1. That one really stung. That was a fulcrum point in whether this season is more likely to be a fight to get bowl eligible or a fight for relevance nationally. To have an answer rendered toward the former stinks. We now will be playing spoiler rather than realistically fighting for big payoffs, although I haven't given up on an attractive bowl. What made this worse was how it happened - the better team didn’t necessarily win. For the second time in a month we lost a game principally because the offense took too long to settle down and play like itself. The pivotal plays were the first four plays of the game (plus the opening penalty): false start, three incompletions (including two McKee sailed, evidently not settled in yet), Phillips' long punt return. If those four plays went better we may have won. I definitely think we would have won if it hadn't taken six drives to get a first down.
2. That was a great win for UCLA. It very well could be the difference between a Rose Bowl or something much less for them, and there were three first quarter plays that got them there in my opinion (the aforementioned punt return and then the long 3rd and 16 run followed up immediately by catching us off guard with the quick going for it on 4th down in obvious punting territory, an incredibly ballsy signature Chip Kelly move). As with our slow start on offense, I don't think the flow of the game goes in UCLA's favor were it not for those plays. The reason these first quarter plays on both sides of the ball were pivotal was that UCLA did not outplay Stanford otherwise and there are myriad alternative scenarios in which these plays go differently and Stanford doesn't have to play from behind. Alas, these plays did go this way. The difference in the game was the combination of the execution failure of Stanford's offense not being ready to play for six freaking drives and the coaching differential of Kelly seizing the moment with the two play sequence at 3rd and 16 (contrasted with Shaw's 4th and short decision-making).
3. Again, what makes this sting is that Stanford generally outplayed UCLA. We had 6.7 yards per play to their 5.7. Not only was Stanford's yards per play the most any team has had against UCLA this year, but Stanford has had the top two offensive performances against UCLA in the last two seasons. On defense, Stanford had the best performance any team has had against UCLA this season and almost two yards per play better than LSU or Fresno State. We were flat out better than UCLA most of the game but lost the pivot points. Stanford is playing like a borderline top 25 team this season but won't be top 25 in real life this season because we didn't do what we needed to do in pivotal moments of two of the first four games. Beyond frustrating.
4. Tanner McKee's bifurcated game tells us most of what we need to know about why Stanford lost and why we may be as good or better than UCLA. Only one of his first eight passes gained positive yards and we had no first downs until halfway into the second quarter. But then he was excellent. Even with the terrible start he ended up #11 of 125 QBs nationally this week in Total QBR. He continues to be the best freshman we've ever seen and one of the best QBs in the nation. It was also nice to see the big damage he can do with his legs. Unfortunately, the spate of three and outs in the first half was a back-breaker in a game we knew would have to be a shootout given the team and coach we were playing.
5. We knew it would be difficult to get the run game going with three of the top four running backs out but nonetheless to only get two rushing first downs all game was extremely disappointing. Sadly, I think the Tunnel Workers Union is dead. On a single game basis, we actually didn't do as badly as it looked once you adjust for opponent as UCLA is turning out to have outstanding run defense this year (#5 in the nation). 3.0 yards per carry is much better than Hawaii and LSU mustered and essentially even with Fresno State. Our run game was better than it looked. However, zooming out toward a bigger picture makes me despondent about the state of OL play. This is the fourth straight year that we aren't even top 50 in the nation in yards per carry. Yards per game is even uglier: 112th this year, 93rd last year, 123rd in 2019, 123rd in 2018. There are Xs and Os as well as Jessies and Joes explanations. The OL has had two position coaching transitions, very little stability. The glory years of Stanford running giving way to being one of the worst running teams around tracks perfectly with Bloomgren’s departure, who maybe was better than our fans want to give him credit. But Bloomgren's departure also coincided with his complete failure to recruit OL for well over a calendar year, a devastating blow to the pipeline at a position dependent on seniority. We have zero fourth or fifth year OL this year and had two in both 2020 and 2019 (2018 was more of a quality issue). That compares to five in 2017, two in 2016 (saved by McCaffrey), six in 2015, two in 2014 (struggling run game), six in 2013, three in 2012, five in 2011, eight in 2010, and nine in 2009. You can't be brutish without brutes! Stanford's OL pipeline has been unhealthy for years.
6. We came into this game terrified about how our run defense would do and I'm here to tell you.....it wasn't bad! In fact, 4.0 yards per carry allowed is the best any team has done against UCLA this season and the best we've done in any game (over 1.5 yards per carry better than any other game). The argument UCLA would have handled us if they just ran every play doesn't track. UCLA actually ran against us more than they have in any game this year and had over half a yard less success per carry than their norm. In eight games Stanford has ever played against Chip Kelly teams, last night was actually the second stoutest we've ever been against the run. This is a performance to build on. If we held all teams to less than their running norm we'd be a great team.
7. The pass defense gave up 8.7 yards per attempt and a 157.53 rating, which is a major come down for us compared to the excellent pass defense this season (6.2 YPA allowed, 117.68 rating allowed). But it also was a significant come down for UCLA, which averages 10.3 YPA and a 175.17 rating. We defended the pass, even inclusive of the back-breaking bomb to Phillips, markedly better than LSU or Fresno State did. Our pass defense still looks like a clear strength. Considering that it came with five significant DBs out this pass defense is really becoming a testament to the next man up concept. Yesterday it was Toomer and Gilman. Toomer had played 11 snaps in the last three seasons and came out of nowhere to give us an excellent performance (PFF says the third best game by a Stanford DB this season). Gilman did not serve as the line of defense we needed on the Phillips bomb but otherwise was quite serviceable, including looking like a stud at the goal line on numerous plays.
8. That is what we need to see from Booker and Miezan! Booker was in on a massive amount of tackles for a lineman in our scheme and made them count. The two of them got DTR down on 3rd down to force UCLA's first punt. Miezan's solo tackle for loss and QB hurry came on another drive that led to a punt. Booker's sack pushed UCLA from chip shot range to something nervier, leading to a missed field goal. More of this, please.
9. The offense is too big play dependent. McKee's big arm and our ability to get big plays save our bacon regularly, but the ability to move the chains drive in and drive out is terribly lacking. We dominate in the red zone (seventh in the nation in touchdown conversions) but very rarely give ourselves a chance to operate in that part of the field (100th in red zone opportunities). Considering we are #38 in yards per play but 121st in first downs per game, you can see how much of our offense is big plays rather than routinely being able to move the chains. I'm thrilled we have the big plays in our arsenal, I jut wish we were better on the typical plays. Speaking of big plays, very exciting to see Farrell and his speed validated as a bona fide weapon. One huge touchdown, another big catch, and big plays in both the kick and punt return (though largely an issue of out-kicking the coverage) game. Good to have that speed, especially if we are going to have to depend on big plays.
10. With the asterisk that it's possible the Phillips punt return was a function of out kicking coverage, Sanborn had an NFL punter quality game. Major asset in the field position battle. We need Karty to be better. Yeah, it's great to see the massive leg. But close only counts in horse shoes and nuclear war. If a kicker has enough leg that you'll confidently trot him out from 50+ yards but not enough accuracy that he'll actually make it, that is a detriment to the team as it sacrifices either the opportunity cost of going for it and giving yourself a chance for 4-7 more points or the field position game that could be won through punting. Karty is 85th in the country in field goal percentage. Must get better.
11. Game balls: McKee (I know his slow start cost us but he's still the best player on the field every week and was yesterday), Booker, Sanborn, Akina
12. This one really stung and, with a hard schedule ahead, will make it a dog fight to become bowl eligible, much less get to a good bowl. But the team is at least as good as we thought it was going into the UCLA game and will have reinforcements coming back from injury and COVID-19 the next few weeks. Meanwhile, the difference between #3 Oregon and #24 UCLA is less than those rankings would suggest in my opinion. Oregon should be scared about Stanford as a potential playoff spoiler and Stanford should be scared about Oregon as a superior team still playing for the biggest stakes in the sport and with the luxury of heading into a bye after this game.
2. That was a great win for UCLA. It very well could be the difference between a Rose Bowl or something much less for them, and there were three first quarter plays that got them there in my opinion (the aforementioned punt return and then the long 3rd and 16 run followed up immediately by catching us off guard with the quick going for it on 4th down in obvious punting territory, an incredibly ballsy signature Chip Kelly move). As with our slow start on offense, I don't think the flow of the game goes in UCLA's favor were it not for those plays. The reason these first quarter plays on both sides of the ball were pivotal was that UCLA did not outplay Stanford otherwise and there are myriad alternative scenarios in which these plays go differently and Stanford doesn't have to play from behind. Alas, these plays did go this way. The difference in the game was the combination of the execution failure of Stanford's offense not being ready to play for six freaking drives and the coaching differential of Kelly seizing the moment with the two play sequence at 3rd and 16 (contrasted with Shaw's 4th and short decision-making).
3. Again, what makes this sting is that Stanford generally outplayed UCLA. We had 6.7 yards per play to their 5.7. Not only was Stanford's yards per play the most any team has had against UCLA this year, but Stanford has had the top two offensive performances against UCLA in the last two seasons. On defense, Stanford had the best performance any team has had against UCLA this season and almost two yards per play better than LSU or Fresno State. We were flat out better than UCLA most of the game but lost the pivot points. Stanford is playing like a borderline top 25 team this season but won't be top 25 in real life this season because we didn't do what we needed to do in pivotal moments of two of the first four games. Beyond frustrating.
4. Tanner McKee's bifurcated game tells us most of what we need to know about why Stanford lost and why we may be as good or better than UCLA. Only one of his first eight passes gained positive yards and we had no first downs until halfway into the second quarter. But then he was excellent. Even with the terrible start he ended up #11 of 125 QBs nationally this week in Total QBR. He continues to be the best freshman we've ever seen and one of the best QBs in the nation. It was also nice to see the big damage he can do with his legs. Unfortunately, the spate of three and outs in the first half was a back-breaker in a game we knew would have to be a shootout given the team and coach we were playing.
5. We knew it would be difficult to get the run game going with three of the top four running backs out but nonetheless to only get two rushing first downs all game was extremely disappointing. Sadly, I think the Tunnel Workers Union is dead. On a single game basis, we actually didn't do as badly as it looked once you adjust for opponent as UCLA is turning out to have outstanding run defense this year (#5 in the nation). 3.0 yards per carry is much better than Hawaii and LSU mustered and essentially even with Fresno State. Our run game was better than it looked. However, zooming out toward a bigger picture makes me despondent about the state of OL play. This is the fourth straight year that we aren't even top 50 in the nation in yards per carry. Yards per game is even uglier: 112th this year, 93rd last year, 123rd in 2019, 123rd in 2018. There are Xs and Os as well as Jessies and Joes explanations. The OL has had two position coaching transitions, very little stability. The glory years of Stanford running giving way to being one of the worst running teams around tracks perfectly with Bloomgren’s departure, who maybe was better than our fans want to give him credit. But Bloomgren's departure also coincided with his complete failure to recruit OL for well over a calendar year, a devastating blow to the pipeline at a position dependent on seniority. We have zero fourth or fifth year OL this year and had two in both 2020 and 2019 (2018 was more of a quality issue). That compares to five in 2017, two in 2016 (saved by McCaffrey), six in 2015, two in 2014 (struggling run game), six in 2013, three in 2012, five in 2011, eight in 2010, and nine in 2009. You can't be brutish without brutes! Stanford's OL pipeline has been unhealthy for years.
6. We came into this game terrified about how our run defense would do and I'm here to tell you.....it wasn't bad! In fact, 4.0 yards per carry allowed is the best any team has done against UCLA this season and the best we've done in any game (over 1.5 yards per carry better than any other game). The argument UCLA would have handled us if they just ran every play doesn't track. UCLA actually ran against us more than they have in any game this year and had over half a yard less success per carry than their norm. In eight games Stanford has ever played against Chip Kelly teams, last night was actually the second stoutest we've ever been against the run. This is a performance to build on. If we held all teams to less than their running norm we'd be a great team.
7. The pass defense gave up 8.7 yards per attempt and a 157.53 rating, which is a major come down for us compared to the excellent pass defense this season (6.2 YPA allowed, 117.68 rating allowed). But it also was a significant come down for UCLA, which averages 10.3 YPA and a 175.17 rating. We defended the pass, even inclusive of the back-breaking bomb to Phillips, markedly better than LSU or Fresno State did. Our pass defense still looks like a clear strength. Considering that it came with five significant DBs out this pass defense is really becoming a testament to the next man up concept. Yesterday it was Toomer and Gilman. Toomer had played 11 snaps in the last three seasons and came out of nowhere to give us an excellent performance (PFF says the third best game by a Stanford DB this season). Gilman did not serve as the line of defense we needed on the Phillips bomb but otherwise was quite serviceable, including looking like a stud at the goal line on numerous plays.
8. That is what we need to see from Booker and Miezan! Booker was in on a massive amount of tackles for a lineman in our scheme and made them count. The two of them got DTR down on 3rd down to force UCLA's first punt. Miezan's solo tackle for loss and QB hurry came on another drive that led to a punt. Booker's sack pushed UCLA from chip shot range to something nervier, leading to a missed field goal. More of this, please.
9. The offense is too big play dependent. McKee's big arm and our ability to get big plays save our bacon regularly, but the ability to move the chains drive in and drive out is terribly lacking. We dominate in the red zone (seventh in the nation in touchdown conversions) but very rarely give ourselves a chance to operate in that part of the field (100th in red zone opportunities). Considering we are #38 in yards per play but 121st in first downs per game, you can see how much of our offense is big plays rather than routinely being able to move the chains. I'm thrilled we have the big plays in our arsenal, I jut wish we were better on the typical plays. Speaking of big plays, very exciting to see Farrell and his speed validated as a bona fide weapon. One huge touchdown, another big catch, and big plays in both the kick and punt return (though largely an issue of out-kicking the coverage) game. Good to have that speed, especially if we are going to have to depend on big plays.
10. With the asterisk that it's possible the Phillips punt return was a function of out kicking coverage, Sanborn had an NFL punter quality game. Major asset in the field position battle. We need Karty to be better. Yeah, it's great to see the massive leg. But close only counts in horse shoes and nuclear war. If a kicker has enough leg that you'll confidently trot him out from 50+ yards but not enough accuracy that he'll actually make it, that is a detriment to the team as it sacrifices either the opportunity cost of going for it and giving yourself a chance for 4-7 more points or the field position game that could be won through punting. Karty is 85th in the country in field goal percentage. Must get better.
11. Game balls: McKee (I know his slow start cost us but he's still the best player on the field every week and was yesterday), Booker, Sanborn, Akina
12. This one really stung and, with a hard schedule ahead, will make it a dog fight to become bowl eligible, much less get to a good bowl. But the team is at least as good as we thought it was going into the UCLA game and will have reinforcements coming back from injury and COVID-19 the next few weeks. Meanwhile, the difference between #3 Oregon and #24 UCLA is less than those rankings would suggest in my opinion. Oregon should be scared about Stanford as a potential playoff spoiler and Stanford should be scared about Oregon as a superior team still playing for the biggest stakes in the sport and with the luxury of heading into a bye after this game.
