1. Frustrating missed opportunity to make this season feel like progress. It always stinks to lose Big Game but considering this year's team has been one of the worst in Stanford history I was actually somewhat encouraged to see us play a mediocre team more or less credibly in all phases. This year we ended up playing the solid but not great echelon of our schedule - TCU, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Cal - fairly competently, with the Virginia Tech game the only embarrassing one. It has been the weak FBS teams - Wake Forest and NC State - where we beclowned ourselves (which hopefully we can partially redeem against San Jose State). As inexcusable as it is to be the #97 team in the country, at least the last two games have been among our best of the season. [Our games this year have been befitting the #74, #65, #34, #115, #169, #144, #155, #118, #201, #27, and #54 teams in the nation.] With a product this bad one always has to look for signs of rot and demoralization so it is perhaps salutary that we have a chance to end the season on three relatively high notes. Nonetheless, it stings to miss the opportunity to change the narrative away from what seems like an increasingly hopeless program the longer this miserable string of three win seasons goes on.
2. A Big Game loss blowing an 11 point fourth quarter lead (14 points with a minute left in the third) will swamp any impulse to look at silver linings. They were there though. On the scoreboard, we scored 2.1 points per non-garbage drive, making the #39 points per drive defense look like the #58 point per drive defense and putting more points on the board than six Cal opponents, and we also gave up fewer points than six Cal opponents. The defense nearly beat out the Wake Forest game for the best yards per per play performance of the year (and Cal has a better offense than Wake), the fourth best a defense has done against Cal in both yards per play and scoring. We partied in the backfield 11 times, tied with last year's UCLA game for the most we've had in more than a decade (that is, since actual #PartyInTheBackfield days). We didn't commit a turnover (though I wouldn't crow too much about that as Daniels seemed pretty ball insecure). There were good things in this game. Of course, there were bad things too, in particular Weselman's catastrophic botched hold, the passing game after the first quarter, giving up a 50 yard QB run (and even more yardage due to a penalty), and giving up three 30 yard passes (two in the fourth quarter). But we looked like a mediocre team that came up a play short (pick any of those five I just mentioned or add a well-timed one for the passing game), which is a far cry from the terrible team we have been the vast majority of the time this season.
3. Cal has a great yards per play defense, #21 in the nation, and true to form the three stingiest defenses we faced in 2024 - Notre Dame, SMU, and Cal - were the three against which we had the most trouble getting yards per play. While it is understandable we would struggle to move the ball against Cal, our offensive struggles went beyond that, with only Oregon State struggling more than we did to gain yards. That means that FCS UC Davis and some of the worst offenses in FBS in Florida State, San Diego State, and Wake Forest all had more yards per play than we did. I am not going to sugarcoat that except to say we do get credit for scoring at a respectable clip, even with the (decisive two times over) six points left off the board due to the times we lined up for a field goal and got nothing. Our passing numbers were very ugly - and the touchdown was a trick play QB1 wasn't even on the field for - but Cal has one of the best pass defenses we play and we did marginally better in the air than we had against other tough pass defenses (Notre Dame, Clemson, TCU, SMU). We also had a better passer rating than five Cal opponents, though only better than two (including UC Davis) in yards per attempt. The passing performance was not good but some consideration needs to be given to opponent. Even more consideration needs to be given to opponent in terms of the run game as Cal has a great rushing defense - 14th in the nation - so we can be largely forgiven for the limited running efficacy. We were pretty middle of the road in terms of how teams run against Cal. I will take middle of the road as a positive since we have mostly been bad at rushing in the Taylor era. In short, our offense wasn't good but it was better than it usually is.
4. As I noted above, the defense did the fourth best a defense has done against Cal in both scoring and yards. On a points per drive basis it was a bit less impressive - 2.67 points per non-garbage drive, making the #71 points per drive offense look like the #31 points per drive offense - but by and large this was a defensive performance I will take. Cal has a very solid passing attack and we held them under our season average in passer rating allowed and yards per attempt allowed. Pass defense still ended up being a vulnerability for us (we did better than only 2-3 other teams in defending Cal's passing game) because good by our standards is still bad - on the season we are 127th in defensive passer rating and 126th in yards per attempt allowed. Still, we should acknowledge when we play better than our norm. In the run game, Syracuse is the only FBS team our run defense has bottled up more. Obviously all the partying in the backfield had a big hand in that. We held Cal under their season average, which was already quite pitiful. [This is the only time our run defense has done that in the last five games after starting the year with six consecutive such games. We are now 78th in yards per carry allowed, a relative strength of the team compared to being 107th in yards per carry, 113th in passer rating, and 127th in defensive passer rating. As I noted last week, though, there is nothing we are good at.] The big plays Nicholson and Wright gave up played a role in the loss but overall I don't think this was such a bad defensive performance.
2. A Big Game loss blowing an 11 point fourth quarter lead (14 points with a minute left in the third) will swamp any impulse to look at silver linings. They were there though. On the scoreboard, we scored 2.1 points per non-garbage drive, making the #39 points per drive defense look like the #58 point per drive defense and putting more points on the board than six Cal opponents, and we also gave up fewer points than six Cal opponents. The defense nearly beat out the Wake Forest game for the best yards per per play performance of the year (and Cal has a better offense than Wake), the fourth best a defense has done against Cal in both yards per play and scoring. We partied in the backfield 11 times, tied with last year's UCLA game for the most we've had in more than a decade (that is, since actual #PartyInTheBackfield days). We didn't commit a turnover (though I wouldn't crow too much about that as Daniels seemed pretty ball insecure). There were good things in this game. Of course, there were bad things too, in particular Weselman's catastrophic botched hold, the passing game after the first quarter, giving up a 50 yard QB run (and even more yardage due to a penalty), and giving up three 30 yard passes (two in the fourth quarter). But we looked like a mediocre team that came up a play short (pick any of those five I just mentioned or add a well-timed one for the passing game), which is a far cry from the terrible team we have been the vast majority of the time this season.
3. Cal has a great yards per play defense, #21 in the nation, and true to form the three stingiest defenses we faced in 2024 - Notre Dame, SMU, and Cal - were the three against which we had the most trouble getting yards per play. While it is understandable we would struggle to move the ball against Cal, our offensive struggles went beyond that, with only Oregon State struggling more than we did to gain yards. That means that FCS UC Davis and some of the worst offenses in FBS in Florida State, San Diego State, and Wake Forest all had more yards per play than we did. I am not going to sugarcoat that except to say we do get credit for scoring at a respectable clip, even with the (decisive two times over) six points left off the board due to the times we lined up for a field goal and got nothing. Our passing numbers were very ugly - and the touchdown was a trick play QB1 wasn't even on the field for - but Cal has one of the best pass defenses we play and we did marginally better in the air than we had against other tough pass defenses (Notre Dame, Clemson, TCU, SMU). We also had a better passer rating than five Cal opponents, though only better than two (including UC Davis) in yards per attempt. The passing performance was not good but some consideration needs to be given to opponent. Even more consideration needs to be given to opponent in terms of the run game as Cal has a great rushing defense - 14th in the nation - so we can be largely forgiven for the limited running efficacy. We were pretty middle of the road in terms of how teams run against Cal. I will take middle of the road as a positive since we have mostly been bad at rushing in the Taylor era. In short, our offense wasn't good but it was better than it usually is.
4. As I noted above, the defense did the fourth best a defense has done against Cal in both scoring and yards. On a points per drive basis it was a bit less impressive - 2.67 points per non-garbage drive, making the #71 points per drive offense look like the #31 points per drive offense - but by and large this was a defensive performance I will take. Cal has a very solid passing attack and we held them under our season average in passer rating allowed and yards per attempt allowed. Pass defense still ended up being a vulnerability for us (we did better than only 2-3 other teams in defending Cal's passing game) because good by our standards is still bad - on the season we are 127th in defensive passer rating and 126th in yards per attempt allowed. Still, we should acknowledge when we play better than our norm. In the run game, Syracuse is the only FBS team our run defense has bottled up more. Obviously all the partying in the backfield had a big hand in that. We held Cal under their season average, which was already quite pitiful. [This is the only time our run defense has done that in the last five games after starting the year with six consecutive such games. We are now 78th in yards per carry allowed, a relative strength of the team compared to being 107th in yards per carry, 113th in passer rating, and 127th in defensive passer rating. As I noted last week, though, there is nothing we are good at.] The big plays Nicholson and Wright gave up played a role in the loss but overall I don't think this was such a bad defensive performance.
