Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - 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 morning thoughts - Notre Dame (/thread-23571.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 morning thoughts - Notre Dame (/thread-23571.html)
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - msqueri - 10-16-2022
To martyup and JJJ, it's fine for us to disagree on that decision or any other. Variety is the spice of life and disagreement is the essence of barroom/message board debate. For what it's worth, I post these thoughts on three different message boards and my football buddy text chain and on one of those message boards there was one or two posters who were especially apoplectic and stark in how they talked about the fourth quarter field goal/punt decision. My wording on that point was more directed at extreme rhetoric than somebody having a different view on the decision. As I said, in my view most "controversial" in-game decisions are in the 60/40 range. Even if I think this one is more in the 75-25 range or something, it's not crazy to be on the opposite side of it.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - BostonCard - 10-16-2022
My guess is that the people triggered by the decision had visions of Notre Dame marching down the field and kicking the game winning field goal as time expired. Even I thought “here we go again” as we lined up in punt formation.
Crunching the numbers, punting made more sense than kicking a field goal, and while I didn’t crunch the numbers for going for it on fourth down, instinctively that seems like it would have been a uniquely bad choice.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - qwerty49 - 10-16-2022
The first headscratcher for me was just before the half when we were up 7-0. Shaw went for it on 4th and 2 and not much left on the clock, and we came up short. Taking the (makeable) FG would have given us a 2-score halftime lead AND we would get the ball to start the 3Q. We tend to bash Shaw for being too conservative, but IMHO going for it was really a stupid risk to take.
BUT ND subsequently fumbled and Karty converted on the last play of the half to give us a 10-0 lead. Now THAT was luck.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - BostonCard - 10-16-2022
I think it makes sense to play more conservatively when you are a better team, and take more risks when you are not as good a team. A “high beta “ strategy makes more sense when you are the underdog by increasing the chances of lower probability events. But since a blowout loss counts the same as a narrow loss, why not take the chance.
Also, I figure the Notre Dame fumble was karma for the uncalled hold on fourth down.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - BostonCard - 10-16-2022
On luck… the fumble that McGill recovered rolled about 15 yards from the spot it was fumbled. “Good luck” that we recovered it. Bad luck that the recovery cost 15 yards. Given that the subsequent Stanford drive stalled at the ND 38, it is not invonceivable that “all else being equal” (and of course, it never is) the roll cost us 3 points.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - qwerty49 - 10-16-2022
(10-16-2022, 04:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it makes sense to play more conservatively when you are a better team, and take more risks when you are not as good a team. A “high beta “ strategy makes more sense when you are the underdog by increasing the chances of lower probability events. But since a blowout loss counts the same as a narrow loss, why not take the chance.
Also, I figure the Notre Dame fumble was karma for the uncalled hold on fourth down.
BC
Are we talking past each other? My point is that the way our D was playing in the first half was encouraging. Taking a 2-score lead into the halftime and then getting the ball first was absolutely the right decision. Lucky for us we got the ball back and had a second chance to make that decision -- correctly.
When your offense is sputtering you don't do the high beta stuff. How many times did we convert a 4th down last night?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - Goose - 10-16-2022
(10-16-2022, 06:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: On luck… the fumble that McGill recovered rolled about 15 yards from the spot it was fumbled. “Good luck” that we recovered it. Bad luck that the recovery cost 15 yards. Given that the subsequent Stanford drive stalled at the ND 38, it is not invonceivable that “all else being equal” (and of course, it never is) the roll cost us 3 points.Why stop there? Since the ball was basically knocked out of the runner's grasp, it could have gone towards the ND end zone and we could have recovered it at the 2 :-). Obviously, every play's outcome affects subsequent plays. If one "lucky" break hadn't happened, there is no way to know if the subsequent play with another "lucky" event would even exist. Many things about football are non-deterministic. Trying to describe some events as deterministic and other events as "luck" is pointless. They can't be separated.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - old spanish trail - 10-16-2022
As usual, thanks Square. Agree with most everything. Question for anyone, who wound up starting on the OL?
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - PVTree - 10-16-2022
(10-16-2022, 12:52 PM)JimD84 Wrote: When I saw the sequence of three running plays for no gain, I said to my wife, "Wow, the only reason to settle for that is because Shaw has already decided that he's comfortable trying the field goal from this distance. Otherwise he would have called some other plays to get positive yards". Given that, I was genuinely surprised that to see Stanford punt on the next play.
(10-16-2022, 12:45 PM)M T Wrote: But, speaking of poor calls, I thought the rule was that the receiver is considered inbounds if the defender pushes him out of bounds before he can get his foot down. Am I wrong, or did the refs get the call wrong where the Stanford receiver almost came down with a full foot inbounds. The defender was carrying him out as he came down.
I think you're thinking of the NFL, which has such a rule. AFAIK, the college game has no such provision. But, the college game only requires one foot in bounds, whereas in the pros it's two.
The rule was changed a some years ago. A defender can push you out of bounds, and it is incomplete even if you would have been in bounds without the push.
I like the rule now as it takes away a judgement call from the refs, and a decision can be made on facts (visual or replay).
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - BostonCard - 10-16-2022
(10-16-2022, 06:30 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Are we talking past each other? My point is that the way our D was playing in the first half was encouraging. Taking a 2-score lead into the halftime and then getting the ball first was absolutely the right decision. Lucky for us we got the ball back and had a second chance to make that decision -- correctly.
When your offense is sputtering you don't do the high beta stuff. How many times did we convert a 4th down last night?
Notre Dame’s offense was sputtering worse than ours; they converted 2/4 fourth downs.
BC
(10-16-2022, 06:37 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-16-2022, 06:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: On luck… the fumble that McGill recovered rolled about 15 yards from the spot it was fumbled. “Good luck” that we recovered it. Bad luck that the recovery cost 15 yards. Given that the subsequent Stanford drive stalled at the ND 38, it is not invonceivable that “all else being equal” (and of course, it never is) the roll cost us 3 points.Why stop there? Since the ball was basically knocked out of the runner's grasp, it could have gone towards the ND end zone and we could have recovered it at the 2 :-). Obviously, every play's outcome affects subsequent plays. If one "lucky" break hadn't happened, there is no way to know if the subsequent play with another "lucky" event would even exist. Many things about football are non-deterministic. Trying to describe some events as deterministic and other events as "luck" is pointless. They can't be separated.
BC
I think that’s my point. Matt argues we were “lucky” in the game and that on fundamentals Notre Dame should have won. My point is that you can’t really separate luck or determine it’s contribution to the outcome of a game.
BC
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - CardinalSagehen - 10-16-2022
It’s hard to say that Notre Dame should have won on fundamentals.
Matt pointed out that we were within 0.18 yards per play, which is extremely close and not deterministic.
We also outgained them 385 to 301 in total yards and 21 to 16 in first downs.
We did a number of things well enough to win. It’s statistically easier to say that we should have lost the ORST game than this one.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - JJJ - 10-17-2022
(10-16-2022, 03:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote: My guess is that the people triggered by the decision had visions of Notre Dame marching down the field and kicking the game winning field goal as time expired. Even I thought “here we go again” as we lined up in punt formation.
Crunching the numbers, punting made more sense than kicking a field goal, and while I didn’t crunch the numbers for going for it on fourth down, instinctively that seems like it would have been a uniquely bad choice.
BC
Yes, I was thinking worst-case scenarios…
Reality was far more fun.
https://youtu.be/FL8neZUGl_k
Longer highlights
https://youtu.be/tkKy9W1dQGU
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - CompSci87 - 10-17-2022
(10-16-2022, 12:52 PM)JimD84 Wrote:(10-16-2022, 12:45 PM)M T Wrote: But, speaking of poor calls, I thought the rule was that the receiver is considered inbounds if the defender pushes him out of bounds before he can get his foot down. Am I wrong, or did the refs get the call wrong where the Stanford receiver almost came down with a full foot inbounds. The defender was carrying him out as he came down.
I think you're thinking of the NFL, which has such a rule. AFAIK, the college game has no such provision. But, the college game only requires one foot in bounds, whereas in the pros it's two.
I think the NFL used to have that push-out rule long ago, but not any more. I don't know if college ever did. It would be super hard to officiate.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - Austroturf - 10-17-2022
Great write-up, Matt.
As usual, I did not get to see the game live, as it started around 1:30 AM CET. Bama-Tennessee was just winding up, and I just managed to see the conclusion of that juggernaut (what a game!).
The Stanford-ND game (in replay) was naturally a much more tepid affair. Credit to the Stanford defense for making Notre Dame ineffective on offense, even though the stats from earlier games indicate that they can move the ball, at least sometimes. That said, the Irish are on their second QB this season (after benching Tyler Buchner in the wake of the Marshall loss); and Pyne may be a more effective passer than Buchner, but he looked very immobile and very indecisive. Notre Dame fans over on SB Nation (One Foot Down) were bemoaning their QB situation and took several shots at their OC, Tommy Rees, for his lack of creativity and inventiveness (sound familiar?). Interestingly, there were no calls for Freeman to be fired; but a few blamed Kelly for leaving the offense in such bad shape, particularly at the WR position.
As for Stanford's offense, it was again pitiful. If anybody had told me we would score 16 points and beat Notre Dame, I never would have believed it. The slow-mesh was so painfully slow: on a few plays, it appeared as if McKee and Filkins had bumped into each other in the backfield and couldn't decide what to do with the ball. Just excruciating to watch; and the commentators couldn't help but highlight this clumsy-looking ballet in the backfield. "Slow mesh, yeah, guess that's the new thing". In 60 minutes, we got into the endzone once -- and that was on our opening drive. If Karty had been any less reliable, we would be sitting at 1-5. He accounted for 10 of those 16 points.
But yes, let's celebrate the W. Bringing the Legend's Trophy home is always good; and in five years, nobody will ask us how we did it, or whether we were lucky or not. It's a Stanford victory over Notre Dame, and that is a fine thing.
In addition, if the defense has really improved, then we definitely have a shot at getting to the 4 or 5 (maybe even 6) win range. Not good, not acceptable, but not humiliating. Much still needs to change, particularly on offense. And we shouldn't let one unexpected win against a very mediocre Notre Dame squad lead us to believe all is right with the program. Does Shaw have what it takes to engineer the turnaround? Recent history says no, and he has yet to convince me.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - Softball Fan - 10-17-2022
On the fumble McKee recovered, perhaps there was some luck. I saw a player who wanted to win, willing to risk his body aggressively going after the ball. Not a player who wanted to protect himself thinking ahead to the next level draft.
https://www.hjnews.com/sports/nation/stanford-notre-dame-football/image_f250e528-af74-50dc-939a-31b0e9d3800f.html
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - Ohiocard - 10-17-2022
(10-16-2022, 11:36 AM)msqueri Wrote: 7. Much less good things to say about the offense. 4.75 yards per play is just over half a yard worse than Notre Dame's average and just over a yard worse than our average on offense. Yes, we were playing with some line shuffles, but Notre Dame was playing without its best corner and one of its top defensive linemen. Our run game has gone frigid. 2.31 yards per carry is the worst anybody has done against them in 16 games. This is the third time in four games we've been held under 100 yards rushing as a team and fourth straight game with less than four yards a carry. I am fond of the way Filkins knifes and squirts for extra yards to get first downs [Moving the chains (first downs) leader board: Filkins (8), Wilson (4), Higgins (4), Yurosek (3), Tremayne (3)] but his lack of ball security would be unplayable if we had an alternative (the same statement applied to Smith before his injury, which reflects very poorly on Gould). The passing game was better but mediocre, right around Notre Dame's average allowed in yards per attempt and passer rating and we were the first team this year not to have a passing touchdown on them. McKee did do a nice job spreading the ball around for a second week, with five targets who all had 3+ catches and 38+ yards. I really hope that isn't the last time I see Wilson play for Stanford.
8. Halfway into the season we need to admit we have a problem on offense. There are myriad ways I could represent this statistically but let's keep it simple: we are 81st in scoring at 26.8 points per game. That's hard to fathom for an offense with the players we have. We haven't broken 30 points against an FBS opponent since last year's Wazzu game. To put that into perspective, the average points per game in college football in recent years is always around 29 in recent years. We haven't scored an average amount for an FBS team a single time in our last ten games. This offense stinks. Most veteran offense in America and they're not even average. There's no salvaging Shawfense.
9. We've become a kicker team. Karty was one of the featured players at Tuesday's press conference and then last night got to lead the C-House chant in the locker room. He's awfully good. His made field goals of 45, 43, and 43 make him one of nine kickers nationally with at least seven attempts and no misses. As Shaw said, Karty is a weapon. That's true on kickoffs too: we are #1 in kick returns allowed on average and our incredible mark (8.71) may put us in contention for all-time records for all I know. The best mark in the last 14 years was 2021 Michigan at 12.14. We give up 10.2 kick return yards per game. Karty a big advantage for us. Sanborn is not the same kind of advantage but is above average. Aside from the blocked punt, he had net punts of 41 (to the 35), 43 (to the 40), 41 (to the 16), and 28 (to the 10). Roush had a nice tackle in punt coverage, which was nice because he has had a rough go of it so far at tight end. I favored benching Farrell for Barrow but at least so far the mediocrity with kick returns continues.
10. In-game decisions interest me less than they interest many fans as I always feel like many of the most controversial decisions are 60/40 kind of judgment calls, hindsight is 20/20, and there's a fog of war those of us on our couches can't appreciate. But there is one call I want to comment on. I think Shaw made the right call on Sanborn's last punt and all of my text chain buddies agreed, so I was flabbergasted to see how much vitriol that call engendered on the message boards. Much of the criticism strikes me as a bit hypocritical insofar as we're always bashing Shaw for not understanding how easy it is to score on Stanford's defense, and in this case Shaw made the decision one would make if you thought holding an opponent to a field goal would be unlikely. If we kicked the field goal and then gave up a game-losing touchdown drive, many fans would have asked what good a five point lead does. But more to the point, there's no guarantee we make that field goal. Yes, Karty is great, but 57 yards is really long. He's made a 53 yarder, but 57 is a very big ask. There's also far from a guarantee we convert 4th and 8. This was not a hard decision at all. It would have been risky for Shaw to do anything other than punt and those criticizing him for it make themselves look silly.
11. Game balls: Nugent, Herron, Karty, Anderson
12. Can we build on this win? In the sense of getting more wins this season, the answer is clearly yes. As far as in-season narratives go, this was a massive win to go on the road and beat a team computers still think is borderline top 25. According to those computers, the win took our expected win total from 3.29 to 4.57, a massive one week swing at this point in the season. Far more important than computers, though, is the sense of momentum we could be on the verge of developing. It's notable that two weeks in a row we've had our best game in a calendar year and now go directly into the easiest remaining game on the schedule. Given the remaining schedule it is not outrageous for the team and its fans to hold out hope for a bowl game to salvage the season. Alas, in my view snatching defeat from the jaws of victory against Oregon State likely closes off that possibility. We'll have to run the table in a slew of tossup games and/or pull off another big upset. I don't see it and think it's overwhelmingly likely we end the year with 3-5 wins. That raises the imperative of keeping in perspective the larger picture if the in-season narrative ends up in lipstick on a pig territory. Let's see how the team does with a dramatically softer second half of the season schedule. Maybe Shaw shocks me and ends up with 6-8 wins. I won't root against that but don't expect it and think anything less than that must keep those who care acknowledging that David Shaw must go.
Good write up on the win, but I would say the thing I was most surprised by was the pass protection from our depleted offensive line. Credit to those kids who started the year down the depth chart, coming in and fighting their tails off. ND has some talented D-Linemen and other than a few plays it was a good performance by the players & coaches under the circumstances.
Also, the rush numbers were hurt by a few of Stanford's most explosive "running" plays being the shovel pass & shovel draw. I know they are technically pass plays, but they are blocked as runs and when we talk about the run game those should be factored in.
Also, Tanner McKee may be the slowest QB in College Football. He pulled the ball once and I thought it was an easy 1st down and he got tackled for about 3 yards.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - TriangleTree - 10-17-2022
(10-17-2022, 01:44 AM)Austroturf Wrote: whether we were lucky or not.
Had a chance to be at the game on Saturday and have been smiling since.
A few observations from the stands:
To my eyes and to many ND fans around me, we looked the better team on Saturday, luck had little to do with it.
Outstanding plays when needed won this game (Tremayne's 3rd down catch late in the game, Magnum Farrar's diving pass brake-up to Mayer on 3rd down during ND last drive, Heron's sack on the last drive, 4th and goal stop in Q1, etc.)
The box score shows they had more turnovers than we did, but two failed 4th down conversions (one that should have been granted on a no-call penalty) and a weird blocked punt are effective turnovers. Again, little was handed to us by way of luck.
I don't care what the box score says about Filkins YPR, he had a monster game and frustrated ND fans to no end. He just didn't break any long runs and those forward pitches don't count as runs, but our running game was very solid on Saturday.
Bonner's TFL where he caught up the running back from behind made jaws drop, I bet it was more impressive live than on TV.
Mike Wilson is Elite, him and Mayer were the best offensive athletes on that field. I am so sad to hear about his injury, I really hope the news is not as bad as speculated.
Talking to ND fans before the game who were asking about our season, I mentioned that we actually have very good talent at many positions but that we have significant gaps particularly in the lines, in no small part due to youth, inexperience, and injuries. We just haven't had the makings of a full team. I told them it would become apparent early on that their dominant line play would decide the game in their favor. How wrong was I?!?
Great to see Karty getting well deserved recognition. He should play on Sundays.
The ND QB play wasn't great, but our defense had a lot to do with making him look bad. DB/Safety/linebacker pass defense was as good as I've seen from us in a long time. There were two plays we were truly beaten, one which resulted in the touchdown with Wilkerson defending (who had an otherwise outstanding game), and one in the 1H on the other endzone where the QB overthrew his receiver by a couple of feet. Our defense looked the part and was the real deal, really impressed on how they contained Mayer.
McKee never threw a bomb to stretch the field. I suspect we didn't anticipate our OL to hold up as well as it did. I wish we would have tried at least one or two, but can't complain with McKee staying clean. Did they record a single sack?
I generally liked our play calling, even the last drive. The punt is a no-brainer to me. I did take some issue with the run on third down and 7 or 8 on the last drive, but I don't think it was ridiculous given the way the game was going. This is how I think of the tradeoff: Run for a 10% chance of getting the first down and kneeling to win, 90% chance of giving them the ball back inside their 20 with 2 minutes and no time outs (which materialized), vs. 40% chance of first down and winning, 50% chance of incomplete pass and giving them the ball back inside their 20 with one time out, 10% of other weird stuff happening. I think the latter is the better call, but there is a clear tradeoff.
I was SOOO happy to see McKee defer when he won the toss. That's two games in a row for Shaw now. I think we have started much stronger as a result. I hope this is here to stay.
What a place to watch a game. Atmosphere is insane, also within the visiting fans section. I often wonder about the future of college football and have been inching closer to accepting it's time to move on, but that was a good reminder about how great the college football experience can be. I have felt that way at Stanford in the past, different atmosphere but still outstanding experience. I hope those days come back.
Still smiling
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - msqueri - 10-17-2022
Excellent thoughts Ohiocard and TriangleTree. A few quibbles, both related to the run game:
Other teams use shovel passes and shovel draws too. Statistics don't totally capture every nuance but the things that can deflate the run game like not counting those plays or having sack yardage subtracted apply to everybody. If you start to say "but we had a good shovel pass" as an excuse for miserable run stats you will end up in a less accurate place than if you judge by the overall results.
Filkins absolutely did not have a monster game. He had an admirable workhorse game (and I worry how sustainable his work load is). But you can't have among the worst ball security in the nation (literally the only Power Five running back in America with 4+ fumbles, and Saturday was his worst game of the season by that measure) and average 2.8 yards per carry (TWO POINT EIGHT!) and have a "monster" game. His troubles were not just a function of not breaking off a big one. Among his 36 touches (no doubt a workhorse performance), eight went for first downs. Against USC, Smith had 10 first downs and Filkins had 8. Against Washington Filkins had 7 on 22 touches. Against Oregon Filkins had 6 on 22 touches. Filkins' game on Saturday was not monster, it was workhorse. He carried a big load but didn't plow very far, and knocked the plow into a ditch an unforgiveable number of times with his butter fingers. For what it's worth, in large part due to the fumbles, PFF graded Filkins at a bad 52.8, tied as the 10th best among the 13 Stanford players with 20+ snaps on offense.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - TriangleTree - 10-17-2022
(10-17-2022, 08:25 AM)msqueri Wrote: Excellent thoughts Ohiocard and TriangleTree. A few quibbles, both related to the run game:
Filkins absolutely did not have a monster game. He had an admirable workhorse game (and I worry how sustainable his work load is). But you can't have among the worst ball security in the nation
Fair enough, monster is unhelpful hyperbole and the fumbles were dreadful, but consider the expectations.
When I heard from Troy Clardy about the state of our offensive line I thought we were burnt toast, and yet we were able to consistently get runs of 3-5 yards on first and second down and dominate time of possession.
We're nowhere within winning this game without a running game that they needed to respect and that's exactly what him and the offensive line gave us.
I concede workhorse is the much better descriptor, but adjusted for expectations it was an awesome surprise.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Notre Dame - gailtate - 10-17-2022
(10-17-2022, 07:27 AM)Ohiocard Wrote:(10-16-2022, 11:36 AM)msqueri Wrote: 7. Much less good things to say about the offense. 4.75 yards per play is just over half a yard worse than Notre Dame's average and just over a yard worse than our average on offense. Yes, we were playing with some line shuffles, but Notre Dame was playing without its best corner and one of its top defensive linemen. Our run game has gone frigid. 2.31 yards per carry is the worst anybody has done against them in 16 games. This is the third time in four games we've been held under 100 yards rushing as a team and fourth straight game with less than four yards a carry. I am fond of the way Filkins knifes and squirts for extra yards to get first downs [Moving the chains (first downs) leader board: Filkins (8), Wilson (4), Higgins (4), Yurosek (3), Tremayne (3)] but his lack of ball security would be unplayable if we had an alternative (the same statement applied to Smith before his injury, which reflects very poorly on Gould). The passing game was better but mediocre, right around Notre Dame's average allowed in yards per attempt and passer rating and we were the first team this year not to have a passing touchdown on them. McKee did do a nice job spreading the ball around for a second week, with five targets who all had 3+ catches and 38+ yards. I really hope that isn't the last time I see Wilson play for Stanford.
8. Halfway into the season we need to admit we have a problem on offense. There are myriad ways I could represent this statistically but let's keep it simple: we are 81st in scoring at 26.8 points per game. That's hard to fathom for an offense with the players we have. We haven't broken 30 points against an FBS opponent since last year's Wazzu game. To put that into perspective, the average points per game in college football in recent years is always around 29 in recent years. We haven't scored an average amount for an FBS team a single time in our last ten games. This offense stinks. Most veteran offense in America and they're not even average. There's no salvaging Shawfense.
9. We've become a kicker team. Karty was one of the featured players at Tuesday's press conference and then last night got to lead the C-House chant in the locker room. He's awfully good. His made field goals of 45, 43, and 43 make him one of nine kickers nationally with at least seven attempts and no misses. As Shaw said, Karty is a weapon. That's true on kickoffs too: we are #1 in kick returns allowed on average and our incredible mark (8.71) may put us in contention for all-time records for all I know. The best mark in the last 14 years was 2021 Michigan at 12.14. We give up 10.2 kick return yards per game. Karty a big advantage for us. Sanborn is not the same kind of advantage but is above average. Aside from the blocked punt, he had net punts of 41 (to the 35), 43 (to the 40), 41 (to the 16), and 28 (to the 10). Roush had a nice tackle in punt coverage, which was nice because he has had a rough go of it so far at tight end. I favored benching Farrell for Barrow but at least so far the mediocrity with kick returns continues.
10. In-game decisions interest me less than they interest many fans as I always feel like many of the most controversial decisions are 60/40 kind of judgment calls, hindsight is 20/20, and there's a fog of war those of us on our couches can't appreciate. But there is one call I want to comment on. I think Shaw made the right call on Sanborn's last punt and all of my text chain buddies agreed, so I was flabbergasted to see how much vitriol that call engendered on the message boards. Much of the criticism strikes me as a bit hypocritical insofar as we're always bashing Shaw for not understanding how easy it is to score on Stanford's defense, and in this case Shaw made the decision one would make if you thought holding an opponent to a field goal would be unlikely. If we kicked the field goal and then gave up a game-losing touchdown drive, many fans would have asked what good a five point lead does. But more to the point, there's no guarantee we make that field goal. Yes, Karty is great, but 57 yards is really long. He's made a 53 yarder, but 57 is a very big ask. There's also far from a guarantee we convert 4th and 8. This was not a hard decision at all. It would have been risky for Shaw to do anything other than punt and those criticizing him for it make themselves look silly.
11. Game balls: Nugent, Herron, Karty, Anderson
12. Can we build on this win? In the sense of getting more wins this season, the answer is clearly yes. As far as in-season narratives go, this was a massive win to go on the road and beat a team computers still think is borderline top 25. According to those computers, the win took our expected win total from 3.29 to 4.57, a massive one week swing at this point in the season. Far more important than computers, though, is the sense of momentum we could be on the verge of developing. It's notable that two weeks in a row we've had our best game in a calendar year and now go directly into the easiest remaining game on the schedule. Given the remaining schedule it is not outrageous for the team and its fans to hold out hope for a bowl game to salvage the season. Alas, in my view snatching defeat from the jaws of victory against Oregon State likely closes off that possibility. We'll have to run the table in a slew of tossup games and/or pull off another big upset. I don't see it and think it's overwhelmingly likely we end the year with 3-5 wins. That raises the imperative of keeping in perspective the larger picture if the in-season narrative ends up in lipstick on a pig territory. Let's see how the team does with a dramatically softer second half of the season schedule. Maybe Shaw shocks me and ends up with 6-8 wins. I won't root against that but don't expect it and think anything less than that must keep those who care acknowledging that David Shaw must go.
Good write up on the win, but I would say the thing I was most surprised by was the pass protection from our depleted offensive line. Credit to those kids who started the year down the depth chart, coming in and fighting their tails off. ND has some talented D-Linemen and other than a few plays it was a good performance by the players & coaches under the circumstances.
Also, the rush numbers were hurt by a few of Stanford's most explosive "running" plays being the shovel pass & shovel draw. I know they are technically pass plays, but they are blocked as runs and when we talk about the run game those should be factored in.
Also, Tanner McKee may be the slowest QB in College Football. He pulled the ball once and I thought it was an easy 1st down and he got tackled for about 3 yards.
McKee is a lot of good things but he's not the horse a really good QB must be today, and he's anything but elusive. Stanford must have other attributes to compensate. Problem is this will also call for adaptive play-calling, scheme and "sideline" field management which have not been Shaw-era hallmarks. Still, we have to hope the team can build something on the foundation of a rare win on the road as a decisive underdog. Whether this was a glimmer of something truly promising or just fool's gold remains to be seen. I am encouraged by signs of this team's independent mind-set and resilience. Of course, this could all come crashing down by Halloween.