probably the most pivotal play of the game along with Karty's misses (and that throw was easier than 50+ yard field goals). It's interesting that Daniels' snaps were so pass heavy (78 percent) and Lamson's were so run heavy (64 percent). I don't think we have a lot of evidence Daniels is such a better passer to warrant that (I do think evidence is mounting that Lamson has a better knack for using his legs to get us in better down and distance). I wonder if Taylor may be setting up some tendency breaking calls later. It's also possible that Arizona's relative strengths and weaknesses and us playing without Pale led to a bit more of a passing-focused play calling than we would see against some other teams. In any case, I'm not going to have strong views on who should be playing QB until one of these guys can have a good game. The closest either has come is Daniels against Hawaii, but after seeing New Mexico State's proficiency against Hawaii I'm not sure how good even that game was. Still waiting for either of these guys to really prove anything.

While BoT has in the meantime appointed an Interim Pres, this Committee is charged with search for finalists as Univ President.
I know nothing about any of these search committee appointees. Hopefully some at least have a concern/interest in strength of Football, Basketball along with overall appreciation for and the provision of a sound basis for all Stanford athletics, and select candidates accordingly. We'll see who they come up with.

I don't know if this is a thread topic that would interest anyone, but I figured some might find it interesting since Cal is the rival school who is joining Stanford in the ACC next season. A UC Berkeley task force has recommended that going forward, Cal be known as "Cal Berkeley" in athletics.

I personally feel like they should lean into "California" as much as possible in athletics. It's just the way it's always been and if anything, I think they should highlight the fact that they are the flagship school of the UC system, hence the name California. Number two on my list would just be to cal themselves UC Berkeley just because they are right that the two names have been a source of confusion over the years. "Cal Berkeley" I think is the worst of the three options and it's the option that very well might win out.

Anyways, what thoughts do you all have? I turned this into a poll and gave you all a fourth option that of course won't be considered, but some of you might appreciate that I included.

Did an analysis on another board and don't want to lose it so copying here for easier reference later and in case anybody here is interested in my idle musings. Context is somebody saying "I am not sure that long "rebuilding" efforts can work anymore, in the era of the transfer pandemic. I'm not even sure that most programs can be successful by primarily recruiting high school students, when their toughest competition recruits experienced and proven college-level winners. I hope, for Stanford's sake, that the traditional approach can be made to work at this one unique university, even if it is no longer the norm elsewhere."

To which I posted:

To what extent does your prediction account for the change in transfer rules now supposedly only allowing players to transfer without penalty once, barring extreme circumstances? That seems like it could be a fundamental change. Part of why the "transfer pandemic" has been so revolutionary is how efficient it makes the talent market. Going from essentially unlimited transfers to one transfer seems like it could change all that big time.


My brain isn't big enough to game out what this could mean for Stanford. I could see it benefiting us by making high school recruiting more important than it was for the 2022 and 2023 seasons. I could see it hurting us by making our players, who mostly are at their first school, very attractive to poaching by others. I could see it having impacts I can't predict. I could see if affecting the landscape one way one year and another the next.


My hunch is that regardless of how it plays out there will still be a place for high school recruiting, good coaching, culture....in other words the various models that have traditionally allowed for winning will still succeed to some degree. The norm may become transfer shopping but it won't be the exclusive model. Further, I would hypothesize that the combination of high school and transfer recruiting will matter more than who wins the transfer portal. To look into this, I thought I might look at this year, when the transfer landscape was at its peak and not regulated in the way it supposedly will be going forward. Here are the top 25 teams in Sagarin at the moment with two numbers listed, the On3 transfer portal ranking (ranking net inflow/outflow of transfer talent) and the 247 talent composite ranking (ranking teams based on their full rosters inclusive of high school recruits and transfers):


1. Alabama - 66, 1
2. Ohio State - 37, 3
3. Georgia - 62, 2
4. Oklahoma - 24, 9
5. Penn State - 44, 13
6. Texas - 36, 6
7. Michigan - 23, 14
8. Oregon - 16, 10
9. Washington - 17, 26
10. USC - 3, 8
11. Notre Dame - 50, 11
12. Texas A&M - 68, 4
13. Ole Miss - 6, 23
14. Kansas State - 29, 68
15. Florida State - 10, 20
16. Tennessee - 27, 16
17. LSU - 9, 7
18. Utah - 31, 33
19. Wisconsin - 8, 30
20. TCU - 18, 19
21. North Carolina - 33, 17
22. Clemson - 65, 5
23. Miami - 12, 12
24. Oregon State - 34, 56
25. UCLA - 4, 24


[For perspective: 102. Stanford - 69, 37]


Only 13 of the top 25 teams were top 25 in the transfer portal, which compares to 20 being top 25 in the talent rankings (anybody still think it's not Jessies and Joes when 80 percent of the top 25 can be predicted by recruiting rankings?).

The top 25 includes 8 teams that were below average in the transfer portal, all of whom were elite overall talent composite teams. The closest thing to an outlier in that respect is Oregon State, totally mediocre in the transfer portal and well below average in total on paper talent.


The Beavers are instructive outliers here. It is still possible to have a very good team based on Xs and Os and culture. Jonathan Smith is a hell of a coach. As you can see above, this model is also succeeding at Kansas State....and that's it. Smith and Chris Klieman are excellent coaches that should have a lot of suitors. But they're outliers. Only two of the top 25 programs don't belong in terms of on paper composite talent. RIP Xs and Os as the major explanation for success.


When I look at this - again, a year at the apex of transfer portal salience and chaos - it seems clear to me that the overriding factor in college football competitiveness is not the transfer portal at all but rather the blue bloods that always compete at the top are continuing to compete at the top, transfer portal be damned. Because it's extremely hard to break into that group if you're not already one of those programs, some look to inspired coaching hires to overcome talent deficits. But it's hard to identify the next Smith or Klieman, and even if you do it's tough to hold on to a coach like that.


To me the model to aspire to is something like what Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin are accomplishing. Be ambitious enough to demand good coaching and then pair it with good enough recruiting. If you can recruit in the upper half of Power Five football - even if just barely - and have enough pride in the program not to accept results worse than that, you can be a relevant program. Stanford had that going on for almost a decade but when the results slipped we didn't have any pride to demand better. I think we can and should do more to put ourselves in position to be like the Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin types of the world. But we don't act with that level of ambition. When Washington had an opening, they got a supernova Group of Five coach who had also won three NAIA national championships. When Wisconsin had an opening, they got one of the most proven and long-coveted coaches in the nation. When it was our turn, we went with a guy with three years of FCS coaching experience. We choose to roll the dice and hope to strike gold like the Oregon States and Kansas States of the world. Much lower probability of success, and I think that should be beneath the Home of Champions.

P.S. Not to say I'm anywhere close to giving up on Taylor being a home run. I liked him quite a bit as far as bargain hires go and I think we have a chance, just making a broader point and what I really wanted to do in this analysis is point out the narrow but plausible path to relevance for teams that don't have elite talent.

Read that here.

Sad news that Buddy Teevens has passed away, succumbing to injuries sustained in a cycling accident a while back. Way too soon. Condolences to his family and the Dartmouth (and Stanford) family.

Read that here.

Read that here.

Read that here.

Have not seen much chatter about our upcoming game tomorrow.

I look to the wisdom of others here as to what I should be looking for in the game, intel on standout opposing players, matchups, any storylines, etc.

Any insights appreciated.

Halftime: Oregon 35, Colorado 0

Read that here.

maybe it had been put in sometime earlier (and I had somehow missed it), but saw at last night's on-the-field Stanford tix-holders BarBQ that it is now all artificial turf. No longer real grass... which I understand suffered a lot due to shaded from stand's steepness, drainage issues, etc.
Is this new for this season?... or had I missed it earlier?