1. This game felt like the quintessential Stanford game of the last four seasons. Beaten in the trenches. Much more laborious for us to move the ball or find the end zone than our opponents. A smattering of good things the fans can't even enjoy because it never feels like we might actually win. Diehards go to bed late because we've become so irrelevant we play after dark. Coach gives a sullen post-game press conference that lasts nine minutes because there are only three reporters in the room and then a few poor players are at a loss for words because they're trying their best and we just aren't a relevant, competitive program anymore. Joyless. This has been our norm for years now.
2. On a per play basis we were in the zip code (or at least the county) of competitive, gaining 6 yards per play (half a yard better than against USC and the most Washington has given up this season) and giving up 6.9 yards per play (just slightly worse than Michigan State and Kent State mustered) but that doesn't come close to telling the story as sacks and turnovers were by far the bigger factors. The passing attack worked when it could get a throw off - 11 yards per attempt and a 188.18 passer rating, both the most Washington has been beaten in the air in the last 24 games - but that's cold comfort in the face of 8 sacks. That's the most sacks Washington has had in 54 games and, for a Stanford fan, brings back unpleasant memories of the mid-2000s. It doesn't really matter if the QB can sling it if he can't get the ball out of his hands. We're now 129th in the country in sacks allowed, third to last. It's a combination of breakdowns in pass blocking and McKee's putrid pocket presence.
3. That lack of pocket presence factored into the other overriding story of the game, which was of course turnovers. With three more turnovers yesterday, McKee is averaging two a game. Like the running backs he shares the mesh with, McKee is a productive player who spoils it by not being able to take care of the ball. It's a microcosm of Stanford's inability to compete in the turnover margin, which by no means falls just on McKee or Smith or Filkins as the defense is equally culpable. Our failures are notable on historic timescales. We are dead last in the country in turnover margin, fumbles gained, and fumbles lost. Only four teams have fewer interceptions than us and only three teams have fewer turnovers lost. Our best turnover attribute is avoiding interceptions, which is all the way up at 86th. All of this adds up to only one team having fewer takeaways and three teams having fewer giveaways. That adds up to historic failure: our negative 3.33 turnover margin per game is more than double the margin of the teams at 125th and next worst in the nation is a 2.0 margin per game. Nothing really matters if you are this bad at protecting the ball AND this bad at seizing the ball.
4. We know the defense is bad and giving up more yards per play than awful defense Kent State did supports that, but a modest word in defense of the defense: they were trying and at times holding the line against a more talented and well-coached offense. The run defense was bad, no sugarcoating that (2.34 yards per carry more allowed than Michigan State, 1.4 more than Kent State), but Washington has a lethal passing game and last night, believe it or not, was the lowest yards per attempt, passer rating, total yards, touchdowns, and completion percentage the Huskies have mustered. We gave by far the best pass defense performance they've faced. It wasn't good as Kelly remains overrated and Turner-Muhammad, Bonner, and McGill all took turns getting roasted by Odunze, but this was a great passing attack we faced and we somewhat bounced back from the USC pass defense nightmare. This is not to suggest there's any real reason for optimism for the defense. Washington took what we gave them (prevent defense on 3rd and 1!), scored what Vegas thought they would, and could have scored much more. There's no reason anybody who's watched Anderson defenses the last half decade should think even mediocre defense can be in the cards for Stanford going forward. I just wanted to point out the players battled, although watching Mangum-Farrar's post-game availability raises the question for me how much more adversity the players will gamely battle as realization sets in that high effort still equals failure.
5. Having said modestly defensive words about the collective effort on defense, it can't escape mentioning that we have no dudes and make no plays. My wife commented from the couch and one of my astute friends observed via text message that the defensive players just look smaller, slower, and less impressive than they used to. Every game I count up the individual defensive plays that make a significant contribution (tackles for loss, pass breakups, run stops that help us on down and distance, etc.). Yesterday I didn't count a single defender with more than two such plays. Miezan (two tackles for loss, which now makes him tied for sixth in the Pac-12 with Gabe Reid), Williamson (two key third down plays, a tackle and a pass breakup, that forced punts), and Fields/DiCosmo/Armitage (two quality tackles each given down and distance) showed up to some degree. But nobody with 3+ impact plays? Yikes.
6. This week's moving the chains (first down) list: Filkins (7), Wilson (6), Higgins (2), Humphreys, Yurosek. Filkins' 100 yard rushing game is a nice accomplishment but he was responsible for a turnover, again, and like many was part of the pass blocking problem. A very EJ Smith-like game: nice production but too many losing plays. With those two being interchangeable in those respects, it's hard to say Smith's absence mattered. But Shaw wasn't wrong about the tackle absences (though Rouse eventually came back in) being deeply detrimental. Stanford fans a few months ago never would have believed it, but the Hinton injury loomed large. Nobody was good in pass blocking yesterday, but McLaughlin and Miller especially had a night to forget. The player of the game was Wilson with his monster 188 yards from scrimmage and two touchdowns. As I always say, dude is a pro and effort will never be an issue. As Jacob Rayburn said, we need 22 Michael Wilsons. For the moment, he's the per game yards from scrimmage leader among all Pac-12 receivers.
7. Alas, Wilson's contributions stand alone among all Stanford pass catchers. Our much-ballyhooed receiving weapons have been awful this year. Aside from Wilson, nobody else is even top 25 in the conference in receiving. According to PFF, through three games Yurosek, Higgins, and Tremayne are three of our four worst starters (Yurosek and Higgins the two worst). Brutal start to the year for these guys.
8. I had been interested in evaluating the continued evolution to the slow mesh RPO but did not find this game particularly insightful. Nobody has the identity they want with 8 sacks and multiple turnovers. What annoyed me was hearing announcers talking about the identity being more solidified later in the year, as if we didn't have all off-season and are in week four of the season. Also, talk of injuries as an excuse should reckon with Washington's defense having as much adversity on that front as our offense.
9. Special teams now seems like a definitive weakness for Stanford, at least compared to the Alamar norm. I hold my breath on all special teams plays other than punts, which seem solid (Sanborn had net punts of 38, 43, 50, and 41, with one downed at the 3). Kick returns are especially depressing. It's like we're giving yards away.
10. Game balls: Wilson, Miezan, Sanborn, Gould
11. I'm of two minds on the outlook going forward. In the focus-on-what's-ahead-of-you sense, we knew this would be a tough game and we'll be heading right back to the Pacific Northwest for an opportunity to shock the world with a road upset of a ranked team. If we can do that, a 2-2 start keeps alive hopes of a stabilizing mediocre season. A case can be made that the sacks and turnovers story of our season so far has been so extreme that a reversion to the mean (coupled perhaps with proven performers like Yurosek, Higgins, and Tremayne pulling their heads out of their nether regions) changes the picture entirely. I have no doubt that's the line Shaw will be trying to sell. But in a bigger picture health of the program sense, it's hard to see a program that's gone about a calendar year without a major college football win reversing this. Stanford's bottom of Power Five football ways are clearly not a fluke. It's who we are. I can't watch either our games or our frustrated try-hard-but-can't-compete players' interviews and think this is a coaching staff, roster, or culture that will turn things around. Sadly, for Stanford to have any real major college football prospects going forward a disastrous season may very well be better or us than a mediocre one.
2. On a per play basis we were in the zip code (or at least the county) of competitive, gaining 6 yards per play (half a yard better than against USC and the most Washington has given up this season) and giving up 6.9 yards per play (just slightly worse than Michigan State and Kent State mustered) but that doesn't come close to telling the story as sacks and turnovers were by far the bigger factors. The passing attack worked when it could get a throw off - 11 yards per attempt and a 188.18 passer rating, both the most Washington has been beaten in the air in the last 24 games - but that's cold comfort in the face of 8 sacks. That's the most sacks Washington has had in 54 games and, for a Stanford fan, brings back unpleasant memories of the mid-2000s. It doesn't really matter if the QB can sling it if he can't get the ball out of his hands. We're now 129th in the country in sacks allowed, third to last. It's a combination of breakdowns in pass blocking and McKee's putrid pocket presence.
3. That lack of pocket presence factored into the other overriding story of the game, which was of course turnovers. With three more turnovers yesterday, McKee is averaging two a game. Like the running backs he shares the mesh with, McKee is a productive player who spoils it by not being able to take care of the ball. It's a microcosm of Stanford's inability to compete in the turnover margin, which by no means falls just on McKee or Smith or Filkins as the defense is equally culpable. Our failures are notable on historic timescales. We are dead last in the country in turnover margin, fumbles gained, and fumbles lost. Only four teams have fewer interceptions than us and only three teams have fewer turnovers lost. Our best turnover attribute is avoiding interceptions, which is all the way up at 86th. All of this adds up to only one team having fewer takeaways and three teams having fewer giveaways. That adds up to historic failure: our negative 3.33 turnover margin per game is more than double the margin of the teams at 125th and next worst in the nation is a 2.0 margin per game. Nothing really matters if you are this bad at protecting the ball AND this bad at seizing the ball.
4. We know the defense is bad and giving up more yards per play than awful defense Kent State did supports that, but a modest word in defense of the defense: they were trying and at times holding the line against a more talented and well-coached offense. The run defense was bad, no sugarcoating that (2.34 yards per carry more allowed than Michigan State, 1.4 more than Kent State), but Washington has a lethal passing game and last night, believe it or not, was the lowest yards per attempt, passer rating, total yards, touchdowns, and completion percentage the Huskies have mustered. We gave by far the best pass defense performance they've faced. It wasn't good as Kelly remains overrated and Turner-Muhammad, Bonner, and McGill all took turns getting roasted by Odunze, but this was a great passing attack we faced and we somewhat bounced back from the USC pass defense nightmare. This is not to suggest there's any real reason for optimism for the defense. Washington took what we gave them (prevent defense on 3rd and 1!), scored what Vegas thought they would, and could have scored much more. There's no reason anybody who's watched Anderson defenses the last half decade should think even mediocre defense can be in the cards for Stanford going forward. I just wanted to point out the players battled, although watching Mangum-Farrar's post-game availability raises the question for me how much more adversity the players will gamely battle as realization sets in that high effort still equals failure.
5. Having said modestly defensive words about the collective effort on defense, it can't escape mentioning that we have no dudes and make no plays. My wife commented from the couch and one of my astute friends observed via text message that the defensive players just look smaller, slower, and less impressive than they used to. Every game I count up the individual defensive plays that make a significant contribution (tackles for loss, pass breakups, run stops that help us on down and distance, etc.). Yesterday I didn't count a single defender with more than two such plays. Miezan (two tackles for loss, which now makes him tied for sixth in the Pac-12 with Gabe Reid), Williamson (two key third down plays, a tackle and a pass breakup, that forced punts), and Fields/DiCosmo/Armitage (two quality tackles each given down and distance) showed up to some degree. But nobody with 3+ impact plays? Yikes.
6. This week's moving the chains (first down) list: Filkins (7), Wilson (6), Higgins (2), Humphreys, Yurosek. Filkins' 100 yard rushing game is a nice accomplishment but he was responsible for a turnover, again, and like many was part of the pass blocking problem. A very EJ Smith-like game: nice production but too many losing plays. With those two being interchangeable in those respects, it's hard to say Smith's absence mattered. But Shaw wasn't wrong about the tackle absences (though Rouse eventually came back in) being deeply detrimental. Stanford fans a few months ago never would have believed it, but the Hinton injury loomed large. Nobody was good in pass blocking yesterday, but McLaughlin and Miller especially had a night to forget. The player of the game was Wilson with his monster 188 yards from scrimmage and two touchdowns. As I always say, dude is a pro and effort will never be an issue. As Jacob Rayburn said, we need 22 Michael Wilsons. For the moment, he's the per game yards from scrimmage leader among all Pac-12 receivers.
7. Alas, Wilson's contributions stand alone among all Stanford pass catchers. Our much-ballyhooed receiving weapons have been awful this year. Aside from Wilson, nobody else is even top 25 in the conference in receiving. According to PFF, through three games Yurosek, Higgins, and Tremayne are three of our four worst starters (Yurosek and Higgins the two worst). Brutal start to the year for these guys.
8. I had been interested in evaluating the continued evolution to the slow mesh RPO but did not find this game particularly insightful. Nobody has the identity they want with 8 sacks and multiple turnovers. What annoyed me was hearing announcers talking about the identity being more solidified later in the year, as if we didn't have all off-season and are in week four of the season. Also, talk of injuries as an excuse should reckon with Washington's defense having as much adversity on that front as our offense.
9. Special teams now seems like a definitive weakness for Stanford, at least compared to the Alamar norm. I hold my breath on all special teams plays other than punts, which seem solid (Sanborn had net punts of 38, 43, 50, and 41, with one downed at the 3). Kick returns are especially depressing. It's like we're giving yards away.
10. Game balls: Wilson, Miezan, Sanborn, Gould
11. I'm of two minds on the outlook going forward. In the focus-on-what's-ahead-of-you sense, we knew this would be a tough game and we'll be heading right back to the Pacific Northwest for an opportunity to shock the world with a road upset of a ranked team. If we can do that, a 2-2 start keeps alive hopes of a stabilizing mediocre season. A case can be made that the sacks and turnovers story of our season so far has been so extreme that a reversion to the mean (coupled perhaps with proven performers like Yurosek, Higgins, and Tremayne pulling their heads out of their nether regions) changes the picture entirely. I have no doubt that's the line Shaw will be trying to sell. But in a bigger picture health of the program sense, it's hard to see a program that's gone about a calendar year without a major college football win reversing this. Stanford's bottom of Power Five football ways are clearly not a fluke. It's who we are. I can't watch either our games or our frustrated try-hard-but-can't-compete players' interviews and think this is a coaching staff, roster, or culture that will turn things around. Sadly, for Stanford to have any real major college football prospects going forward a disastrous season may very well be better or us than a mediocre one.
Last edited:
