Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State

Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - 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 - Oregon State (/thread-23549.html)

Pages: 1 2

Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - msqueri - 10-09-2022

1. As has become depressingly (although also kind of morbidly hilariously) commonplace, we have another nominee for quintessential Stanford loss in this Shaw-ful era of being arguably the worst program in Power Five football. This had many of the trappings - clock management failings leaving too much time for an opponent to score, untimely screw-ups on both sides of the ball to squander a lead (do we have our own nomination for a term to replace Coug'n it?), a backup QB having a career day. What most stuck out to me, though, was how much it crystallized how far we've fallen as a program that we even were in a position to lose that game to that team. We were playing at home against a mediocre team that was playing without their quarterback and worked all game to hand us the victory, and we played a very good game by Stanford football standards and we still managed to lose. Remarkable. If that doesn't sum up why the current state of the Stanford program is hopeless and urgently in need of a complete overhaul, including Shaw and all his career wins being gone, I don't know what does.

2. It really was a very good game by Stanford football standards. We only got outgained by 0.6 yards per play, which is our most competitive FBS game in over a year since the 2021 Oregon win). Believe it or not, both the offense and the defense actually did better than the Beaver yard per play average this season, and special teams was a big net positive for us. The offense gained 0.26 more yards per play than the Beaver defense allows on average, better than anybody but Utah and Fresno State, and the defense gave up 0.11 yards per play less than the Beav average (though worse than Pac-12 defenses have been doing), and that 6.50 yards per play was better than we've done against our last six FBS opponents. We played closer to our potential than we have all year (and going back a ways last year too) and had just about everything go our way in terms of the comedy of errors on the Oregon State side that made this competitive - playing with a backup QB, playing with no long snapper in the second half and thus forgoing extra points three times, missing a 40 yard field goal, attempting an ill-advised onside kick, racking up 90 penalty yards (FBS average is 57) including one that wiped out a touchdown, kicking the ball out of bounds to start the second half. Oregon State did everything they could to hand this to us, we played the best we have in a year. And despite all that we still lost. At home. To a team that now at 4-2 still isn't one of the 45 teams with votes in the coaches' poll. This captures the hopelessness of Stanford football as well as any other loss.

3. Given the imperative that we get a new coaching staff as soon as possible, I am watching Shaw's handling of all of this closely. IMHO, his press conference last night continued the unbothered and unstressed Shaw we've been seeing. He doesn't present as angry, confused, or even frustrated. He isn't making an effort to spin or make excuses. Instead, he's just matter of fact about all this being difficult for the team and what his challenge is ahead to build on the positives, which he is eager to note were more plentiful in this game than in prior games. I only see three possibilities: (A) Shaw's personality is even more congenitally even keel than I thought after watching him the last 15 years (working against this hypothesis is we have seen pique, excuse-making, and signs of stress in the past); (B) all the losing has beaten Shaw down and he has completed the transition from a coach with pride to a coach with an unambitious loser's mentality fine with moral victories; or © he has come to peace with this being the end of the road and is just focused on setting a good example, loving his players, and helping those who will be helped develop into better football players an men. I am hoping it is not just wishful thinking but my gut feels © is what's going on.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - msqueri - 10-09-2022

4. In terms of positives, the biggest one was the passing attack. We passed better than anybody other than Utah has against Oregon State (e.g., better than USC) and the best we've been against anybody other than Washington. Notably, while McKee was a big part of it, the real story is that the receivers finally showed up. We had four receivers (Tremayne, Higgins, Yurosek, Wilson) with 50+ yards, the first time this season we've spread it around. Against Colgate we had three guys at that mark and, shockingly, we haven't had more than one in any other game. This game finally showed the passing game we expected. It was especially great to see a big game from Tremayne after his tough road back from injury and horrible start to the year. Alas, as is always the case with Stanford football these years, we couldn't put the various pieces together. As the passing game finally got right, the run game fell apart, with the second worst rushing game of the year statistically but the worst if you adjust for competition. The Beavs are 104th in yards per carry allowed and get bullied for 4.57 yards per carry, but we only got 3.33, and that was without losing much yardage to sacks. That's by far the worst anybody has rushed against them, and they've played three Group of Five or FCS teams. Not a complete game for our offense. This week's moving the sticks (first down) leaderboard: Filkins (6), Wilson (3), Tremayne (2), Higgins (2), Yurosek, Barrow, Daniels.

5. The defensive showing was much more balanced but, as usual, not good. The relative positive was that the run defense bounced back after a disastrous last two weeks and held the Beavers just under their average in the run game, almost identical to Boise State and Fresno State, better than USC, and slightly worse than Utah. I am sure we will want to view this as progress, but for those who watched Miezan's Tuesday press availability it was clear we went into this game thinking Oregon State was a relatively favorable matchup for us from a run scheme perspective. Plus we got to key in more on the run with Chance Nolan out at QB and Luke Musgrave out at tight end. For all that to add up to average is not super encouraging, nor did we take advantage of QB2. Our pass defense was essentially right on Oregon State's yards per attempt average and significantly worse than their passer rating average because we didn't manage to get an interception despite the Beavers being an extremely interception-prone team. I would be surprised if Gulbranson ends the year considered a better QB than Penix or Nix, yet this was our worst pass defense game since USC.

6. Nonetheless, it was clearly a relatively good day for our defense by their standards and hopefully something they can build on. In my weekly count of quality plays, Phillips, Bailey, Sinclair, Williamson, Miezan, and Damuni all got at least three. That's not half bad. Very nice defensive effort, as Shaw said after the game. A game ball for the defense comes down to Damuni's consistency, Phillips' conventional stats, and Bailey's big plays. To me Bailey is really the standout. Two tackles for loss, gift-wrapping one of Phillips' sacks, and a QB hurry on 3rd and 8 to force an incompletion and punt is a very nice game. For a true freshman it is befitting his Freshman All-American hype. It seems like he is getting better before our eyes, which is really notable because even just in the five games we've had he already is 10th in the Pac-12 in tackles for loss. There is one "freshman" on the national leaderboard for tackles for loss (Syracuse's Leon Lowery) but he's a third year "freshman" because 2020 didn't count for eligibility and he played less than four games in 2021. It seems to me Bailey is as good as any freshman in America. Before the year I expressed hope Bailey could be a Shayne Skov/James Vaughters-type true freshman. Five games in it's clear Bailey is way better than either of those previous linebacker greats. It's going to be a fun sub-plot as long as we have Bailey to see how good he can get. I just hope he's at Stanford long enough to see good football around him. Another bright spot for me is Sinclair. I really hope he comes back for a fifth year. Forget size, he makes better football plays than Miezan and Mangum-Farrar do. I don't want to belabor a point bashing an individual, especially one who is one of the most impressive scholar-athlete-leader types to pass through our locker room, but the negativity of Fields' contributions on the two long fourth quarter touchdowns (the 43 yard touchdown run, which also took Franklin and Damuni getting walled off, and then especially the 56 yard touchdown pass, which also took a Bonner flub but Bonner's negative role in the play seemed much flukier to me than Fields freezing/refusing to make a play) most definitely cost us the game. They weren't the only things that cost us the game, but they cost it all the same.

7. Special teams was an advantage, mostly because the Beavers' special teams were so horrible. On our side, Karty making 47 and 46 yard field goals helps a lot in a close game. Filkins had a 15 yard punt return, albeit on a classic out-kicking the coverage. I think Sanborn was our weak link on special teams. He had net punts of 49 (to the 20), 38 (to the 25), 37 (to the 35), 29 (to the 15), and 33 (after an 11 yard return). Not horrible, but not good either. Other than the first I think every one of those is one we'd want a mulligan on.

8. Shaw tried to say that all three phases had a chance to put the game away and none did. I have some quibbles with the way he as well as his critics have characterized the end of game sequence. I think Shaw is right that our late game trying to run out the clock was not conservative per se and that we were "marching" down the field to a degree, but he can't dodge the ill-fated and way too cute Ashton Daniels 3rd down call. It's amazing (and I wonder how sustainable) Shaw seems to retain the faith of his players when he can be counted on to take the ball out of his best players' hands all too often. In terms of the other phases, we all saw the Bonner/Fields screw-up so that's no mystery, but Shaw trying to put special teams in the same category of having a chance to put the game away was truly unhinged. Said kickoff that failed to "get a good kickoff and cover" or "at least get them pinned in" and instead "got too much of a return" was taken back 22 yards to the Oregon State 24, a yard better field position for our defense to work with than a touchback would have been. The fog of war is real and with so many macro problems in our program it's silly to dunk on a minor comment like this, but I don't like it when our coach loses grip of reality.

9. Game balls: Nugent, Bailey, Karty, Kennedy

10. We remain in an utterly joyless place. Even for the most rose colored optimists, that loss should take off the table any prospects of a salvaged season. The real question is how far we fall. We are off to a 1-4 start and maintaining the longest active stretch of incompetence in major college football even though by all indications the players continue to work and give effort. How long can that continue? Eventually last season we gave up and it got really ugly. We aren't to that point yet this year but it's hard to imagine how we don't get there after another loss or two (if last night didn't already break morale). From a fan's perspective, it's so depressing to think about how little joy there is. We have Notre Dame coming up and I gave no serious thought to flying out for it, which was a road trip I wouldn't have missed not that long ago. I expect next Saturday night to be the same tv experience I've had watching our games the last 12 months. The only hope I have for the game is to watch Mike Wilson and David Bailey make some plays. Sad. At least every week brings us one week closer to what should be an inevitable late November reckoning over the future of the program.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - BostonCard - 10-09-2022

In Smith’s defense, I think the two things you called out were defensible, even though the outcome benefitted us.

The decision to onside kick made a lot of sense to me. Because of the unsportsmanlike conduct after the extra point, OSU kicked off from the 45 rather than the 30. Had they kicked it off, we likely would have fair catched the ball and gotten it at the 25. With the onside kick, we got the ball at the 35. Trading even a small chance to get possession for 10 yards seems worth it to me.

On the two point tries, I wasn’t aware that the long snapper was out, but down two touchdowns it’s the right call. If you make the try, a TD puts you in a possession to win (if you can long snap), and a failed two point try, still gives you a chance to try again. If each try has a 50/50 chance of success, then with two touchdowns you have a 50% chance of getting 15 points and the win, a 25% chance of getting 14 points and a tie, and 25% chance of getting 12 points and having to score again, as happened.

BC

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - msqueri - 10-09-2022

(10-09-2022, 12:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: In Smith’s defense, I think the two things you called out were defensible, even though the outcome benefitted us.

The decision to onside kick made a lot of sense to me. Because of the unsportsmanlike conduct after the extra point, OSU kicked off from the 45 rather than the 30. Had they kicked it off, we likely would have fair catched the ball and gotten it at the 25. With the onside kick, we got the ball at the 35. Trading even a small chance to get possession for 10 yards seems worth it to me.

On the two point tries, I wasn’t aware that the long snapper was out, but down two touchdowns it’s the right call. If you make the try, a TD puts you in a possession to win (if you can long snap), and a failed two point try, still gives you a chance to try again. If each try has a 50/50 chance of success, then with two touchdowns you have a 50% chance of getting 15 points and the win, a 25% chance of getting 14 points and a tie, and 25% chance of getting 12 points and having to score again, as happened.

BC

Good points but that just defends Smith’s decision-making. It doesn’t change the various ways in which the results of those decisions ended up marginally helping us in terms of points and field position.

If you play this game 100 times, I bet most of them would have resulted in the Beavers winning by more than one point.

The main point is just that we played well, they didn’t, and we lost.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - qwerty49 - 10-09-2022

I'll come right out and say it -- I was waiting all morning for what has come to be our weekly tour de force from msqueri, and you never fail to deliver. Bravo, Matt!

Your point #2 contains a gigantic truth that was very evident as I watched the live broadcast -- OSU tried to give this game away to us in so many ways. Their penalties were amazingly ill-timed, costing them at least one TD directly. And their playcalling was pretty weird. I thought they could run on us all night and they insisted on having their backup QB throw and throw into fairly predictable patterns. At least 3 or 4 of those completions were fabulous catches from his WRs.

Bailey sure is the real deal, isn't he. Did he actually start? I don't remember spotting him early in the game.

And yeah, it's tough to call Fields out, but maybe everyone's expectations were too high for him.

How is Sanborn doing compared to last year? My sense is his net yardage stats are down, and that it's not just due to coverage.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - Austroturf - 10-09-2022

On point 3 above, I would agree that Shaw's behavior is category C. One of Shaw's consistently positive personality traits is his professionalism: even if we had just lost 72-0 to UC Davis, he would be a professional and represent the program as the Bradford M. Freeman Director of Football should. It's all about the team, the players, the young men, about making them better, etc. It's boring and hackneyed, but it's professional. That's why press conferences are so boring and meaningless.

Unfortunately, Shaw is now a professional loser. In the last two years, his teams have found ways to lose totally winnable games (Wazzu and Washington last year, Oregon State this year). And then add to these the games that were unwinnable from the start. Losing is now his (and Stanford's) trademark.

But the way we lost yesterday was particularly enervating. The victory was there for the taking, but we just fumbled it away, giving the Beavers a highlight reel moment in their 2022 season.

And if we are totally honest, the teams that blew us away early in the season do not appear to be all that good. Oregon was pulverized by Georgia and barely escaped Pullman with a last-second victory against the Cougin' Cougs. Washington was soundly beaten by UCLA, with some late TDs making the game look closer than it was, and managed to lose to ASU in Tempe. Even USC barely got past the Beavs (albeit against their starting QB). It wasn't a murderer's row; but they certainly murdered us.

After getting thrashed by the Trojans, the Ducks and the Huskies, I had developed a certain protective apathy. But the way we Coug'd it yesterday reawakened my frustrations with this program. Enough with the embarrassments. Time to move on to somebody who is perhaps a little less professional, but a lot more of a winner.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - BostonCard - 10-09-2022

(10-09-2022, 12:56 PM)msqueri Wrote:
(10-09-2022, 12:43 PM)BostonCard Wrote: In Smith’s defense, I think the two things you called out were defensible, even though the outcome benefitted us.

The decision to onside kick made a lot of sense to me. Because of the unsportsmanlike conduct after the extra point, OSU kicked off from the 45 rather than the 30. Had they kicked it off, we likely would have fair catched the ball and gotten it at the 25. With the onside kick, we got the ball at the 35. Trading even a small chance to get possession for 10 yards seems worth it to me.

On the two point tries, I wasn’t aware that the long snapper was out, but down two touchdowns it’s the right call. If you make the try, a TD puts you in a possession to win (if you can long snap), and a failed two point try, still gives you a chance to try again. If each try has a 50/50 chance of success, then with two touchdowns you have a 50% chance of getting 15 points and the win, a 25% chance of getting 14 points and a tie, and 25% chance of getting 12 points and having to score again, as happened.

BC

Good points but that just defends Smith’s decision-making. It doesn’t change the various ways in which the results of those decisions ended up marginally helping us in terms of points and field position.

If you play this game 100 times, I bet most of them would have resulted in the Beavers winning by more than one point.

The main point is just that we played well, they didn’t, and we lost.

I think I agree with what you are saying, if what you are saying is that we played one of our better games (compared to our other games this year), they played one of their worse games (compared to their other games), and we still lost. I don’t think I would say that we played “well” in an objective sense; we allowed a 99 yard touchdown drive. We allowed them to drive 76 yards for a TD in under 54 seconds (with no time outs remaining). We went three and out four or five times. We had a crappy running game. At key moments, we had mental brain farts and sub-par efforts. That is not, objectively, playing well. Nor did OSU play especially badly. Indeed, I think the outcome of the game, a narrow win for the Beavers, reflected what we saw on the field: OSU outplayed us last night, though unlike the previous three games, they didn’t blow us out of the water. So I agree that if we replay this game 100 times, they beat us by more than 1 most of the time.

BC

(10-09-2022, 01:01 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Your point #2 contains a gigantic truth that was very evident as I watched the live broadcast -- OSU tried to give this game away to us in so many ways. Their penalties were amazingly ill-timed, costing them at least one TD directly. And their playcalling was pretty weird. I thought they could run on us all night and they insisted on having their backup QB throw and throw into fairly predictable patterns. At least 3 or 4 of those completions were fabulous catches from his WRs.

But only we succeeded in giving the game away.

The weird thing is that although you think with a backup QB and our run defense, they should have been running the ball 75% of the time, OSU was 20/29 for 250 yards, for 8.6 ypa passing, and “only” ran 40 times for 4.8 ypc. Even taking away the four sacks from the running totals and making them attempted pass plays, gets us to a slightly more efficient passing attack than running attack.

From a gut feel, I thought we looked better when making OSU pass (or when they elected to do so), but the numbers say that, at worst, it was an even attack.

BC

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - Row80Critic - 10-09-2022

Another Shawful game. Soul-crushing loss. Dreadful coaching.

College football constantly evolves. Shaw hasn't kept up and the results speak for themselves. It's sad on so many levels.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - Phogge - 10-09-2022

Watched the Niners today and man can they tackle. Stanford can't. There is athletic ability involved but the same kids make the same mistakes. Got to be on the staff too. What the hell does the defensive staff do in the spring? It's plagued Stanford for years.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - RuralFan - 10-09-2022

(10-09-2022, 06:29 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: Another Shawful game. Soul-crushing loss. Dreadful coaching.

College football constantly evolves. Shaw hasn't kept up and the results speak for themselves. It's sad on so many levels.

I don't know if it is Shaw that hasn't keep up. We all knew at the start of the season that Stanford would have a very light and very inexperienced defense line. Most top D-1 programs would have worked to fill these holes with transfer "students". My understanding is that Stanford admissions will not permit this. I don't even know if those on this board want to force changes in Stanford policies on transfers. I doubt it could be done without degrading the value of a Stanford degree.

Our two best running backs transferred out of Stanford, leaving us very thin at running back with replacement players having a history of injury problems. Unfortunately we were hit with a season ending injury to our top remaining running back early in the season. I doubt Shaw had any thing to do with this.

NIL(name, image, likeness) payments are now a major factor in recruiting freshmen and transfers. My understanding is that a top quarterback recruit is now looking at NIL offers of at least one million dollars a year. The University is not supposed to make these payments, but I'm sure that there are many ways around this. I pretty sure Shaw does not control this issue at Stanford and if we have fallen behind it's not because of him.

It seems to me that some of the problems we are currently having are more influenced by these factors than they are by the play calling, the time management, or the general quality of our coaching. While many of or players are capable of competing at the D-1 level, we have others that are not there yet. Our depth at certain positions is just scary. Stanford has some incredibly difficult decisions to make.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - BigJohn043 - 10-09-2022

(10-09-2022, 07:43 PM)RuralFan Wrote:
(10-09-2022, 06:29 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: Another Shawful game. Soul-crushing loss. Dreadful coaching.

College football constantly evolves. Shaw hasn't kept up and the results speak for themselves. It's sad on so many levels.

I don't know if it is Shaw that hasn't keep up. We all knew at the start of the season that Stanford would have a very light and very inexperienced defense line. Most top D-1 programs would have worked to fill these holes with transfer "students". My understanding is that Stanford admissions will not permit this. I don't even know if those on this board want to force changes in Stanford policies on transfers. I doubt it could be done without degrading the value of a Stanford degree.

Our two best running backs transferred out of Stanford, leaving us very thin at running back with replacement players having a history of injury problems. Unfortunately we were hit with a season ending injury to our top remaining running back early in the season. I doubt Shaw had any thing to do with this.

NIL(name, image, likeness) payments are now a major factor in recruiting freshmen and transfers. My understanding is that a top quarterback recruit is now looking at NIL offers of at least one million dollars a year. The University is not supposed to make these payments, but I'm sure that there are many ways around this. I pretty sure Shaw does not control this issue at Stanford and if we have fallen behind it's not because of him.

It seems to me that some of the problems we are currently having are more influenced by these factors than they are by the play calling, the time management, or the general quality of our coaching. While many of or players are capable of competing at the D-1 level, we have others that are not there yet. Our depth at certain positions is just scary. Stanford has some incredibly difficult decisions to make.

You think the current staff & Shaw had nothing to do with its best two RBs leaving? You think we can't still recruit with the 40 year decision? Our biggest problem is a god awful head coach who has driven the program into the ground.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - Jamesy - 10-09-2022

I know people like to talk about the outgoing transfers, lack of incoming transfers and NIL as reasons for the drop in performance. However if that were the case, we should have lots of extra scholarships laying around. We barely met the 85 scholarship limit and had to take away some scholies from walk ons that previously got them. I also don't think we're admitting lower tier recruits based on the quality of our recruiting classes. I place this squarely on the coaches.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - BostonCard - 10-09-2022

We are taking larger freshmen classes, plus players all got an extra year of eligibility due to COVID. Making the scholarship limit is neither here nor there.

BC

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - msqueri - 10-10-2022

(10-09-2022, 01:01 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I'll come right out and say it -- I was waiting all morning for what has come to be our weekly tour de force from msqueri, and you never fail to deliver. Bravo, Matt!

Your point #2 contains a gigantic truth that was very evident as I watched the live broadcast -- OSU tried to give this game away to us in so many ways. Their penalties were amazingly ill-timed, costing them at least one TD directly. And their playcalling was pretty weird. I thought they could run on us all night and they insisted on having their backup QB throw and throw into fairly predictable patterns. At least 3 or 4 of those completions were fabulous catches from his WRs.

Bailey sure is the real deal, isn't he. Did he actually start? I don't remember spotting him early in the game.

And yeah, it's tough to call Fields out, but maybe everyone's expectations were too high for him.

How is Sanborn doing compared to last year? My sense is his net yardage stats are down, and that it's not just due to coverage.

Thanks qwerty!

Bailey is listed as starting but only played 46 snaps, tenth on the defense in snaps and tied for first with Herron among edge player. Bailey was top six in snaps each of the previous three weeks, so there was some diminution in role for him this week, perhaps working through something in the first half.

Sanborn always had a tough act to follow with Jake Bailey proving with the Patriots that he's one of the top two or three punters on the planet. Here are our net punting results each of Sanborn's four years (2019-2022), each of Bailey's four years (2015-2018), and two of the Alamar-coached years pre-Bailey (2013-2014, for some reason 2012 stats not available), along with the PFF rank nationally for each individual guy:

2022 (Saturday's games appear to not be included yet, which will likely drop us): #21 net (41.25), #34 PFF grade for Sanborn
2021: #82 net (38.45), #13 PFF grade for Sanborn
2020: #98 (36.52), #35 PFF grade for Sanborn
2019: #88 (37.38), #25 PFF grade for Sanborn

2018: #20 (40.00), #2 PFF grade for Bailey
2017: #12 (41.04), #2 PFF grade for Bailey
2016: #28 (39.65), #6 PFF grade for Bailey
2015: #68 (37.21), PFF punting grades not provided

2014: #112 (33.78), PFF punting grades not provided
2013: #32 (38.13), PFF punting grades not provided

Sanborn is good. Bailey is an All Pro. It's interesting there'd be such a discrepancy between net punting and PFF grades.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - BostonCard - 10-10-2022

I’m guessing PFF includes things like punts inside the 10 from the 40 yard line as reflecting well on the punter, even if the “net” is only 30 yards. If I understand PFF right, they don’t penalize the punter for a missed tackle that led to a big return and likewise don’t reward him for a poor punt where an opponent’s hold far from the play tacked on 10 yards to the net and nullified a return. Also, presumably there is some adjustment for opponent.

BC

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - winflop - 10-10-2022

(10-09-2022, 07:43 PM)RuralFan Wrote:
(10-09-2022, 06:29 PM)Row80Critic Wrote: Another Shawful game. Soul-crushing loss. Dreadful coaching.

College football constantly evolves. Shaw hasn't kept up and the results speak for themselves. It's sad on so many levels.

I don't know if it is Shaw that hasn't keep up. We all knew at the start of the season that Stanford would have a very light and very inexperienced defense line. Most top D-1 programs would have worked to fill these holes with transfer "students". My understanding is that Stanford admissions will not permit this. I don't even know if those on this board want to force changes in Stanford policies on transfers. I doubt it could be done without degrading the value of a Stanford degree.

Our two best running backs transferred out of Stanford, leaving us very thin at running back with replacement players having a history of injury problems. Unfortunately we were hit with a season ending injury to our top remaining running back early in the season. I doubt Shaw had any thing to do with this.

NIL(name, image, likeness) payments are now a major factor in recruiting freshmen and transfers. My understanding is that a top quarterback recruit is now looking at NIL offers of at least one million dollars a year. The University is not supposed to make these payments, but I'm sure that there are many ways around this. I pretty sure Shaw does not control this issue at Stanford and if we have fallen behind it's not because of him.

It seems to me that some of the problems we are currently having are more influenced by these factors than they are by the play calling, the time management, or the general quality of our coaching. While many of or players are capable of competing at the D-1 level, we have others that are not there yet. Our depth at certain positions is just scary. Stanford has some incredibly difficult decisions to make.

I can't disagree more strongly. Yes, transfer portal & NIL are issues. But recruiting classes remain highly-ranked. The problem is players are not being developed well enough, and coaches are making one awful decision after another.

I'm not interested in tilting at the transfer portal windmill, but i do agree that Muir needs to harness his donor base to better support NIL However, those are not the most urgent problems. Coaching is the most urgent problem.

I don't expect a return to the Stanford of 6-10 years ago. But I do expect to play respectable football. Winning records can be regularly had, but not with this coaching staff

We have talent on the roster when they come in the door. We need a coaching staff that is worthy of their talents.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - Row80Critic - 10-10-2022

(10-10-2022, 06:41 PM)winflop Wrote: I can't disagree more strongly. Yes, transfer portal & NIL are issues. But recruiting classes remain highly-ranked. The problem is players are not being developed well enough, and coaches are making one awful decision after another.

I'm not interested in tilting at the transfer portal windmill, but i do agree that Muir needs to harness his donor base to better support NIL However, those are not the most urgent problems. Coaching is the most urgent problem.

I don't expect a return to the Stanford of 6-10 years ago. But I do expect to play respectable football. Winning records can be regularly had, but not with this coaching staff

We have talent on the roster when they come in the door. We need a coaching staff that is worthy of their talents.

Amen!

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - PersonalLegend - 10-11-2022

Thanks msqueri for the time and effort to post thoughtful analysis. I don’t know where you find the energy but appreciate that you do.

That said, there is no moral victory here. Passing for a few tenths more on average is meaningless in a game where one of our star “student athletes” watched the other guy catch and run for a game winning TD like it was a TV show. We got problems right here.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - CardinalSagehen - 10-11-2022

(10-11-2022, 02:46 AM)PersonalLegend Wrote: Thanks msqueri for the time and effort to post thoughtful analysis. I don’t know where you find the energy but appreciate that you do.

That said, there is no moral victory here. Passing for a few tenths more on average is meaningless in a game where one of our star “student athletes” watched the other guy catch and run for a game winning TD like it was a TV show. We got problems right here.

That play was a fluke. It was just one play, and that guy learned most of his football at Oklahoma, not here. (If we had 11 with his fight and skills, we’d be fine.)

The really depressing truth is that we’re desperate for a win over the likes of Oregon State, and we have so little margin of error to get that win or any others. That is a sign of how low we’ve sunk.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Oregon State - msqueri - 10-11-2022

(10-11-2022, 03:12 AM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:
(10-11-2022, 02:46 AM)PersonalLegend Wrote: Thanks msqueri for the time and effort to post thoughtful analysis. I don’t know where you find the energy but appreciate that you do.

That said, there is no moral victory here. Passing for a few tenths more on average is meaningless in a game where one of our star “student athletes” watched the other guy catch and run for a game winning TD like it was a TV show. We got problems right here.

That play was a fluke. It was just one play, and that guy learned most of his football at Oklahoma, not here. (If we had 11 with his fight and skills, we’d be fine.)

The really depressing truth is that we’re desperate for a win over the likes of Oregon State, and we have so little margin of error to get that win or any others. That is a sign of how low we’ve sunk.

Oklahoma hasn’t been a good defensive program for years. Patrick Fields does not rank very high on our list of best players. He’s not the total bum he looked like on both of the most important plays of Saturday’s game, but he’s excruciatingly mediocre. Probably the worst player of our three starting safety/nickel guys and certainly not better than Williamson.

On moral victories, I’m not saying there’s such a thing as moral victories but Shaw and, to be honest, our players act like there is.