1. We needed that! Just when we thought there was no joy in Mudville and the team was at risk of mutiny, the good guys go out and win not only a home game but one against a ranked opponent playing for an outside shot at the playoff. It is Stanford's first win against a ranked opponent since the 2021 Oregon game (2022 Notre Dame played well enough after losing to us to become ranked but was not ranked at the time we beat them) and first such win this late in a season since the 2017 Notre Dame game. We just don't knock off real contenders like this. Thrilling, to say the least. It's especially sweet to break the appalling drought at home against legitimate opposition, and on Senior Day at that. This is the first home win against an FBS opponent since the Arizona State game in 2022 more than two years ago and only the third in the last 1,847 days, a more than five year stretch. Winning on a walk-off kick after a dramatic comeback from 14 points down is the height of catharsis, most of all for the players who have toiled in such futility for so long but also for the few fans who continue to support the program, especially those who made it out to the game. We shouldn't be under any illusions that this is anything but a terrible team or that one day turned things around - we are now Sagarin #104 and SP+ #103, still in the running as one of the worst teams in Stanford history, and we still have not had a game playing like a top 25 team (our games this year have been befitting the #76, #66, #28, #113, #158, #147, #165, #113, #204, and #30 teams in the nation) - but that is a great win considering opponent, fashion, occasion, and impact on morale.
2. In thinking about the much-needed and much-appreciated boost to morale, my mind immediately goes to how credibly the coaches can sell this to players hungry for belief as not only reward for hard work but also as a reflection of team-wide contributions. There were failings in each phase, to be sure (more on that below), but much more salient in a win is that there were major contributions in each phase. On some level, this game was won on the backs of individual performances such as those that get the game balls but even still it wasn't a case where it's hard to identify a standout or two in any phase. Each unit did something to chip in. Most importantly, the win came down to battling with a superior opponent grittily and consistently enough to be in a position to capitalize when that opponent made self-defeating mistakes. When we hear about teams learning how to win this is what that means. And to the extent Taylor is selling/spinning a narrative that the team's level of performance flies in the face of serious adversity, pulling this off on a day without numerous starters, including Wright and Sinclair, helps build belief in the narrative.
3. In my view, this game came down to four things: penalties, time of possession, fourth down brilliance, and remarkable individual performances. There was a huge discrepancy between the undisciplined Cardinals committing 13 penalties for 102 yards compared to the disciplined Cardinal committing 3 penalties for 30 yards. As Taylor noted in the post-game press conference in classily declining to pile on to Brohm's end-of-game management, the reason the sequence doomed Louisville is because they subsequently committed multiple (idiotic) penalties that gave us a chance on the game-winning field goal. We wouldn't have won without Louisville's lack of discipline throughout the game and especially late. The stats are reflective of Louisville having the edge on us aside from penalties. Nonetheless, one of the big stories of the game in my view is that it was an edge for Louisville, not a dramatic advantage, and we smartly neutralized that edge by dominating time of possession (35+ minutes, an extra drive than Louisville had, and 71 plays, which were five more than both Louisville in this game and our season average in 2024). Against all odds (seriously, oddsmakers had this one as a no-hoper for us and in fact more moneyline bets were placed on Louisville than any other team in the country this week), we kept this one to an edge for Louisville rather than a dramatic advantage because of stellar execution on fourth downs and standout performances by a few individuals. On defense, we had a third quarter turnover on downs due to buckling down on 2nd and 2 and connecting three consecutive good plays. On offense, we were three for three in insanely high-leverage fourth down situations: 4th down from our own 34 on the first drive of the game, the back of the endzone touchdown on 4th and goal from the 4, and the play of the game with the game-tying touchdown on 4th and 1 from the 25 (shades of Pritchard to Sherman for me). And ultimately, as true as all of the above is, a top 30 team lost to a not-top 100 team in no small part due to individual brilliance that will get their flowers below.
4. Offense and defense both competed quite credibly given the level of opponent. Both the Stanford offense and the Louisville offense scored 2.92 points per drive, a result I will take any time against this opponent. The Stanford offense's effort made the #82 points per drive defense look like the #112 points per drive defense while the Stanford defense's effort made the #23 points per drive offense look like the #20 points per drive offense. Our offense averaged 5.72 yards per play, the best we've done against an FBS opponent other than NC State and above average compared to Louisville's opponents (SMU, Miami, and Georgia Tech did better). A good case can be made that this is the best we've done on offense against a competent defense in the Taylor era. The defense held its own against Louisville, the best yards per play offense on our schedule. We played them tough enough for it to be a middling performance by our yards per play defense and a good one compared to their schedule, holding them to .31 yards per play under their season average (Notre Dame, Clemson, and Miami did better).
5. We did better in the passing phases than the running phases. On offense, this was our highest FBS game passer rating and second highest yards per attempt of the season and the highest passer rating Louisville has given up and fourth highest yards per attempt. Louisville doesn't have a good pass defense but we've faced worse (Syracuse, Wake) and this was a good performance both by our standards and compared to how others do. In contrast, our run game was pitiful, the worst we've done aside from SMU but at least SMU has an elite run defense. Can't say the same for Louisville. We rushed for 56.5 yards and 1.55 yards per carry less than the Louisville norm allowed, the worst any non-Austin Peay team has done this year. It is hard to square this with it being such a good offensive performance for us overall, especially since it's not like we abandoned the run. In fact, 37 rushes is just about exactly (slightly higher even) our season average of 36.5 rushes per game. I am left thinking the standout individual offensive performance really goes an enormous part of the way in explaining the offensive success (I know, I am leaving you all in such suspense on whose performance that was).
6. Defense gave us the stat of the week: yesterday was the best we've done in passer rating allowed or yards per attempt allowed even including Cal Poly. Among Louisville's opponents, only Clemson did clearly better than us in pass defense and we were roughly comparable to how Notre Dame, Virginia, and Miami did. Shough is a top 20 percent QB nationally (#25 in America) and we made him look not quite that good (top 36 percent). This all happened with our best cover guy (Wright) out and no sacks (and an insanely pathetic eight pressures total, the lowest we've had all season and a number that beggars belief). Plus PFF didn't even grade our coverage as doing well, and Louisville had two 100+ yard receivers. Very hard to make sense of how our pass efficiency defense stats were so good (certainly it made a big difference to only give up one passing touchdown, but we were good on YPA too). It seems inescapable to me that the defensive coaches get a gold star for dialing this up with Wright, Sinclair, and Manley out. Run defense did not do as well statistically and this one will not go in the column of games where our run defense did better than the opponent norm, though the stats are skewed by giving up a 68 yard touchdown, 42 percent of Louisville's rushing output on the game. Still, we gave up a 68 yard rushing touchdown and that's bad. Nonetheless, I do consider it a bounce back from the run defense, especially considering Sinclair and Wright were out. For what it's worth, we are now all the way down to #90 in yards per carry allowed, still the best of our four main phases but now bad enough that we can't credibly say this team has any strengths.
2. In thinking about the much-needed and much-appreciated boost to morale, my mind immediately goes to how credibly the coaches can sell this to players hungry for belief as not only reward for hard work but also as a reflection of team-wide contributions. There were failings in each phase, to be sure (more on that below), but much more salient in a win is that there were major contributions in each phase. On some level, this game was won on the backs of individual performances such as those that get the game balls but even still it wasn't a case where it's hard to identify a standout or two in any phase. Each unit did something to chip in. Most importantly, the win came down to battling with a superior opponent grittily and consistently enough to be in a position to capitalize when that opponent made self-defeating mistakes. When we hear about teams learning how to win this is what that means. And to the extent Taylor is selling/spinning a narrative that the team's level of performance flies in the face of serious adversity, pulling this off on a day without numerous starters, including Wright and Sinclair, helps build belief in the narrative.
3. In my view, this game came down to four things: penalties, time of possession, fourth down brilliance, and remarkable individual performances. There was a huge discrepancy between the undisciplined Cardinals committing 13 penalties for 102 yards compared to the disciplined Cardinal committing 3 penalties for 30 yards. As Taylor noted in the post-game press conference in classily declining to pile on to Brohm's end-of-game management, the reason the sequence doomed Louisville is because they subsequently committed multiple (idiotic) penalties that gave us a chance on the game-winning field goal. We wouldn't have won without Louisville's lack of discipline throughout the game and especially late. The stats are reflective of Louisville having the edge on us aside from penalties. Nonetheless, one of the big stories of the game in my view is that it was an edge for Louisville, not a dramatic advantage, and we smartly neutralized that edge by dominating time of possession (35+ minutes, an extra drive than Louisville had, and 71 plays, which were five more than both Louisville in this game and our season average in 2024). Against all odds (seriously, oddsmakers had this one as a no-hoper for us and in fact more moneyline bets were placed on Louisville than any other team in the country this week), we kept this one to an edge for Louisville rather than a dramatic advantage because of stellar execution on fourth downs and standout performances by a few individuals. On defense, we had a third quarter turnover on downs due to buckling down on 2nd and 2 and connecting three consecutive good plays. On offense, we were three for three in insanely high-leverage fourth down situations: 4th down from our own 34 on the first drive of the game, the back of the endzone touchdown on 4th and goal from the 4, and the play of the game with the game-tying touchdown on 4th and 1 from the 25 (shades of Pritchard to Sherman for me). And ultimately, as true as all of the above is, a top 30 team lost to a not-top 100 team in no small part due to individual brilliance that will get their flowers below.
4. Offense and defense both competed quite credibly given the level of opponent. Both the Stanford offense and the Louisville offense scored 2.92 points per drive, a result I will take any time against this opponent. The Stanford offense's effort made the #82 points per drive defense look like the #112 points per drive defense while the Stanford defense's effort made the #23 points per drive offense look like the #20 points per drive offense. Our offense averaged 5.72 yards per play, the best we've done against an FBS opponent other than NC State and above average compared to Louisville's opponents (SMU, Miami, and Georgia Tech did better). A good case can be made that this is the best we've done on offense against a competent defense in the Taylor era. The defense held its own against Louisville, the best yards per play offense on our schedule. We played them tough enough for it to be a middling performance by our yards per play defense and a good one compared to their schedule, holding them to .31 yards per play under their season average (Notre Dame, Clemson, and Miami did better).
5. We did better in the passing phases than the running phases. On offense, this was our highest FBS game passer rating and second highest yards per attempt of the season and the highest passer rating Louisville has given up and fourth highest yards per attempt. Louisville doesn't have a good pass defense but we've faced worse (Syracuse, Wake) and this was a good performance both by our standards and compared to how others do. In contrast, our run game was pitiful, the worst we've done aside from SMU but at least SMU has an elite run defense. Can't say the same for Louisville. We rushed for 56.5 yards and 1.55 yards per carry less than the Louisville norm allowed, the worst any non-Austin Peay team has done this year. It is hard to square this with it being such a good offensive performance for us overall, especially since it's not like we abandoned the run. In fact, 37 rushes is just about exactly (slightly higher even) our season average of 36.5 rushes per game. I am left thinking the standout individual offensive performance really goes an enormous part of the way in explaining the offensive success (I know, I am leaving you all in such suspense on whose performance that was).
6. Defense gave us the stat of the week: yesterday was the best we've done in passer rating allowed or yards per attempt allowed even including Cal Poly. Among Louisville's opponents, only Clemson did clearly better than us in pass defense and we were roughly comparable to how Notre Dame, Virginia, and Miami did. Shough is a top 20 percent QB nationally (#25 in America) and we made him look not quite that good (top 36 percent). This all happened with our best cover guy (Wright) out and no sacks (and an insanely pathetic eight pressures total, the lowest we've had all season and a number that beggars belief). Plus PFF didn't even grade our coverage as doing well, and Louisville had two 100+ yard receivers. Very hard to make sense of how our pass efficiency defense stats were so good (certainly it made a big difference to only give up one passing touchdown, but we were good on YPA too). It seems inescapable to me that the defensive coaches get a gold star for dialing this up with Wright, Sinclair, and Manley out. Run defense did not do as well statistically and this one will not go in the column of games where our run defense did better than the opponent norm, though the stats are skewed by giving up a 68 yard touchdown, 42 percent of Louisville's rushing output on the game. Still, we gave up a 68 yard rushing touchdown and that's bad. Nonetheless, I do consider it a bounce back from the run defense, especially considering Sinclair and Wright were out. For what it's worth, we are now all the way down to #90 in yards per carry allowed, still the best of our four main phases but now bad enough that we can't credibly say this team has any strengths.
