1. Well that was a nice surprise! The game was fun throughout, we shook up the Pac-12 North race, and it was a bona fide team effort. All three phases contributed and the coaches have clearly done something right to have this team so resilient and prepared to play despite the road show/disruptions to football operations. For the first time this season I felt confident that the product we were watching was a top 25 team. It is beyond a bummer how much the season has been colored by the screw job that cost Mills and Wedington the first game of the season and the entire week of practice heading into the second game. It's really not a stretch to think this team could be 3-1 or 4-0 with as good a shot at the conference title as anybody. There's no point in dwelling on that and it's also worth noting that the only reason that could have been the case is that the conference stinks, but it still stings that we were robbed of the chance to see what this team really could have accomplished.
2. The result was no fluke. In most every phase of this game we gave Washington a tougher test than their prior opponents (admittedly a lackluster group of Oregon State, Arizona, and Utah). The offense got 6.2 yards per play, nearly a yard more than the Husky average allowed (5.35), with both passing and run games doing above-average. The defense was the weak link in this game, as always (we've given up more yards per play than the opponent averages in every single game), but at least we stopped the run (3.4 yards per carry allowed compared to a 4.52 Husky season average) and at least the delta was less dramatically in the opponent's favor than it was against Cal (not a good game for the defense no matter what we tell ourselves) or Colorado. Special teams was the consistent advantage it typically is. The coaches get a lot of credit for having this team so ready to play.
3. Perhaps he can be forgiven for the fog of war and hopefully he'll reassess today in watching the film, but I really don't know what Shaw was talking about when he said Davis Mills' performance was good but not great. We had 8.1 yards per pass - Washington gives up 6.3 on average. Mills was #3 among 87 QBs nationally in Total QBR this week (Brock Purdy, Mac Jones, Mills, Justin Fields, Kellen Mond). Mills played out of his skull on third down, especially on third and long. Mills was stellar yesterday.
4. The run game is getting there. The first half was fun as hell and Jones' overall performance was strong, as was the run blocking by Dalman, Rouse, and Bragg. But we shouldn't get too carried away. We haven't played a single defense with a yards per carry allowed in the top 75 in America. Washington, like the other teams we've played, is not much of a test for the run game. We did slightly better against Washington than their not very good other opponents have done on the ground. For all the talk about old school Stanford football and imposing our will, we still have a ways to go. I think we need Dalman to come back next year for the run game to get to the level we want/need, and since I think he's an NFL-caliber guy I am nervous about that.
5. As much as Mills and our receivers (before the devastating injury news on Wedington and Wilson) are our calling cards, grinding down Washington in the first half was absolutely pivotal and I think important for keeping the defense off the field. Washington only had three first half possession and 57 offensive snaps the entire game. With our terrible defense I think keeping them off the field is a very good thing. It only worked because we (especially Mills) were so outstanding on third downs. But it did work. And credit where credit is due - the six OL sets with Hinton (22 jumbo sets, 21 of them runs!) and the heavy use of Heimuli at fullback (24 snaps!) worked really well. I've been critical of both uses of personnel but it was a good fit for Washington's somewhat soft/finesse-oriented defense.
6. This speaks to a broader issue: this felt like Shaw's best-coached game in quite a while. As I mentioned up top, the team showed great resilience (both in terms of adversity heading into the game and rolling with punches in the second half). We game-planned effectively for the Husky strengths and weaknesses. The fourth down pass call at the end of the first half was one of the least Shaw-like things ever and was crucial in putting more distance between us and Washington heading into halftime by setting up the field goal (the second week in a row we've seen major breaks from type for Shaw in some respects). We deviated from some playcalling tendencies and it seemed like the route tree was more diverse. When we did turtle late that was exactly what that situation called for to grind out clock and force the Huskies to take timeouts.
7. The defense is a major Achilles' heel but guys are battling and I even think I perceive some modest improvements. The big one for me was Herron supplanting Keck in snap total and having much more success than our OLBs (really all of them) have had this season. Herron had three significant plays in this game - forcing a field goal by making a tackle near the goal line, bull rushing his man into the QB and batting the QB's hand to force an errant thrown, and making another goal line run stop (UW scored on the next play but that doesn't change that Herron made a key stop, and forcing additional snaps to score is a good thing when you're trying to hold on to a lead). This would be big for us if we can start to get a few linebackers who bring something to the table, as the unit hasn't brought much the last few years. On the DL, Wade-Perry has now given us solid play for several weeks running, the best stretch of his career, and Schaffer continues to be an important consistent effort guy. [So important for us that we retain a majority of Booker/Schaffer/DWP next season] Turner-Muhammad was, again, solid. It's not all bad on defense. We just so desperately need playmakers.
8. The special teams is usually a big advantage for us and this game was no exception. Peat was consistently a big deal for field position. Toner did his job ably and put points on the board when asked. Sanborn got to have a quiet day due to the offense's success but pinned the Huskies deep when asked. Booker blocked an extra point. Just a positive differential for us most weeks.
9. Game balls: Mills, Herron, Peat, Shaw
10. Don't look now, but a winning season seems very possible. The WR injury situation is a gut punch, but I think the Stanford team that played Oregon and Washington would beat Oregon State even without Wedington and Wilson. The team that played Colorado and Cal could too. We have a good shot in this game, if the COVID gods allow. An end-of-season plus one game and, especially, a bowl game seem too far out to know what COVID will allow, but if we get one, two, or three more games this very well could be a winning season. I have major concerns regarding the trajectory of the program and wish Shaw would respond to some wake-up calls/alarm bells that I think should be pretty resonant, but this could end up being an impressively resilient winning record in the final analysis. Of course, pivotal to that is actually beating the Beavers. The Stanford football of 2019-2020 very easily could lose that game. Let's keep clawing to regain winning ways.
2. The result was no fluke. In most every phase of this game we gave Washington a tougher test than their prior opponents (admittedly a lackluster group of Oregon State, Arizona, and Utah). The offense got 6.2 yards per play, nearly a yard more than the Husky average allowed (5.35), with both passing and run games doing above-average. The defense was the weak link in this game, as always (we've given up more yards per play than the opponent averages in every single game), but at least we stopped the run (3.4 yards per carry allowed compared to a 4.52 Husky season average) and at least the delta was less dramatically in the opponent's favor than it was against Cal (not a good game for the defense no matter what we tell ourselves) or Colorado. Special teams was the consistent advantage it typically is. The coaches get a lot of credit for having this team so ready to play.
3. Perhaps he can be forgiven for the fog of war and hopefully he'll reassess today in watching the film, but I really don't know what Shaw was talking about when he said Davis Mills' performance was good but not great. We had 8.1 yards per pass - Washington gives up 6.3 on average. Mills was #3 among 87 QBs nationally in Total QBR this week (Brock Purdy, Mac Jones, Mills, Justin Fields, Kellen Mond). Mills played out of his skull on third down, especially on third and long. Mills was stellar yesterday.
4. The run game is getting there. The first half was fun as hell and Jones' overall performance was strong, as was the run blocking by Dalman, Rouse, and Bragg. But we shouldn't get too carried away. We haven't played a single defense with a yards per carry allowed in the top 75 in America. Washington, like the other teams we've played, is not much of a test for the run game. We did slightly better against Washington than their not very good other opponents have done on the ground. For all the talk about old school Stanford football and imposing our will, we still have a ways to go. I think we need Dalman to come back next year for the run game to get to the level we want/need, and since I think he's an NFL-caliber guy I am nervous about that.
5. As much as Mills and our receivers (before the devastating injury news on Wedington and Wilson) are our calling cards, grinding down Washington in the first half was absolutely pivotal and I think important for keeping the defense off the field. Washington only had three first half possession and 57 offensive snaps the entire game. With our terrible defense I think keeping them off the field is a very good thing. It only worked because we (especially Mills) were so outstanding on third downs. But it did work. And credit where credit is due - the six OL sets with Hinton (22 jumbo sets, 21 of them runs!) and the heavy use of Heimuli at fullback (24 snaps!) worked really well. I've been critical of both uses of personnel but it was a good fit for Washington's somewhat soft/finesse-oriented defense.
6. This speaks to a broader issue: this felt like Shaw's best-coached game in quite a while. As I mentioned up top, the team showed great resilience (both in terms of adversity heading into the game and rolling with punches in the second half). We game-planned effectively for the Husky strengths and weaknesses. The fourth down pass call at the end of the first half was one of the least Shaw-like things ever and was crucial in putting more distance between us and Washington heading into halftime by setting up the field goal (the second week in a row we've seen major breaks from type for Shaw in some respects). We deviated from some playcalling tendencies and it seemed like the route tree was more diverse. When we did turtle late that was exactly what that situation called for to grind out clock and force the Huskies to take timeouts.
7. The defense is a major Achilles' heel but guys are battling and I even think I perceive some modest improvements. The big one for me was Herron supplanting Keck in snap total and having much more success than our OLBs (really all of them) have had this season. Herron had three significant plays in this game - forcing a field goal by making a tackle near the goal line, bull rushing his man into the QB and batting the QB's hand to force an errant thrown, and making another goal line run stop (UW scored on the next play but that doesn't change that Herron made a key stop, and forcing additional snaps to score is a good thing when you're trying to hold on to a lead). This would be big for us if we can start to get a few linebackers who bring something to the table, as the unit hasn't brought much the last few years. On the DL, Wade-Perry has now given us solid play for several weeks running, the best stretch of his career, and Schaffer continues to be an important consistent effort guy. [So important for us that we retain a majority of Booker/Schaffer/DWP next season] Turner-Muhammad was, again, solid. It's not all bad on defense. We just so desperately need playmakers.
8. The special teams is usually a big advantage for us and this game was no exception. Peat was consistently a big deal for field position. Toner did his job ably and put points on the board when asked. Sanborn got to have a quiet day due to the offense's success but pinned the Huskies deep when asked. Booker blocked an extra point. Just a positive differential for us most weeks.
9. Game balls: Mills, Herron, Peat, Shaw
10. Don't look now, but a winning season seems very possible. The WR injury situation is a gut punch, but I think the Stanford team that played Oregon and Washington would beat Oregon State even without Wedington and Wilson. The team that played Colorado and Cal could too. We have a good shot in this game, if the COVID gods allow. An end-of-season plus one game and, especially, a bowl game seem too far out to know what COVID will allow, but if we get one, two, or three more games this very well could be a winning season. I have major concerns regarding the trajectory of the program and wish Shaw would respond to some wake-up calls/alarm bells that I think should be pretty resonant, but this could end up being an impressively resilient winning record in the final analysis. Of course, pivotal to that is actually beating the Beavers. The Stanford football of 2019-2020 very easily could lose that game. Let's keep clawing to regain winning ways.
Last edited:
