Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA (/thread-23626.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA (/thread-23626.html)
Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - msqueri - 10-30-2022
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.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - msqueri - 10-30-2022
6. I have much more positive to say about the defense but first the bad: the run defense had been getting tighter in recent weeks but, as I predicted, got re-exposed by a great run game. Charbonnet, DTR, and Co. are great, but this was a weak performance. Only Colorado has a had a worse yards per carry allowed and no run defense has given up more total rushing yards to UCLA in the last 14 games. PFF judged it our worst run defense game and worst tackling game of the season (only Utah game last year worse last year). Aside from run defense, fourth downs were also a big problem, allowing UCLA to convert all five opportunities. But to some degree I view that as the price of playing Chip Kelly. There were several drives that would have gotten the defense off the field against a lesser or more traditional coach.
7. On the positive side of the ledger, the passing defense held up very nicely. Some may say UCLA didn't need to pass or that DTR got banged up early and that may have limited his throwing, but that doesn't change that one of the best QBs in the country had to labor against us. We're the only team this year to keep DTR out of the end zone via the air and had by far the best pass efficiency defense of any team against UCLA this year, as well as the second best yards per attempt defense behind only Oregon. To my mind, this correlates with an improved pass rush for Stanford more than anything special about our defensive backs. Bailey, Herron (now #37 in America in sacks), and Damuni all had sacks and Bailey had an awesome four hurries. Throughout the broadcast they showed replays of DTR getting hit, getting up gingerly, and favoring one leg. This is what pressure does, I don't think it's a fluke we gave UCLA a tough time in pass defense, and the pressure and aggressiveness seems to be a characteristic in more (but not all) of our games this year than in recent years. I'm getting closer to saying they deserve to use #PartyInTheBackfield again, as this is the best sack team we've had in four years and the best tackles for loss team we've had in eight years (!!!!!). Need to see it continue, but with the emergence of Bailey and Cooper I have some hope on defense finally. Speaking of Bailey, I counted a very impressive seven impact plays, the early ones of which forced a field goal, the forced fumble being the type of play that is a brobdingnagian deal in any halfway competitive game if McGill and Williamson hadn't squandered the opportunity, and the sack to force a punt arguably being as much as a seven point play because UCLA was in obvious four down territory and was victimizing us badly on fourth downs. With this performance, David Bailey now takes over PFF's spot as Stanford's top defender on the season. Fun question for memory lane: has Stanford ever had a defensive true freshman this good?
8. We will have a more complete picture a month from now but in my view the results of the off-season "deep dive" and "stripping down to the studs" are coming into focus: it worked on defense and not on offense. With a disastrously young defensive line, the best player on the defense transferring, and bad inside linebackers, we had no right to expect a serviceable defense. Yet the off-season deep dive remolded the defense around a new scheme/base and nickel alignment as well as a more aggressive and simple/instinctual personality, and we now have our best defense since 2018. If you would have told me we'd have the #6 or so defense in the Pac-12 (the current FEI, almost identical with Pac-12 #5 Oregon), I would have giddily taken it. Meanwhile, an offense with the most returning production of any team in America, including a putative NFL QB, highly experienced veteran line, and supposedly one of the top quartets of receiving targets in the nation was a grouping of talent that a good offensive coach would have been expected to generate greatness with and even Shaw could have been expected to have an above-average offense. Yet the off-season deep dive remolded the offense around a new slow mesh/RPO/etc. scheme and concepts that may or may not be the reason we are now gawking at another Shawful offense. If you would have told me we'd have the #11 offense in the Pac-12 (the current FEI, almost identical with #10 Cal) I wouldn't have believed even Shaw could accomplish that.
9. Special teams played very nicely against UCLA. Karty had field goals of 22 and 49 and is now one of three kickers nationally with 14+ fields goals and no misses. I am not being facetious when I say I was disappointed Shaw went for it on what turned into the Yurosek touchdown. I'm not complaining about the result, but in real time I didn't see the points as important given how out of hand the game was (and to be honest the touchdown drought extending so many quarters is the kind of humiliating narrative we need widely known so the state of our program doesn't escape scrutiny) and giving Karty opportunities to pad his stats is one of our moral victories at this point. For what it's worth, if we let him get that chip shot he would now be tied for the national lead in field goals. Sanborn had a very nice game save one bad mistake, with net punts of 42 (to the 14), 41 (to the 20), 40 (to the 32 and, more importantly, changing possession due to the muff, 48 (to the 9), 23 (to the 42, albeit a remarkable effort to get the punt off on the run but ultimately an inexcusable play for him to have lapse of concentration to cost 15+ yards, and much worse without his incredible save), and 46 (to the 1!). Barrow had a 40 yard return (now third in the conference in kick return average). But the special teams star was Tremayne, as forcing special teams turnovers outweighs the rest and Tremayne was one of the two in position to down the punt at the 1 (seemed like a testy exchange with Bowman on that one).
10. Game balls: Nugent, Bailey, Tremayne, Alamar
11. If the team's resilience and morale is what it's appeared to be in recent weeks, this game may not change anything fundamentally about our season. We looked like a 5-ish win team before the game and we still do. The loss does further decrease the odds we can scrape our way to 6-6, but only marginally as it was unlikely we were going to beat UCLA. The Oregon State loss was more significant, as will be the upcoming game against Washington State. That's very much a hinge point in what this season can be. We have a puncher's chance in that one and it's probably a must win if we want to win six games this year. (Opinions vary on whether we do want to win six games)
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - lex24 - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 04:04 PM)msqueri Wrote: 6. I have much more positive to say about the defense but first the bad: the run defense had been getting tighter in recent weeks but, as I predicted, got re-exposed by a great run game. Charbonnet, DTR, and Co. are great, but this was a weak performance. Only Colorado has a had a worse yards per carry allowed and no run defense has given up more total rushing yards to UCLA in the last 14 games. PFF judged it our worst run defense game and worst tackling game of the season (only Utah game last year worse last year). Aside from run defense, fourth downs were also a big problem, allowing UCLA to convert all five opportunities. But to some degree I view that as the price of playing Chip Kelly. There were several drives that would have gotten the defense off the field against a lesser or more traditional coach.
7. On the positive side of the ledger, the passing defense held up very nicely. Some may say UCLA didn't need to pass or that DTR got banged up early and that may have limited his throwing, but that doesn't change that one of the best QBs in the country had to labor against us. We're the only team this year to keep DTR out of the end zone via the air and had by far the best pass efficiency defense of any team against UCLA this year, as well as the second best yards per attempt defense behind only Oregon. To my mind, this correlates with an improved pass rush for Stanford more than anything special about our defensive backs. Bailey, Herron (now #37 in America in sacks), and Damuni all had sacks and Bailey had an awesome four hurries. Throughout the broadcast they showed replays of DTR getting hit, getting up gingerly, and favoring one leg. This is what pressure does, I don't think it's a fluke we gave UCLA a tough time in pass defense, and the pressure and aggressiveness seems to be a characteristic in more (but not all) of our games this year than in recent years. I'm getting closer to saying they deserve to use #PartyInTheBackfield again, as this is the best sack team we've had in four years and the best tackles for loss team we've had in eight years (!!!!!). Need to see it continue, but with the emergence of Bailey and Cooper I have some hope on defense finally. Speaking of Bailey, I counted a very impressive seven impact plays, the early ones of which forced a field goal, the forced fumble being the type of play that is a of immense proportions deal in any halfway competitive game if McGill and Williamson hadn't squandered the opportunity, and the sack to force a punt arguably being as much as a seven point play because UCLA was in obvious four down territory and was victimizing us badly on fourth downs. With this performance, David Bailey now takes over PFF's spot as Stanford's top defender on the season. Fun question for memory lane: has Stanford ever had a defensive true freshman this good?
8. We will have a more complete picture a month from now but in my view the results of the off-season "deep dive" and "stripping down to the studs" are coming into focus: it worked on defense and not on offense. With a disastrously young defensive line, the best player on the defense transferring, and bad inside linebackers, we had no right to expect a serviceable defense. Yet the off-season deep dive remolded the defense around a new scheme/base and nickel alignment as well as a more aggressive and simple/instinctual personality, and we now have our best defense since 2018. If you would have told me we'd have the #6 or so defense in the Pac-12 (the current FEI, almost identical with Pac-12 #5 Oregon), I would have giddily taken it. Meanwhile, an offense with the most returning production of any team in America, including a putative NFL QB, highly experienced veteran line, and supposedly one of the top quartets of receiving targets in the nation was a grouping of talent that a good offensive coach would have been expected to generate greatness with and even Shaw could have been expected to have an above-average offense. Yet the off-season deep dive remolded the offense around a new slow mesh/RPO/etc. scheme and concepts that may or may not be the reason we are now gawking at another Shawful offense. If you would have told me we'd have the #11 offense in the Pac-12 (the current FEI, almost identical with #10 Cal) I wouldn't have believed even Shaw could accomplish that.
9. Special teams played very nicely against UCLA. Karty had field goals of 22 and 49 and is now one of three kickers nationally with 14+ fields goals and no misses. I am not being facetious when I say I was disappointed Shaw went for it on what turned into the Yurosek touchdown. I'm not complaining about the result, but in real time I didn't see the points as important given how out of hand the game was (and to be honest the touchdown drought extending so many quarters is the kind of humiliating narrative we need widely known so the state of our program doesn't escape scrutiny) and giving Karty opportunities to pad his stats is one of our moral victories at this point. For what it's worth, if we let him get that chip shot he would now be tied for the national lead in field goals. Sanborn had a very nice game save one bad mistake, with net punts of 42 (to the 14), 41 (to the 20), 40 (to the 32 and, more importantly, changing possession due to the muff, 48 (to the 9), 23 (to the 42, albeit a remarkable effort to get the punt off on the run but ultimately an inexcusable play for him to have lapse of concentration to cost 15+ yards, and much worse without his incredible save), and 46 (to the 1!). Barrow had a 40 yard return (now third in the conference in kick return average). But the special teams star was Tremayne, as forcing special teams turnovers outweighs the rest and Tremayne was one of the two in position to down the punt at the 1 (seemed like a testy exchange with Bowman on that one).
10. Game balls: Nugent, Bailey, Tremayne, Alamar
11. If the team's resilience and morale is what it's appeared to be in recent weeks, this game may not change anything fundamentally about our season. We looked like a 5-ish win team before the game and we still do. The loss does further decrease the odds we can scrape our way to 6-6, but only marginally as it was unlikely we were going to beat UCLA. The Oregon State loss was more significant, as will be the upcoming game against Washington State. That's very much a hinge point in what this season can be. We have a puncher's chance in that one and it's probably a must win if we want to win six games this year. (Opinions vary on whether we do want to win six games)
Why on earth don’t you want to win the most games possible? Do you truly think if they go 3-9 Shaw is going to be fired? I don’t. I don’t think he would’ve been fired if they went 1- 11.
If you have some insight on this by all means let us know. But my guess is that Shaw “represents” the university well personally and that is all they care about in regards to football right now. They being the administration.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - Austroturf - 10-30-2022
After a 39-hour travel day, I would have slept long and hard upon seeing the result of the UCLA game. When so much is wrong, it's hard to know where to start. Better to sleep on it. Anyway, as usual, thanks for the effort at dissecting this corpse.
As for any hopes of 6-6, yes, beating the Cougs in Palo Alto is absolutely a must. We stand at 3-5, which means we have four games left and need to win three of them to finish 6-6. Unless Rising is unfit to play in our contest vs. the Utes, you can call that game a definitive L. That leaves 3 games: Cal, BYU, Wazzu. We need to win all 3. They are all must-wins. Will we? I wouldn't wager anything above 1 Euro (or $, since they are roughly at parity these days). And, for the record, I am for a 6-win season; but I am also for a complete overhaul of the current leadership of the football program. It can't happen soon enough.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - cardcrimson - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 04:49 PM)lex24 Wrote: (Opinions vary on whether we do want to win six games)
Why on earth don’t you want to win the most games possible? Do you truly think if they go 3-9 Shaw is going to be fired? I don’t. I don’t think he would’ve been fired if they went 1- 11.
[/quote]
I for one have no desire to see Stanford play in a bowl game this year, hence the desire not to win six games. Shaw will not be fired no matter what. You're correct about that. Nor will Muir.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - BostonCard - 10-30-2022
We are not winning six games, so the point is moot. I think we might get a fourth win, but if we continue playing as we have, 3-9 seems more likely than 5-7; 6-6 is a pipe dream.
But even if your position is that you have no interest in going to the toilet bowl, i would think that would make you agnostic about getting to 6-6 instead of actually rooting against the team.
I would very much like to be proven wrong in my conclusions about the team, but there is a large contingent of people who would rather be right than win.
BC
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - gailtate - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 05:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We are not winning six games, so the point is moot. I think we might get a fourth win, but if we continue playing as we have, 3-9 seems more likely than 5-7; 6-6 is a pipe dream.
But even if your position is that you have no interest in going to the toilet bowl, i would think that would make you agnostic about getting to 6-6 instead of actually rooting against the team.
I would very much like to be proven wrong in my conclusions about the team, but there is a large contingent of people who would rather be right than win.
BC
For the record, I don't give two sh!tz and a can of Shinola about "being right". All I want is for David Shaw to be the former head coach. The longer he hangs around the deeper the hole Stanford must climb to get out, the more moribund the whole football experience will be and the tougher it will be re-animate the corpse on our hands. Stanford's best way to signal that football isn't dead on the Farm is to hire a firebrand who can breathe life into it.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - cardcrimson - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 05:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I would very much like to be proven wrong in my conclusions about the team, but there is a large contingent of people who would rather be right than win.
BC
Right about what exactly?!? Everyone here wants to Stanford to win. EVERYONE. It's no longer about being right (if it ever was). It's about finding a way to win. The current situation will never get there. EVER. Let me quote Albert Einstein:
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Sadly, Intellectual Brutality has been replaced by insanity. What a bummer.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - Phogge - 10-30-2022
Hell I had a 168 hour day at Wounded Knee. A number of 48 hour days on a PeeWee dolly in Monaco and in the Golden Horseshoe. Kudos to Squeri, I couldn't even write my name after eating scraps in Dakota for seven days.
There are a ton of QB's this year who should be drafted before McKee. It is different getting hit by Bosa even if getting hit by Latu. He will not survive in the NFL. There are at least four in the conference who are better than McKee, Rising, DTR, Nix, Penix. Then there is Williams who will have to wait for the '24 draft.
McKee, nice kid who commendably took his mission (Teo never did), Battled cancer and has the burden (and joy) of being married. But play? Nope.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - Softball Fan - 10-30-2022
On the topic of Muir being fired, if you only look at football I can understand the sentiment. And perhaps football is all that's important. But Stanford fall sports in general are having phenomenal success. Does Muir get evaluated for athletics at Stanford other than football?
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - BigJohn043 - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 07:09 PM)paloalto Wrote: On the topic of Muir being fired, if you only look at football I can understand the sentiment. And perhaps football is all that's important. But Stanford fall sports in general are having phenomenal success. Does Muir get evaluated for athletics at Stanford other than football?
Yes, cancelling 11 sports and then reinstating them is ineptitude of the highest degree. The sailing scandal wasn't great either.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - msqueri - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 04:49 PM)lex24 Wrote: Why on earth don’t you want to win the most games possible? Do you truly think if they go 3-9 Shaw is going to be fired? I don’t. I don’t think he would’ve been fired if they went 1- 11.
If you have some insight on this by all means let us know. But my guess is that Shaw “represents” the university well personally and that is all they care about in regards to football right now. They being the administration.
My real answer is that I don't know what will happen and I don't think you do either, but my guess is the odds of Stanford getting a new coach go up the more disastrous things get. Beyond that general frame, some thoughts:
* I think it is overly simplistic and binary to make it about Shaw being "fired." That's not the only outcome. He could retire. He could pivot to another job (coaching or otherwise, at Stanford or otherwise). And yeah, he could be "fired"/bought out/whatever.
* I think Shaw has built up a crap load of political capital at Stanford but it dwindles somewhat with miserable seasons (and can be replenished somewhat with good ones). I don't think he can have miserable results forever and have that be sustainable, but I don't know where the tipping point lies.
* Shaw representing the university well is a big part of the equation, but his side of that equation becomes less valuable the more disgrace the football program brings on the university. At some point the losing will become too much. Again, I don't know where the tipping point is.
* We also shouldn't think about accountability as being a yes/no binary. Maybe with a 6-6 season everything gets swept under the rug/spun as progress but at 4-8 Shaw faces pressure to make key changes to address glaring problems (the offense for instance). I just offer that notionally. Again, I don't know the dynamics or the tipping points. But I do think it's facile to act like there's no difference between 1-11 and 6-6 in terms of what it means for Shaw's standing, political capital, etc.
Ultimately, my guess (again, I don't think you or I really know how things will play out) is that among all the outcomes for Stanford's long term football prospects a 6-6 regular season is probably the worst. It would be spun as a triumph and buy Shaw even more time, and then we'd have to rebuild with a problematic 2023 roster and no buzz to help recruiting (you need at least 8 wins for that). At least 5-7 would be another losing season/reason for a chip on the shoulder, which could be modestly helpful in trying to apply pressure on Shaw to hand over the reins on offense. All the more true at 4-8, and all the more true still at 3-9.
The best reason to root for 6-6 would be a theory that it's enough success for Shaw to justify going out of his own volition with a modest triumph whereas another losing would likely prompt him to try to take advantage of any easy 2023 schedule to redeem himself.
Anyway, I want to go to a bowl and I tend to prefer when Stanford wins (duh) so I'm hoping that by Christmas I'll be raising a toast to an 8-5 Stanford team on a roll. Of course I hope that. I just think it's not unreasonable that 3-9 would be better for our long term future than 7-6 or 6-7.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - cardcrimson - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 07:13 PM)BigJohn043 Wrote:(10-30-2022, 07:09 PM)paloalto Wrote: On the topic of Muir being fired, if you only look at football I can understand the sentiment. And perhaps football is all that's important. But Stanford fall sports in general are having phenomenal success. Does Muir get evaluated for athletics at Stanford other than football?
Yes, cancelling 11 sports and then reinstating them is ineptitude of the highest degree. The sailing scandal wasn't great either.
And the first loss of the Directors Cup in a generation. Then a second, I think. Yeah Muir has been great for the other programs and our overall success. . . .
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - msqueri - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 05:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We are not winning six games, so the point is moot. I think we might get a fourth win, but if we continue playing as we have, 3-9 seems more likely than 5-7; 6-6 is a pipe dream.
But even if your position is that you have no interest in going to the toilet bowl, i would think that would make you agnostic about getting to 6-6 instead of actually rooting against the team.
I would very much like to be proven wrong in my conclusions about the team, but there is a large contingent of people who would rather be right than win.
BC
For what it's worth, on paper, Sagarin scopes out our schedule like this:
Colgate - WIN
USC - LOSS
at Washington - LOSS
at Oregon - LOSS
Oregon State - LOSS
at Notre Dame - WIN
Arizona State - WIN
at UCLA - LOSS
Washington State - 43 percent
at Utah - 12 percent
at Cal - 50 percent
BYU - 61 percent
Expected win total: 4.66
Sagarin isn't gospel but to me it suggests 4-8 and 5-7 are both more likely than 3-9. I would hazard that 6-6 is no more of a pipe dream than 3-9 is a realistic fear.
By the way, this is of interest to fans for our own entertainment and for assessing Shaw's public image, job security, etc., but we already know what kind of team we have and that doesn't change if we're 4-8 or 6-6. We're in the irrelevant mediocre morass.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - winflop - 10-30-2022
(10-30-2022, 05:10 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Shaw will not be fired no matter what. You're correct about that. Nor will Muir.
Then sadly I have attended my last Stanford football game after 25 years as a season ticket holder.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - chrisk - 10-30-2022
Given what we have seen and the mounting number of injuries, getting to 6-6 seems very unlikely.
We should note that Stanford has played 6 teams with winning current winning records, and is 1-5 (beating Notre Dame).
Against teams with losing records (Colgate and ASU), Stanford is 2-0.
In the remaining 4 games, Stanford is playing only 1 team with a winning record (Utah), which is very likely a loss.
Against the other 3 teams, Stanford should have a better shot than it had in the 5 losses already on the books.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - winflop - 10-31-2022
Thanks again for another great, detailed analysis. I think your point about the evolution of the defense gives too much credit to Anderson and not enough to the defensive leaders. It took Anderson five games of lousy defense PLUS the defensive leadership to go to him and essentially beg him to be more aggressive. Kudos to Anderson for listening, but when you're getting paid seven figures it shouldn't take this much/this long for you to figure it out.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - gailtate - 10-31-2022
(10-30-2022, 07:09 PM)paloalto Wrote: On the topic of Muir being fired, if you only look at football I can understand the sentiment. And perhaps football is all that's important. But Stanford fall sports in general are having phenomenal success. Does Muir get evaluated for athletics at Stanford other than football?
Football is first among equals. By far. It matter$ more. If Muir muffs football, he flunks. Period. #MuirAndShawMustGo
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - msqueri - 10-31-2022
(10-31-2022, 07:48 AM)gailtate Wrote:(10-30-2022, 07:09 PM)paloalto Wrote: On the topic of Muir being fired, if you only look at football I can understand the sentiment. And perhaps football is all that's important. But Stanford fall sports in general are having phenomenal success. Does Muir get evaluated for athletics at Stanford other than football?
Football is first among equals. By far. It matter$ more. If Muir muffs football, he flunks. Period. #MuirAndShawMustGo
This is my view too but he's muffed men's basketball, alumni goodwill, and the integrity of the school too. Varsity Blues could have been enough on its own. Football is actually a bit down the list of reasons to fire him as those failures fall on Shaw's shoulders and are harder to address if you're in Muir's shoes than some of the other failings. But the real point is he's failed in most ways that matter.
RE: Sunday afternoon thoughts - UCLA - winflop - 10-31-2022
(10-31-2022, 08:11 AM)msqueri Wrote:(10-31-2022, 07:48 AM)gailtate Wrote:(10-30-2022, 07:09 PM)paloalto Wrote: On the topic of Muir being fired, if you only look at football I can understand the sentiment. And perhaps football is all that's important. But Stanford fall sports in general are having phenomenal success. Does Muir get evaluated for athletics at Stanford other than football?
Football is first among equals. By far. It matter$ more. If Muir muffs football, he flunks. Period. #MuirAndShawMustGo
This is my view too but he's muffed men's basketball, alumni goodwill, and the integrity of the school too. Varsity Blues could have been enough on its own. Football is actually a bit down the list of reasons to fire him as those failures fall on Shaw's shoulders and are harder to address if you're in Muir's shoes than some of the other failings. But the real point is he's failed in most ways that matter.
Add to this his complete financial mismanagement of the department, spending like a drunken sailor as if conference revenues from the network were going to grow when they were collapsing
Also, Varsity Blues ***SHOULD*** have been enough on its own