Sunday morning thoughts - USC - Printable Version

Sunday morning thoughts - USC - 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 - USC (/thread-24406.html)

Sunday morning thoughts - USC - msqueri - 09-10-2023

1. Well that was no fun. In case anybody had any doubt, it's official: this is a rebuild from a very lowly state and Taylor won't be able to turn it around overnight. It's possible that given the hollowed out roster the team is even worse than Shaw's worst teams. [Certainly this game and the massive 3.53 yard per play differential even with half of it played in garbage time was less competitive than the 2022 USC game (2.51 yard per play differential) and the 2019 USC game (2.99 yard per play differential). It's really a shame that such a venerable rivalry is for now ending with so many of the recent games being such stinkers.] We just looked completely undeserving of being on the field against a good team, and we play many good teams this year. Looking more broadly at the rebuild, a game like this sets a baseline for how low we've fallen. Improvement from very lowly baselines is possible but not assured. A lot of work to do.

2. There's always diminished utility in stats early in a season and in this case that's even more true because the entire second half was garbage time. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that everything Stanford did well was when it didn't matter and USC wasn't playing the A team. That makes it even more disturbing that even with all the garbage time letting us off the hook (anybody saying Lincoln Riley lacked class must have missed that the Voldemort winner didn't pad stats in the least and USC took its foot all the way off the gas for an entire half), we gave up 1.56 more yards per play than Jose State State and gained 0.71 fewer yards per play than the Spartans. It was fair last week to say the evidence pointed to us being a better team than Vanderbilt, but if we're trying to triangulate results - fraught at this early stage but more reliable each week - it's just as fair to say we're worse than San Jose State. That is sobering but not at all shocking as the Cardinal and Spartans were viewed as fairly comparable going into the season.

3. From a macro perspective, this failure seemed familiar to me as a fan of the 2002-2007 teams, albeit especially lopsided and hopeless of a final result: outmatched offense that can't get anything going and as a result puts far too much on the defense, which may be talented and/or well enough coached to compete gamely in some contests but in general is going to look bad with short fields, constantly being on the field, and watching points get put on the board against the other units. The 6.43 yards per carry the defense allowed was a wake-up call that we haven't fully figured out run defense even with the vaunted Wisconsin approach, though the insufferable announcers made a good point that the combination of our offensive ineptitude and Riley's pace created a very difficult situation for the defense. I still think run defense is likely to be stronger for us than pass defense. In this game the pass defense did a tick worse than San Jose State did. I don't want to judge on video game numbers by Caleb Williams per se as he's Caleb Williams, but so far I think there are signs of significant vulnerability in our pass defense. Albany did as well in pass defense against Hawaii as we did.

4. But to me the biggest problem with our team is the offense. Three points against the starting USC defense (ten points and 5.29 yards per play total inclusive of garbage time) is bad. It's the least anybody has scored on them in two years and second least in six years. Even the inflated yards per play is a level that's bottom quarter of USC opponent offenses in recent years. I've seen a lot of commentary that last night was the arrival of the championship-contending USC defense and I just don't buy it. USC still has a long way to go to prove it has a good defense. I fear last night said more about us than it said about them. I think this 2023 Stanford offense is really, really bad. The overarching problem is talent and experience (tough one-two punch!), leading to difficulty stringing together good plays and sustaining drives. There was one glimmer of hope last night, which was a 5.1 yards per carry run game. That's encouraging but a product of garbage time, both breaking some runs when it didn't matter and not having USC come after the QBs much for yards per carry-stunting sacks. It's a thin reed to hold on to in light of the overall comprehensive failure.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - msqueri - 09-10-2023

5. The biggest story to watch going forward from this game is the QB situation. I would not be surprised if the Daniels injury is serious. We'll have to see what this means for the QB competition, which given last night's on-field play and injury cannot be viewed as a settled issue. We shouldn't judge too much from Daniels' outing as it was so short, but what I said last week about going from a high school stadium to a title contender in the Coliseum at night bears remembering. Daniels didn't look ready for the moment. The interception was a bad lapse, all the worse to happen right away in the game before he'd faced much adversity (aside from the pressure on the play itself, which is not something that should have surprised us). When Lamson came in, I was somewhat impressed by his poise and for the most part his pocket presence, though both Daniels and Lamson losing fumbles is ominous. As was the case this stage last season, we have reason to be concerned about ball security. We're currently #118 in fumbles. Inclusive of ball security, Lamson had a rough night, 119 of 132 QBs in Total QBR this week. He did very nice work moving the chains with his feet and, like anybody with a modicum of talent we throw out there, was able to use Yurosek as a security blanket, but it was a game I'd hope he can improve upon. [This week's moving the chains (first down) leaderboard: Lamson (4), Smith (3), Yurosek (3), Humphreys (2, also drew a pass interference), Farrell, Daniels, Filkins, Ayomanor, Irvin]

6. That being said, the degree of difficulty for any Stanford QB1 in 2023 is high. PFF grades us #125 in pass blocking so far this season and yet I'm not sure what's worse, our pass blocking or our receiving (PFF says pass blocking, putting receiving at #72, which I think is probably right by sheer virtue of Yurosek). Yurosek is great (#45 in the nation in yards from scrimmage, only TE in the top 100) but can only cover up so many sins. We don't have a single WR in the top 50 in the Pac-12 in yards from scrimmage. Honestly, I would go as far to say that Humphreys - #39 in the Pac-12 in receiving - is the only WR who is even Pac-12 level right now. Some have mused whether the over-reliance on the Yurosek run plays indicate lack of creativity or trying to keep RBs healthy or something else but I think it's simple - we don't have much else on offense. Humphreys, Smith, and Filkins are solidly mediocre options. Everything else is unplayable....except we don't have anything better. I am shuddering to think about this offense without Yurosek. It's a big deal for the rebuild that Osborne can coach up the WRs but I'm looking at what Reuben, Ayomanor, and Bachmeier are giving us through two weeks and that Borden, Cisse, and Harris weren't even deemed ready to be on the travel roster and I wonder where help is going to come from. If numerous of Yurosek, Humphreys, Smith, and Filkins leave (and right now I'd guess all or maybe all but one will leave) there is a real possibility we are worse at the skill positions in 2024 than in 2023. Start thinking about the transfer portal now....

7. The other big thing to keep an eye on from a developmental/rebuilding perspective is of course the OL. They are going through growing pains, but I feel far more sanguine about them than the skill positions. PFF actually likes their run blocking work - #32 in the nation - and as we know this is a room where old men are king, so if we can get some retention and year-to-year development big improvements could be ahead. In terms of individuals, PFF continues to like McLaughlin's work the most and thinks Rogers has been solid (I cannot emphasize enough how much we need fifth years from them next year). Against USC we split time at both tackles (Anderson and Pogorelc at LT, McLaughlin and Leyrer at RT). I think I'd expect that next week too. It looked to me like Mayberry got replaced by Uke sometime after Mayberry's worst penalty imaginable of a false start from the 1 yard line (red zone discipline abysmal....Mayberry, McLaughlin, Bank all with red zone penalties). Nice to see The Ultimate Enigma Austin Uke play and play credibly. I wonder if Uke might start pushing Mayberry. In general, the OL is a couple of solid old guys and some promising younger talent and we'll just have to see if the Shaw thing of nobody staying five years will continue or we can hope for better days ahead.

8. On defense, I really think only a few guys showed up, admittedly against the toughest offense in the country (so maybe it's more only a few guys had the chops to hold up against the onslaught). Each week I track big plays (defined as tackles for loss, passes defended, turnovers, good run stops given down and distance, etc.) and this week only Wright and Bernadel registered with multiple plays that helped the defense. Wright, as was the case against Hawaii, pops off the screen as an obvious NFL talent relative to our other players and is consistently making plays in various ways, but he is also giving up chunk yardage in each game too. One can't call his play great yet, but I think it's clear he's one of the team's standouts. It was a relief to see Bernadel bounce back so well. It was more of a solid to good performance than anything, but after his first game struggles I'm glad to see a guy we're counting on show that he's better than he was against Hawaii. We can count on Gilman to be game even if limited. I don't hate Edwards or Manley. On the negative side, I talked last week about the story of our week being the star players and unfortunately the defensive star did not show up at all. I didn't track a single useful thing from Bailey and PFF thought he had the single worst game of anybody on offense or defense (very interestingly, the Alabama transfer Shane Lee graded even worse for USC). I think we're getting clarity each week that Slocum is a big liability (by the way, Terian Williams got his first significant action and did very credibly...I wonder if he can get more time going forward). The biggest liability, though, is probably the DL. I just don't think these guys have it to give us good push. Probably need more experience and more talent.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - msqueri - 09-10-2023

9. Special teams won't grade well giving up a touchdown, obviously. But to some extent that's taking your lumps. The broadcast was comparing Zachariah Branch to Reggie Bush, Devin Hester, John Ross, and DeSean Jackson and I don't think that's hyperbolic. This is a transcendent talent. Obviously it's very bad we let him burn us, but we weren't the first even as young as his career is and we will be far from the last. As for the punt coverage total, Weselman and his boys had a 33 yard net punt with 67 yards to work with (would be disappointing but a dodged bullet when kicking to Branch), what would have been a net of 38 even after a big Branch return but due to a penalty was a brobdingnagian more than flipping of the field (net of 66), the 75 yard touchdown return by Branch, a net of 33 on a touch back (not ideal). Once the backups came in, Weselman had a net of 39 and Flintoft got bailed out on a touchdown return by a holding call that turned it into a field flipping net of 51 and then ended his night with a 37 yard net to the 15. Through two weeks, we're #124 in net punting, so obviously that's horrible but let's see how it looks when we get the season in the book and others have to face Branch. In other parts of special teams, I never feel like we have the athletes to make returning kicks worth it as opposed to taking the fair catch, which is depressing, but Farrell at least was two for two on getting us out past where a fair catch would have put us. Karty of course made his only attempt but it was a step back in the Groza campaign to only get one chance and to not get to showcase at all on a decently sized stage.

10. Game balls: Connor McLaughlin, Gaethan Bernadel, Bryce Farrell, Paul Williams

11. We need to put this game behind us, show that it's not who we are, and improve. If Taylor's ethos of mindfulness and process is going to have any substance, it starts with showing that you can bounce back from this kind of humiliation and not let the off-season gains in confidence and buy-in be erased. If they can be erased after one loss they weren't gains in the first place. We've failed the first test on how we respond to in-game adversity (ok, maybe give response to adversity a C- since we did tie the second half) and now get the first test on how we respond to in-season adversity. I talked up top about how a game like this sets a baseline for how low we've fallen. I'm mindful of the comparison with our last rebuild, though it's asking a lot to even palely imitate that, much less repeat it. Still, in 2007, Harbaugh's Pac-12 opener against UCLA had an abysmal 3.22 yard per play differential against a far worse Bruins team than this 2023 USC team, with a point differential Sagarin would calculate as befitting the #166 team. (People forget how horrible Harbaugh's team was at the start) For what it's worth, we can't compare apples-to-apples until the season is done but heading into last night Sagarin would have viewed last night's result as befitting the #191 team. Obviously playing like the #191 team in the country cannot prompt any encouragement, but we can hope it's a low point that gets built from. On September 15, Harbaugh's team bounced back viciously, dispatching San Jose State with a beatdown befitting the #1 team in the country. I don't expect that against Sacramento State, but we do have a chance to bounce back. That's what I want to see next week, a bounce back, and because wins will be very hard to come by this year and there's no substitute for winning in building legitimate confidence (and only so much you can spin a loss), a win. I think it's reasonably close to a toss-up, probably the same amount of nerves I had heading into Hawaii.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - terry - 09-10-2023

Good posts, Msqueri!

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - Austroturf - 09-10-2023

Excellent summary. It is hard to glean too much from such a lopsided result. The disastrous first half tells us all we need to know: an entire world separates Cardinal football from the current elite. Still, in this new mercenary world we live in, I would rather be Stanford than $C.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - martyup - 09-10-2023

Thanks Mat. Chin up everyone. We knew it was going to be a tough season and this game in particular would be rough.

I thought Riley's challenge of our lone TD in the waning moments of the game was ignoble. Also, he had several temper tantrums on the sideline for no apparent reason when his team was up by over 30 points. It would be very rewarding to see our team beat his in the future.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card - 09-10-2023

My family moved to Thief River Falls, Minnesota between my junior and senior years of high school. TRF, like many (though not all) Minnesota towns, was hockey mad. Except for the tall guys, most of the good athletes played hockey, and we also had wrestling and swimming teams. We had a few good/okay basketball players, but let's put it this way: The talent was so diluted in a small town with four winter varsity teams that I actually made the varsity basketball team. End of the bench, but I was on the team.

About two-thirds of the way through our five-win season, we drove to Hibbing, MN, on the Iron Range. They had a whale of a basketball team. Their star was a guy named Kevin McHale.

For some unknown reason, we played our best game of the year against them. I kid you not. As our coach noted at the banquet after the season, we defended better, passed better, and shot better against Hibbing than we had all year.

And they ran us out of the gym. I don't remember the exact differential, but we played our best game and still lost by 24. Or maybe it was 32. Or maybe 36. Put it this way: We lost by a margin so large that I actually got a fair bit of playing time, which is the basis for my claim that "I played high school basketball against Kevin McHale." [He could have been showered, dressed, and on a date by the time I got into the game. But, technically, I played in the same game he played in. And, seriously, he was probably still around for the post-game handshake, so I probably shook his hand and he probably said "good game," though if he did it was to be polite, not to provide his actual analysis of our play.]

So here's my take on last night's game (or, more specifically, the first half of last night's game, the part where they played their number ones): We played awful, to be sure. But we could have played as well as we were capable of playing, and they are so much better than us that it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome. Why waste a good outing? You only get so many in a season.

Of course, the question now is whether we can bounce back, and that remains to be seen. As Matt, who has forgotten more about big time college football than I will ever know, points out, we are not very good. But can we be good enough to win a few more games? If so, that makes us better than we have been when we were at our absolute worst, or even when we were at the worst most of us can remember (which was not that long ago--my how our guys have risen and fallen again). It's no fun to not be competitive against the best teams, but I remain hopeful that the new coaching staff can start the long road back. It is most definitely a long, uphill climb. But this new staff might be able to facilitate it.

p.s. I hate those bums. I mean, I really HATE them. As some here know, we hate them so much in our family, that we don't even say their name. They represent the worst of the worst in college sports, from my perspective. So I, too, hate to end a really long rivalry like that. The taste in my mouth is not great right now, but I will cling to a couple of things:

(a) There were moments--and, they, too, were not that long ago--when we had their number. For most of my Stanford-loving life, those bums have been better, usually a lot better. The first eleven times I was a Stanford student or alum watching the game against them, _._._. won. But since they we had some great moments, like the Greatest Upset, "What's your deal," Andrew Luck, etc. I will remember those times fondly.

(b) Right now, _._._. is really talented. And well-coached. But, fwliw, they will mess it up somehow. Character counts, too. They don't overcome that reality very often anymore. I won't pay any more attention to them, as they are dead to me now, but I am confident they will mess it up, despite the talent and the great coaching.

Those bums are now officially in our rear view mirror, like it or not. Onward. Let's get a few more wins, somehow.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - JohnR34231 - 09-11-2023

(09-10-2023, 06:09 PM)Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card Wrote: My family moved to Thief River Falls, Minnesota between my junior and senior years of high school. TRF, like many (though not all) Minnesota towns, was hockey mad. Except for the tall guys, most of the good athletes played hockey, and we also had wrestling and swimming teams. We had a few good/okay basketball players, but let's put it this way: The talent was so diluted in a small town with four winter varsity teams that I actually made the varsity basketball team. End of the bench, but I was on the team.

About two-thirds of the way through our five-win season, we drove to Hibbing, MN, on the Iron Range. They had a whale of a basketball team. Their star was a guy named Kevin McHale.

For some unknown reason, we played our best game of the year against them. I kid you not. As our coach noted at the banquet after the season, we defended better, passed better, and shot better against Hibbing than we had all year.

And they ran us out of the gym. I don't remember the exact differential, but we played our best game and still lost by 24. Or maybe it was 32. Or maybe 36. Put it this way: We lost by a margin so large that I actually got a fair bit of playing time, which is the basis for my claim that "I played high school basketball against Kevin McHale." [He could have been showered, dressed, and on a date by the time I got into the game. But, technically, I played in the same game he played in. And, seriously, he was probably still around for the post-game handshake, so I probably shook his hand and he probably said "good game," though if he did it was to be polite, not to provide his actual analysis of our play.]

So here's my take on last night's game (or, more specifically, the first half of last night's game, the part where they played their number ones): We played awful, to be sure. But we could have played as well as we were capable of playing, and they are so much better than us that it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome. Why waste a good outing? You only get so many in a season.

Of course, the question now is whether we can bounce back, and that remains to be seen. As Matt, who has forgotten more about big time college football than I will ever know, points out, we are not very good. But can we be good enough to win a few more games? If so, that makes us better than we have been when we were at our absolute worst, or even when we were at the worst most of us can remember (which was not that long ago--my how our guys have risen and fallen again). It's no fun to not be competitive against the best teams, but I remain hopeful that the new coaching staff can start the long road back. It is most definitely a long, uphill climb. But this new staff might be able to facilitate it.

p.s. I hate those bums. I mean, I really HATE them. As some here know, we hate them so much in our family, that we don't even say their name. They represent the worst of the worst in college sports, from my perspective. So I, too, hate to end a really long rivalry like that. The taste in my mouth is not great right now, but I will cling to a couple of things:

(a) There were moments--and, they, too, were not that long ago--when we had their number. For most of my Stanford-loving life, those bums have been better, usually a lot better. The first eleven times I was a Stanford student or alum watching the game against them, _._._. won. But since they we had some great moments, like the Greatest Upset, "What's your deal," Andrew Luck, etc. I will remember those times fondly.

(b) Right now, _._._. is really talented. And well-coached. But, fwliw, they will mess it up somehow. Character counts, too. They don't overcome that reality very often anymore. I won't pay any more attention to them, as they are dead to me now, but I am confident they will mess it up, despite the talent and the great coaching.

Those bums are now officially in our rear view mirror, like it or not. Onward. Let's get a few more wins, somehow.

That certainly is the positive way of looking at it. We had a bad game, but even if we had a good one we wouldn't have won due to the disparity of talent. So let's save our good ones for the teams we have a chance of beating. The problem is I don't see a lot of conference teams that I think we can beat. Colorado was one, but based on their first two games that even looks doubtful.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - SkiBum80 - 09-11-2023

Great posts msqueri and blue hawk.
This coming up game vs Sac State will be a true test of Coach TT & Co's ability to bounce back after being pummeled.
And a true test of the players character.
Can they wipe off the shellacking and refocus on the next game and come back with an attitude?
FWIW I appreciated QB Lamson getting up over and over again after taking a beating.
Hoping that's the character that prevails.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - jacket3ree - 09-11-2023

The coolest outcome of all this is learning Mr. E once hooped against Kevin McHale. (Isn't Hibbing, MN where Dylan grew up?)

I really appreciate Matt taking the time to watch carefully enough to post those cogent and sober thoughts. I was done after the first drive and the game became a "last channel" laugh track while I watched Cal and Auburn. Matt gives me some hope that maybe USC is just that good. My game time thoughts were that maybe USC is just that good, but more likely Stanford is at best Nevada (who is awful - bludgeoned by transitioning-to-FBS Idaho after a Stanford-like performance against the Trojans), not nearly as good as San Jose State who at least fought for a half plus), and Hawaii may be the worst football team in recorded history. Sure enough, my phone app showed them in a game-long battle with SUNY-Albany, an FCS program from the Colonial, who was playing on an early morning body clock (like Waffle House bad decision time) 5,000 miles from home. The Great Danes gave them a game, anyway.

I get it. One game in one year. But this was different than watching the Texas beatdown in '99. To my eyes this is the worst football team Stanford has trotted out there at least since I started watching in 1985. Small and slow and nowhere near ready for the moment. Blame whomever you want (plenty to go around), but there is a lot of work to do. Hopefully Taylor can do it. My other thought while listening to the comparison between Riley and Folsom-Sacto Taylor, was "what are we doing?" Hire an FCS coach and suddenly we look FCS. That said, Harbaugh came with little HC experience directly from the Big Sky and Shaw had zero HC experience. But contrast Saturday's mauling with Harbaugh's first game against a highly ranked SC in LA. No comparison. Also, a bit of an unfair comparison, because there was an extra month before facing SC in '07. I do think this probably being the last matchup in some time added a lot of fuel to SC's fire and they avoided any John David Booty moments. SC gave that game away in '07, but at least Stanford was capable of taking it. I'm not sure this year's team is capable of anything close. I don't think there is enough time in any game or enough vindictiveness for anyone to hang 222 on anyone, but if USC wanted to do it, they could have gotten about half way there.

1960 (no conference victories) is a real possibility with this schedule. Assuming Taylor can fire everyone up to avoid another Davis debacle, Stanford can't beat any of the teams remaining on their schedule without significant improvement. There is always one of those games where it comes together, so I'd be surprised if that happens, but only mildly.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - Spiny_Norman - 09-11-2023

(09-11-2023, 12:11 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: But contrast Saturday's mauling with Harbaugh's first game against a highly ranked SC in LA. No comparison. Also, a bit of an unfair comparison, because there was an extra month before facing SC in '07. I do think this probably being the last matchup in some time added a lot of fuel to SC's fire and they avoided any John David Booty moments. SC gave that game away in '07, but at least Stanford was capable of taking it. I'm not sure this year's team is capable of anything close. I don't think there is enough time in any game or enough vindictiveness for anyone to hang 222 on anyone, but if USC wanted to do it, they could have gotten about half way there.

1960 (no conference victories) is a real possibility with this schedule. Assuming Taylor can fire everyone up to avoid another Davis debacle, Stanford can't beat any of the teams remaining on their schedule without significant improvement. There is always one of those games where it comes together, so I'd be surprised if that happens, but only mildly.

The week before the Greatest Upset of All Time, ASU thumped Stanford 41-3. The Cardinal had negative rushing yards and was 2-14 on 3rd down. ASU sacked QB TC Ostrander 7 times. He suffered a seizure and could not play the next week. No one could have foreseen what would happen at the Coliseum.

After the game, Harbaugh said, "We need to do a better job as coaches and our players need to execute better themselves. Tonight was the first time I feel we haven't gotten better this season. I feel we need to regroup and keep working hard." And as we know, they were resilient after getting pushed around by a superior team (ASU) and did regroup the next week.

This week is a big test for the current Stanford team and coaches. How resilient are they? Still, even with my mental image of the Blutarsky speech in Animal House ("was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"), this year's team still might get shellacked regularly this season. Effort and scheme can only get you so far when the gap appears so big in talent, strength and speed. But I hope they prove me wrong.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - Mick - 09-11-2023

The worst Stanford team I ever saw was the 1-11 team in Harris' second year, 2006. This was after three years of clearly overmatched Stanford football teams coached by Buddy Teevens. It was the culmination of a five year decline in quality.

Stanford played four ranked teams that year. Eight of Stanford's 11 losses that year were by three or more touchdowns. In the worst game -- Harris's first game against #21 Oregon at Autzen Stadium -- Harris's team gave up 48 points in the 48-10 loss.

On Saturday, Stanford gave up 49 points in a single half.

To me, that is an alarming new low.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - AlbanyCardinal - 09-11-2023

Definitely an unfair comparison between Harbaugh's first team and Taylor's, and it's not b/c of the extra prep time for the former. It's the transfer portal. If even half as many would-be starters had bolted in the offseason of 2007, there's no way Stanford would have beaten $¢ (or even hung around to smell the upset).

(09-11-2023, 12:11 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: The coolest outcome of all this is learning Mr. E once hooped against Kevin McHale. (Isn't Hibbing, MN where Dylan grew up?)

I really appreciate Matt taking the time to watch carefully enough to post those cogent and sober thoughts. I was done after the first drive and the game became a "last channel" laugh track while I watched Cal and Auburn. Matt gives me some hope that maybe USC is just that good. My game time thoughts were that maybe USC is just that good, but more likely Stanford is at best Nevada (who is awful - bludgeoned by transitioning-to-FBS Idaho after a Stanford-like performance against the Trojans), not nearly as good as San Jose State who at least fought for a half plus), and Hawaii may be the worst football team in recorded history. Sure enough, my phone app showed them in a game-long battle with SUNY-Albany, an FCS program from the Colonial, who was playing on an early morning body clock (like Waffle House bad decision time) 5,000 miles from home. The Great Danes gave them a game, anyway.

I get it. One game in one year. But this was different than watching the Texas beatdown in '99. To my eyes this is the worst football team Stanford has trotted out there at least since I started watching in 1985. Small and slow and nowhere near ready for the moment. Blame whomever you want (plenty to go around), but there is a lot of work to do. Hopefully Taylor can do it. My other thought while listening to the comparison between Riley and Folsom-Sacto Taylor, was "what are we doing?" Hire an FCS coach and suddenly we look FCS. That said, Harbaugh came with little HC experience directly from the Big Sky and Shaw had zero HC experience. But contrast Saturday's mauling with Harbaugh's first game against a highly ranked SC in LA. No comparison. Also, a bit of an unfair comparison, because there was an extra month before facing SC in '07. I do think this probably being the last matchup in some time added a lot of fuel to SC's fire and they avoided any John David Booty moments. SC gave that game away in '07, but at least Stanford was capable of taking it. I'm not sure this year's team is capable of anything close. I don't think there is enough time in any game or enough vindictiveness for anyone to hang 222 on anyone, but if USC wanted to do it, they could have gotten about half way there.

1960 (no conference victories) is a real possibility with this schedule. Assuming Taylor can fire everyone up to avoid another Davis debacle, Stanford can't beat any of the teams remaining on their schedule without significant improvement. There is always one of those games where it comes together, so I'd be surprised if that happens, but only mildly.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - msqueri - 09-11-2023

I agree with Mick that 2006 was the low point. For what it’s worth, that team ended as Sagarin #104. We are currently Sagarin #99. Last year was #87, 2021 was #89, and 2019 was #73 (2020 was #75 but it’s harder to trust given short schedule and lack of non-conference). Given the program destruction and exodus Shaw wrought, I think avoiding being the worst team in Stanford history is a reasonable goal. If Taylor can muster a top 90 team similar to Shaw’s last teams that would be very impressive.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - Spiny_Norman - 09-11-2023

Defensive coaches better work on energy and effort this week. What are Bailey and his teammates doing here??

[twitter]https://twitter.com/scarneck70/status/1701037293916901570[/twitter]

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - martyup - 09-11-2023

(09-11-2023, 03:16 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Defensive coaches better work on energy and effort this week. What are Bailey and his teammates doing here??

[twitter]https://twitter.com/scarneck70/status/1701037293916901570[/twitter]

And that was when the score was 0-0. Pretty pathetic effort.

RE: Sunday morning thoughts - USC - fullmetal - 09-11-2023

Well the pulling OL were the misdirection...the QB kept the ball and ran it in thanks to a strong block from their TE #87 thoroughly controlling Alaka'i Gilman. The Stanford edge rusher made a play on neither the RB nor the QB, coming in too hot and whiffing on the QB. And...yeah. Overcommitment and slow recognition/tackling.