1. At least the Giants won. The bottom line is that Arizona State is a much better team. I said going in that last night was the toughest game of the season and that's what it looked like. We were outmatched. Frankly, we did well to keep it a three score game. Doing so against that opponent (probably a New Year's Six team) on the road in a game in which our star QB threw three interceptions bodes ok for our competitiveness going forward against lesser teams. We're a mediocre team that will play mediocre opponents the rest of the season (sole exception being Notre Dame, and it's not like they're great). 3-3 appropriately sums up what we are and the second half of the season looks like a bunch of games that will be dog fights between mangy dogs. That should be more fun to watch than being outplayed in all phases by a better team.
2. We actually played Arizona State tough and are just not as good as they are. Our 5.7 yards per play is the most any team has had against them this year and over a yard per play better than their average allowed. BYU and UCLA are credible offenses and we moved the ball better than they did. On defense, 6.4 yards per play allowed is the second stingiest they've faced, though they've faced crappy defenses. Much was rightfully made about Stanford getting across midfield 10 times and only mustering 10 points out of that. Rather than being a reversal of our ability to score in the red zone (where we scored 10 points in two opportunities), the issue is that we made it across the 50 but almost never past the 30. This is just more evidence of what we've seen all season that the offense isn't good enough to reliably move the chains. While yesterday the drives stalled a startling number of times in that particular 20 yards of the field, they've been stalling all season.
3. I view it as a similar dynamic on both sides of the ball: we're competitive and can make plays but we're too mediocre to sustain success. The mediocrity, especially up front, eventually catches up to us. The dynamic is pretty obvious on offense because of how palpable how much the line holds back what should be a great offense otherwise. But I think it's a similar story on defense. Much has been made about "consistency" and playing a complete 60 minute game and the supposed mystery of why the offense has long stretches of ineffectiveness or why the defense often can't "start fast" before it settles down and becomes respectably stingy. I don't think it's any mystery. We're just not very good.
4. On both sides of the ball the main problem is crystal clear: the trenches. To be more specific, it's the performance of the big guys on running plays. In this game, we had 0.7 yards per carry, the second worst of Shaw's life (2019 Washington State the worst for those interested in reminiscing about ineptitude), although that speaks not only to run blocking challenges (3.2 yards per carry by the running backs) but also difficulties avoiding sacks. On defense, we gave up 5.8 yards per carry, which is the second worst anybody has done against Arizona State (and they've played pretty bad run defenses). Folks are understandably wondering about Heffernan given the performance so far (and many of us have long more than wondered about Reynolds.....dude must go). I suspect there have been transition costs/friction moving from one coach to another (and three OL coaches in five years) and just as Carberry settled in after two years Heffernan could too, if he stays that long. I have also been vocal about the damage we have done to our competitiveness by operating a pipeline that, for various reasons, never has senior offensive linemen anymore. The loss of Dalman, Little, and Sarell was colossal. And I don't think anybody can or should look at our team and think the transition from Shannon Turley to Cullen Carroll has been anything other than an unmitigated disaster. From the eye test of how guys look getting off the bus to the push we (don't) get on both lines to the frequency of injuries in recent years, standing up for our #SetTheExpectation/code of conduct expectations with regard to Turley's behavior has had highly detrimental impacts on the bodies of our players. That may or may not even be much of an indictment of our decision (since it's arguable we didn't have a choice) or of Carroll's quality (since Turley left shoes impossible to fill). But it's something that affects the team.
5. That being said, we could have won this game had we gotten average McKee. A pick six plus two interceptions inside the opponent's 35 changes the scoreboard massively. In a three score game, I'd go as far as too say the USC/Vandy/UCLA McKee probably would have won this game. That might be the most optimistic way to look at yesterday's game. McKee really gives us a chance against everybody. Alas, yesterday he was "uneven," as Shaw put it. McKee made so many big-time throws (like, an insane amount.....Andre Ware couldn't help slobbering even despite the picks). Nonetheless, McKee has now had his two worst games the last two weeks. In this one there were of course the interceptions (the first one completely on Starr, sucked to see McKee's interception drought end on a great pass by him) but he also missed some throws. Most alarming to me, his Achilles' heel is becoming apparent: a lack of pocket presence to avoid sacks and extend plays. Sacks are a QB stat and McKee has gone down a fair bit this season where others wouldn't. He is 81st of 126 QBs in the sack component of Total QBR. Really hope he can get better at this. But I do want to keep in perspective how good McKee is overall. Even in his worst game, his 120.45 passer rating is better than the Sun Devil norm allowed. Andrew Luck had four worse performances than this in his first year as a starter. We could have won with McKee at his best but we wouldn't have any chance at all without McKee.
6. Overall the pass defense added to its case of being one of the team's biggest strengths, but there were blemishes. Arizona State's 124.79 passer rating was their worst since the season opener last year and we held them to nearly two yards per attempt less than their season average. I continue to be very happy with the pass defense. Still, they struggled to get off the field on third down. Williamson gave up a first down on 3rd and 6 on the first drive as well as an 11 yard gain on 3rd and 12 only to have his bacon saved by the subsequent 4th down stop. Toomer and Wyrick also gave up conversions on 3rd and long. Ultimately, two of the three Sun Devil offensive touchdowns came after our 3rd and long pass defense failures.
7. Many fans were irritated at Shaw's punts in Sun Devil territory. I can appreciate the desire to see more guts and risk taking, especially against a demonstrably better team. While I'm generally more of a fan than most of Shaw's ability to play for incremental advantage, that doesn't make any sense when you're flat-out outmatched by the other team as was the case last night. But let's be real, Shaw didn't have many choices yesterday. 4th and 5 at the 39 I’d have liked to see Shaw go for it, but that was also at a stage where the tenor of the game wasn't established and it was reasonable for Shaw to play field position. Other than that, what's he going to do, go for it on 4th and 16, 13, or 10? Blame Ungar and Hinton for those stalled drives. Shaw did go for it on 4th and 6 and 4th and 8 when we were desperate.
8. My bigger gripe with our punting is that too often this season it is making meager field position difference because Sanborn just hasn't been great. He had one touchback and several punts on a short field where he couldn't pin ASU even defensibly back. Shaw defended those punts post-game by saying that the plan was to kick it high and prevent punt returns but I'm sorry net punts of 26, 25 (20 inclusive of the penalty), 32, and 20 yards just doesn't cut it. There's no choice but to give Sanborn a game ball because he stepped in and performed triple duty, playing well in his secondary and tertiary responsibilities, but punting has been a liability for us.
9. Great games by Yurosek and Higgins. They are currently two of the top 12 receiving weapons in the Pac-12 and both are trending dramatically upward. As many of us have been predicting would happen, Yurosek exploded on the scene. His catches and yards after the catch were big-time, clearly next in line as a Stanford NFL tight end. He is putting himself in the Smith/Ertz/Fleener conversation and as a second year player is already a bigger weapon than Parkinson, Schultz, Hooper, Toilolo, or Hewitt ever were. Higgins is looking like the level of weapon Arcega-Whiteside and Montgomery were. These two are quite good. Hopefully we get a few more years of them.
10. Gabe Reid is having a great year. PFF views him as the best performer on the team and the fifth best edge defender in the Pac-12. I don't think they're wrong how well he’s playing. Yesterday he had a run stop near the line of scrimmage, a tackle for loss to force a punt to start the second half, and 1.5 fourth quarter tackles for loss. Playing very well.
11. Game balls: Yurosek, Reid, Sanborn, Anderson
12. This game changed nothing about how I think about the team. We're mediocre. Things would be bleak without McKee. The defense is gritty and plays within its strengths and weaknesses but can't lock an opponent down from whistle to whistle. The offensive line is not good enough to reliably sustain drives. We don't give up. This is going to add up to a grind just to get to a bowl. I don't see goals beyond that as realistic but am glad the team disagrees. To my mind, the Washington State game is key because we're not good enough to count on a win and without it the path to a bowl looks difficult. Time to bounce back. If the players and coaches want us to believe the team is better than what they've shown they need to bounce back big.
2. We actually played Arizona State tough and are just not as good as they are. Our 5.7 yards per play is the most any team has had against them this year and over a yard per play better than their average allowed. BYU and UCLA are credible offenses and we moved the ball better than they did. On defense, 6.4 yards per play allowed is the second stingiest they've faced, though they've faced crappy defenses. Much was rightfully made about Stanford getting across midfield 10 times and only mustering 10 points out of that. Rather than being a reversal of our ability to score in the red zone (where we scored 10 points in two opportunities), the issue is that we made it across the 50 but almost never past the 30. This is just more evidence of what we've seen all season that the offense isn't good enough to reliably move the chains. While yesterday the drives stalled a startling number of times in that particular 20 yards of the field, they've been stalling all season.
3. I view it as a similar dynamic on both sides of the ball: we're competitive and can make plays but we're too mediocre to sustain success. The mediocrity, especially up front, eventually catches up to us. The dynamic is pretty obvious on offense because of how palpable how much the line holds back what should be a great offense otherwise. But I think it's a similar story on defense. Much has been made about "consistency" and playing a complete 60 minute game and the supposed mystery of why the offense has long stretches of ineffectiveness or why the defense often can't "start fast" before it settles down and becomes respectably stingy. I don't think it's any mystery. We're just not very good.
4. On both sides of the ball the main problem is crystal clear: the trenches. To be more specific, it's the performance of the big guys on running plays. In this game, we had 0.7 yards per carry, the second worst of Shaw's life (2019 Washington State the worst for those interested in reminiscing about ineptitude), although that speaks not only to run blocking challenges (3.2 yards per carry by the running backs) but also difficulties avoiding sacks. On defense, we gave up 5.8 yards per carry, which is the second worst anybody has done against Arizona State (and they've played pretty bad run defenses). Folks are understandably wondering about Heffernan given the performance so far (and many of us have long more than wondered about Reynolds.....dude must go). I suspect there have been transition costs/friction moving from one coach to another (and three OL coaches in five years) and just as Carberry settled in after two years Heffernan could too, if he stays that long. I have also been vocal about the damage we have done to our competitiveness by operating a pipeline that, for various reasons, never has senior offensive linemen anymore. The loss of Dalman, Little, and Sarell was colossal. And I don't think anybody can or should look at our team and think the transition from Shannon Turley to Cullen Carroll has been anything other than an unmitigated disaster. From the eye test of how guys look getting off the bus to the push we (don't) get on both lines to the frequency of injuries in recent years, standing up for our #SetTheExpectation/code of conduct expectations with regard to Turley's behavior has had highly detrimental impacts on the bodies of our players. That may or may not even be much of an indictment of our decision (since it's arguable we didn't have a choice) or of Carroll's quality (since Turley left shoes impossible to fill). But it's something that affects the team.
5. That being said, we could have won this game had we gotten average McKee. A pick six plus two interceptions inside the opponent's 35 changes the scoreboard massively. In a three score game, I'd go as far as too say the USC/Vandy/UCLA McKee probably would have won this game. That might be the most optimistic way to look at yesterday's game. McKee really gives us a chance against everybody. Alas, yesterday he was "uneven," as Shaw put it. McKee made so many big-time throws (like, an insane amount.....Andre Ware couldn't help slobbering even despite the picks). Nonetheless, McKee has now had his two worst games the last two weeks. In this one there were of course the interceptions (the first one completely on Starr, sucked to see McKee's interception drought end on a great pass by him) but he also missed some throws. Most alarming to me, his Achilles' heel is becoming apparent: a lack of pocket presence to avoid sacks and extend plays. Sacks are a QB stat and McKee has gone down a fair bit this season where others wouldn't. He is 81st of 126 QBs in the sack component of Total QBR. Really hope he can get better at this. But I do want to keep in perspective how good McKee is overall. Even in his worst game, his 120.45 passer rating is better than the Sun Devil norm allowed. Andrew Luck had four worse performances than this in his first year as a starter. We could have won with McKee at his best but we wouldn't have any chance at all without McKee.
6. Overall the pass defense added to its case of being one of the team's biggest strengths, but there were blemishes. Arizona State's 124.79 passer rating was their worst since the season opener last year and we held them to nearly two yards per attempt less than their season average. I continue to be very happy with the pass defense. Still, they struggled to get off the field on third down. Williamson gave up a first down on 3rd and 6 on the first drive as well as an 11 yard gain on 3rd and 12 only to have his bacon saved by the subsequent 4th down stop. Toomer and Wyrick also gave up conversions on 3rd and long. Ultimately, two of the three Sun Devil offensive touchdowns came after our 3rd and long pass defense failures.
7. Many fans were irritated at Shaw's punts in Sun Devil territory. I can appreciate the desire to see more guts and risk taking, especially against a demonstrably better team. While I'm generally more of a fan than most of Shaw's ability to play for incremental advantage, that doesn't make any sense when you're flat-out outmatched by the other team as was the case last night. But let's be real, Shaw didn't have many choices yesterday. 4th and 5 at the 39 I’d have liked to see Shaw go for it, but that was also at a stage where the tenor of the game wasn't established and it was reasonable for Shaw to play field position. Other than that, what's he going to do, go for it on 4th and 16, 13, or 10? Blame Ungar and Hinton for those stalled drives. Shaw did go for it on 4th and 6 and 4th and 8 when we were desperate.
8. My bigger gripe with our punting is that too often this season it is making meager field position difference because Sanborn just hasn't been great. He had one touchback and several punts on a short field where he couldn't pin ASU even defensibly back. Shaw defended those punts post-game by saying that the plan was to kick it high and prevent punt returns but I'm sorry net punts of 26, 25 (20 inclusive of the penalty), 32, and 20 yards just doesn't cut it. There's no choice but to give Sanborn a game ball because he stepped in and performed triple duty, playing well in his secondary and tertiary responsibilities, but punting has been a liability for us.
9. Great games by Yurosek and Higgins. They are currently two of the top 12 receiving weapons in the Pac-12 and both are trending dramatically upward. As many of us have been predicting would happen, Yurosek exploded on the scene. His catches and yards after the catch were big-time, clearly next in line as a Stanford NFL tight end. He is putting himself in the Smith/Ertz/Fleener conversation and as a second year player is already a bigger weapon than Parkinson, Schultz, Hooper, Toilolo, or Hewitt ever were. Higgins is looking like the level of weapon Arcega-Whiteside and Montgomery were. These two are quite good. Hopefully we get a few more years of them.
10. Gabe Reid is having a great year. PFF views him as the best performer on the team and the fifth best edge defender in the Pac-12. I don't think they're wrong how well he’s playing. Yesterday he had a run stop near the line of scrimmage, a tackle for loss to force a punt to start the second half, and 1.5 fourth quarter tackles for loss. Playing very well.
11. Game balls: Yurosek, Reid, Sanborn, Anderson
12. This game changed nothing about how I think about the team. We're mediocre. Things would be bleak without McKee. The defense is gritty and plays within its strengths and weaknesses but can't lock an opponent down from whistle to whistle. The offensive line is not good enough to reliably sustain drives. We don't give up. This is going to add up to a grind just to get to a bowl. I don't see goals beyond that as realistic but am glad the team disagrees. To my mind, the Washington State game is key because we're not good enough to count on a win and without it the path to a bowl looks difficult. Time to bounce back. If the players and coaches want us to believe the team is better than what they've shown they need to bounce back big.
