1. Because I was on a flight from India last night, I watched the game today and am delayed in providing my thoughts. I rolled straight into watching this game after a 39 hour travel day.....for that? David Shaw doesn't deserve the fans who still remain. Still, I can't imagine not watching even bleary-eyed the morning after and am glad there are similarly afflicted souls who want to commiserate on these message boards. It would help though if we had something more interesting to analyze or if the team was fun to watch. Instead we get the re-run of joyless, un-competitive football we've seen so many times. Please make it stop.
2. While the game sucked and had damaging errors in most phases, it was clarifying in showing what is most keeping Stanford down these days: Shawfense. I know that won't feel like a groundbreaking observation for those who pay attention to Stanford football but past analyses showed pretty clearly that between 2016-2021 it was Stanford's defense that was an even weaker link than the offense. That is shockingly no longer the case (more on that below). Against UCLA, the defense had fatal flaws but was competitive, but the offense was pitiful, like it has been almost continuously since Dalman, Mills, and Fehoko departed. Something to bear in mind is that opponents get a vote in how we look, which makes the discrepancy between our units' performance more stark than folks might assume just from seeing futility on both sides of the ball. UCLA has a great offense. They came into the game with the #8 Offensive FEI, sandwiched between Alabama and Michigan. Against that backdrop, we should not be ashamed about giving up points and yards to them. If anything, we were reasonably competitive: we actually kept the Bruins a tick under both their points per drive and yards per play averages, and the one play touchdown "drive" should be blamed on McKee more than the defense. Yes, there were big failings on defense (more below) but this was reminiscent of Teevens-era frustrations where the defense battled but is in a hopeless situation having to play alongside an offense that can't do a damn thing.
3. As always, I'll go into some detail on things that went well and things that went poorly, but we cannot lose sight of the forest for the trees. We have to speak as plainly as possible about what we're seeing on offense: with a cast outside observers and program insiders alike thought would be poised for offensive success, we are one of the very worst offenses in the country. The stretch of games without even an average number of points scored has now reached 12. A full year of not once being average. Last night was a particularly appalling entry in the parade of horribles. We join Colorado as the only Pac-12 teams to gain less than 5 yards a play against UCLA. UCLA is the #76 FEI defense in the country and was playing without their defensive coordinator due to last minute illness and yet we didn't score a touchdown until our 11th drive. A defense that gives up 2.56 points per drive, 91st in the nation, didn't need a coordinator to hold us to only 1.08, which would be the #5 defense in the nation.
4. The predictable part of the ineptitude was that we couldn't establish the run. Starting a walk-on running back will do that to you. But honestly the passing game was a lot worse than the run game yesterday. At least the run game broke 4 yards a carry, the first time we've done that in six games and above both the median and the mean for opponent run games against UCLA. Ashton Daniels deserves the bulk of the credit for that, leading the team in rushing and first downs despite being only tied for third in touches. [This week's moving the chains (first down) leader board: Daniels (4), Barrow (4), Yurosek (2), Humphreys (2), Robinson (2), Reuben (2), Tremayne (plus drawing a pass interference)] The Daniels packages have come in for a lot of criticism but they were the best thing the offense had going yesterday. I can't say anything nice about the passing game, which has totally fallen apart without Mike Wilson. Bowling Green is the only team to struggle against UCLA like we did. Colorado has one of the worst passing offenses in the country and yet they mustered a whopping 2+ yards more and 30+ passer rating points more against UCLA than we did.
5. I've seen the very poor recent passing performances elicit some commentary about benching McKee. I think that's premature on the merits and unrealistic regardless but he's been bad. Yesterday was horrendous. He was #95 of 96 qualifying QBs in Total QBR this week. But it's the passing offense as a whole that stinks. Drops abounded. Rouse and Hinton (and then add injury to the insult) had a very rough night in protection. Shawfense never schemes guys open anyway. Higgins and Tremayne are contenders for the most overrated Stanford receivers of the Shaw era. Rodney Gilmore (sorry to any friends of his: for my money bar none the biggest idiot calling college football on a major network in America) can't bring himself to speak insightfully about Stanford football (if he's capable of that at all) but Todd McShay argued repeatedly that Stanford's offensive scheme and personnel circumstances (he emphasized both) put McKee in an almost impossible position. It sounded like an NFL scout complaining he doesn't get a fairer chance to evaluate McKee. In light of those factors, I don't want to suggest that problems are all at McKee's feet (my god are they slow). But yeah, he's been bad. On the season he's now 8th of 11 Pac-12 QBs in Total QBR, 10th of 11 in traditional passer rating, and 6th of 9 in PFF grades.
2. While the game sucked and had damaging errors in most phases, it was clarifying in showing what is most keeping Stanford down these days: Shawfense. I know that won't feel like a groundbreaking observation for those who pay attention to Stanford football but past analyses showed pretty clearly that between 2016-2021 it was Stanford's defense that was an even weaker link than the offense. That is shockingly no longer the case (more on that below). Against UCLA, the defense had fatal flaws but was competitive, but the offense was pitiful, like it has been almost continuously since Dalman, Mills, and Fehoko departed. Something to bear in mind is that opponents get a vote in how we look, which makes the discrepancy between our units' performance more stark than folks might assume just from seeing futility on both sides of the ball. UCLA has a great offense. They came into the game with the #8 Offensive FEI, sandwiched between Alabama and Michigan. Against that backdrop, we should not be ashamed about giving up points and yards to them. If anything, we were reasonably competitive: we actually kept the Bruins a tick under both their points per drive and yards per play averages, and the one play touchdown "drive" should be blamed on McKee more than the defense. Yes, there were big failings on defense (more below) but this was reminiscent of Teevens-era frustrations where the defense battled but is in a hopeless situation having to play alongside an offense that can't do a damn thing.
3. As always, I'll go into some detail on things that went well and things that went poorly, but we cannot lose sight of the forest for the trees. We have to speak as plainly as possible about what we're seeing on offense: with a cast outside observers and program insiders alike thought would be poised for offensive success, we are one of the very worst offenses in the country. The stretch of games without even an average number of points scored has now reached 12. A full year of not once being average. Last night was a particularly appalling entry in the parade of horribles. We join Colorado as the only Pac-12 teams to gain less than 5 yards a play against UCLA. UCLA is the #76 FEI defense in the country and was playing without their defensive coordinator due to last minute illness and yet we didn't score a touchdown until our 11th drive. A defense that gives up 2.56 points per drive, 91st in the nation, didn't need a coordinator to hold us to only 1.08, which would be the #5 defense in the nation.
4. The predictable part of the ineptitude was that we couldn't establish the run. Starting a walk-on running back will do that to you. But honestly the passing game was a lot worse than the run game yesterday. At least the run game broke 4 yards a carry, the first time we've done that in six games and above both the median and the mean for opponent run games against UCLA. Ashton Daniels deserves the bulk of the credit for that, leading the team in rushing and first downs despite being only tied for third in touches. [This week's moving the chains (first down) leader board: Daniels (4), Barrow (4), Yurosek (2), Humphreys (2), Robinson (2), Reuben (2), Tremayne (plus drawing a pass interference)] The Daniels packages have come in for a lot of criticism but they were the best thing the offense had going yesterday. I can't say anything nice about the passing game, which has totally fallen apart without Mike Wilson. Bowling Green is the only team to struggle against UCLA like we did. Colorado has one of the worst passing offenses in the country and yet they mustered a whopping 2+ yards more and 30+ passer rating points more against UCLA than we did.
5. I've seen the very poor recent passing performances elicit some commentary about benching McKee. I think that's premature on the merits and unrealistic regardless but he's been bad. Yesterday was horrendous. He was #95 of 96 qualifying QBs in Total QBR this week. But it's the passing offense as a whole that stinks. Drops abounded. Rouse and Hinton (and then add injury to the insult) had a very rough night in protection. Shawfense never schemes guys open anyway. Higgins and Tremayne are contenders for the most overrated Stanford receivers of the Shaw era. Rodney Gilmore (sorry to any friends of his: for my money bar none the biggest idiot calling college football on a major network in America) can't bring himself to speak insightfully about Stanford football (if he's capable of that at all) but Todd McShay argued repeatedly that Stanford's offensive scheme and personnel circumstances (he emphasized both) put McKee in an almost impossible position. It sounded like an NFL scout complaining he doesn't get a fairer chance to evaluate McKee. In light of those factors, I don't want to suggest that problems are all at McKee's feet (my god are they slow). But yeah, he's been bad. On the season he's now 8th of 11 Pac-12 QBs in Total QBR, 10th of 11 in traditional passer rating, and 6th of 9 in PFF grades.
