Sunday morning thoughts - Washington 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 - Washington State (/thread-24547.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 - Washington State (/thread-24547.html)
Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - msqueri - 11-05-2023
1. It sure is fun to win. There wasn't a lot of entertainment in that one but who cares? We won against a solid team on the road and showed exactly the knowing how to win/relearning how to win close games that has been so lacking in recent years. This is the best team Taylor has beaten and we did it while very much not firing on all cylinders. In the grand scheme, it strongly reinforces the sense we are on the right track, making four of the last six games we have played very respectably and giving us our first instance of back-to-back quality performances. [Based on newly updated Sagarin rankings, the final results of our games this season have been befitting the #84 (at Hawaii), #208 (at USC), #171 (Sacramento State), #41 (Arizona), #139 (Oregon), #42 (at Colorado), #194 (UCLA), #42 (Washington), and #36 (at Washington State) teams in the nation.] On the year, we have matched the number of wins from the last two seasons, an important psychological barrier that we now have a very legitimate shot at surpassing, and are up to #92 in Sagarin after being #87 last year and #89 in 2021. To be essentially on par with Shaw's teams and on an improving trajectory that quite plausibly could leapfrog those other teams by the end of the year - despite the gutting of the roster and bombing out of the program - feels like a major feat. We're on the right track.
2. To state the obvious, this was way on the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of a defense-dominated game. The 0.64 points per drive we allowed made the #67 points per drive offense look considerably worse than the dead last #133 offense in the country. 0.64 points per drive allowed is best defense in America territory. Arizona had similarly stifled the Cougs (by the way, what a good team Arizona is....awesome rebuilding job by Fisch) but generally that doesn't happen to Wazzu. The Cougs did the same thing to us. 0.91 points per drive made the #101 points per drive defense look like the #2 defense in the country. 0.91 points per drive is worst offense in America territory. This was a game that was a story of jaw-dropping defensive dominance and equally jaw-dropping offensive incompetence. That we found a way to win - and despite the offensive struggles to salt the game with a clinching drive to run out the clock - is the big story. In some respects Washington State outplayed us and we got pretty lucky - the Edwards interception falling in his lap, avoiding throwing an end zone interception, benefiting from a missed field goal (though we get a lot of credit for back to back sacks making it a tougher kick) - but we showed grit and resilience and made the plays we needed to have more points on the scoreboard at the end. Winning teams can do that. We haven't seen much of it in recent years. Progress.
3. I cannot say enough about the defense. Washington State has a slightly above average offense nationally and a slightly below average offense for the Pac-12 and, despite being such a competent opponent, last night ranks with the 2019 Northwestern game as our most dominant defensive performance of the last half decade (setting aside the Colgate joke of a game), whether you look at points, yards, or yards per play. But 2019 Northwestern was one of the worst offenses in the country while WSU is a solid offense. You have to go back to the 2015 Rose Bowl against Iowa to find a comparable defensive performance against a respectable offense but statistically this was even better than that, so you have to go all the way back to arguably the greatest defensive in Stanford history, the 2014 defense, to find dominance like this against an opponent like this. We showed that the defense is capable of an elite performance. That's thrilling.
4. On the flip side, it's hard to put into words how inept that offensive performance was. It was even more anemic than against Oregon (#12 in the country in yards per play allowed/#21 in points per drive allowed) despite Wazzu sucking at defense (#97 in yards per play allowed/#101 in points per drive allowed). This ranks with the 2021 Utah game, 2014 Notre Dame game, and 2012 Washington game as one of our worst offensive games of the last 15 years. However, those opponents were better at defense than this year's Cougs team. Last night is on the very shortest of lists for the worst offensive games in Stanford history. I went through 20 years of box scores to try to find one similar against a defense on Wazzu's pitiful 2023 level and I came up empty. If 2003 Teevens and 2006 Harris didn't have games this inept against a defense like this I am not sure it has ever happened in Stanford's history. I'm appalled by this offensive performance but guys need to flush it and it's a lot easier to move on when the overall result is good. Indeed, I should note that those other miserable offensive games from the last 15 years were all losses. It's so big for the offense to lay a stinker like this but see the defense has their back. Other times, like the Colorado game, the roles will be reversed. At least until we're much further in the rebuild we can be assured there will be ineptitude on both sides of the ball at times. To repeat myself, nonetheless finding a way to win is progress.
5. We have seen enough to hold out hope that the last three games will reinforce, or even build on, the case that we are improving. So I should probably wait until the end of the month to assess the overall season stats. But I can't resist. On offense, we have a miserable 5.05 yards per play (#110). That's worse than the last two years under Shaw. [For those wondering, no, this is not historically bad.....we had fewer yards per play every single year between 2002 and 2007 and in 2003 managed 3.84 (!!!!).] Yet we are scoring right on our average from last year and ahead of the average from 2021. My read is that this supports something others have commented on from subjective impressions, which is that Taylor's scheme and play calling can squeeze more blood from this turnip than Shaw could. With talent so much worse that it's practically inevitable the offense will have a harder time succeeding, Taylor is managing similar results. That's a sign of good coaching. [I also think it's probable Taylor is leaving points on the board by not relying on Karty more, so the favorable comparison to Shawfense could arguably be even more pronounced.] On defense, we have an even more miserable 6.32 yards per play allowed (#124 even after last night's masterpiece). However, what I am noticing is progress over the Lance Anderson dumpster fire. We now have fewer yards per play allowed than in any season since 2019 and may end up better than the 2019 defense too if we can continue to improve. That's how bad the Anderson defense was. I think it's reasonable to discern progress in coaching on both sides of the ball. Special teams has taken a colossal step back (#83 in FEI even before accounting for yesterday's pretty bad special teams day, which compares to #8, #11, #54, #20, and #3 in our last five full seasons) so we should not overstate the case on improvement, but I'm seeing improvement overall.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - msqueri - 11-05-2023
6. Back to last night's game, what a run defense performance! Washington State sucks at rushing (#127 in yards per carry and #130 in rushing yards per game) but we stuffed them above and beyond the norm. This was the most they've been stifled on the ground in a little over five years. The main takeaway for me is that even adjusting for opponent we have been good at run defense three weeks in a row (UCLA, Washington, Washington State all in succession). Run defense has been on a clear upswing, showing signs of that vaunted Wisconsin run defense we hired April to bring. Super encouraging. Lest anyone think run defense had all the fun yesterday, the pass defense was great too. This was squarely one of the three best jobs any team has done containing Ward and the Wazzu passing game, behind UCLA and comparable to Arizona. Despite Washington State being a good (top 40) passing offense, this was the best pass defense game for Stanford all season, our best since the Notre Dame game 16 games ago. The upward trajectory for the pass defense isn't as evident as it is for run defense but I think it's there too. We have a much better defense right now than we did earlier in the season.
7. The offense's passing game, on the other hand....sigh. This was one to forget. And considering one of the biggest pass plays came from Lamson and Daniels' stats were spared what could have easily been multiple interceptions (though in fairness Farrell did Daniels no favors on a deep one), it was a really bad night for Daniels. Washington State is thoroughly mediocre in pass defense (#75 in yards per attempt allowed, #57 in passer rating allowed), yet last night was by far our worst yards per attempt of the season and right there with the USC game for our worst passer rating. It was the worst anybody has done against Washington State since Air Force in 2019, and Air Force doesn't really pass. Among offenses that try to pass, you have to go back over five years to 2018 Wyoming and San Jose State to find passing games this horrible against Washington State. Just an abomination by Daniels and Co. yesterday. In terms of the run game, as we know we don't have much there outside of QB runs. Only Colorado State has been more ineffectual rushing against WSU than we were. What's amazing to me, though, is how many programs struggle on the ground. We actually have a higher yards per carry on the season than Arizona State, Washington State, and Colorado. As we evaluate our team we need to keep in mind evolution in football and the personality of offenses. It turns out that we are equally competitive, relative to Pac-12 opponents, rushing as we are passing (ninth in the Pac-12 in both according to various metrics). Food for thought before anybody gets too excited about what the passing game has done this season.
8. The fan rhetoric on Daniels got a bit over-inflated following the Washington game and can now come down to earth a bit. I am confident he is better than he played yesterday, but on balance I think it's premature to say we have a good QB. Total QBR says #84 of 132 QBs nationally this season. While it was Daniels' worst Total QBR score of the year among the games with significant pass attempts (41.8), it was somewhat in line with his average performances nationally (#88 of 129 QBs nationally this week), which I presume is due to numbers deflating writ large as competition gets tighter. Lamson was #100 in that weekly ranking, but I don't think Total QBR can really measure what Lamson does for our offense. [By way of comparison, PFF gave Lamson an elite 86.8 grade, though I often prefer Total QBR to PFF for QBs.] Lamson is a crucial component in helping us manage short yardage high leverage conversions, all the more important given our general struggles on offense, and he even had the pass yesterday that most contributed to our scoring. Conversely, I viewed Daniels' game as worse than Total QBR assessed. After typically showing good judgment this season, he had several total bonehead plays and easily could (should?) have lost us the game on the throw in the end zone that wasn't intercepted (the one Ungar couldn't come down with over the deflection). I am hopeful this is a good learning opportunity for Daniels and we see more games like the Washington game than like this going forward. I think the jury is still deliberating on Daniels. Elsewhere on offense, Rogers had his best PFF grade this season and still hasn't missed a snap all year, Baklenko graded even better than he did in his first game (so far so good but I'm still a bit chastened by the Leyrer experience), Roush made nice contributions in the passing game, and Ayomanor's grit contributed by drawing the defense's attention (and a few pass interferences and some of our best success getting at least a modicum of chunk yardage, though there wasn't much at all of that overall especially given the penalty that nullified the really long gain). [This week's moving the chains (first downs) leaderboard: Lamson (6), Roush (3), Daniels (3), Ayomanor (2, plus drew two interference penalties), Bachmeier, Smith] As I said last week, I need Farrell to be over-recruited.
9. I don't recall if I've ever seen PFF grade a game like this for Stanford's defense. Among our top 17 defenders in snaps every single one had a 58+ grade and 11 of the 13 main defenders had a 63+ grade. Truly a full team defensive effort. Nobody was dominant but everybody played well. Highlighting individuals sort of misses the point on a night like that but I do like to recognize performance so I'll note that it may have been the strongest ILB game I've seen from Stanford in a long, long time. Both Bernadel and Sinclair had five positively contributing plays. Elsewhere on defense Tafiti continues to emerge as our playmaker in lieu of Bailey, this time with a hurry, sack, and tackle for loss while Bailey rode the pine, and Franklin had a pretty nice bounce back. Due to Gilman's injury, special teams standout Morris got his first significant defensive action and acquitted himself solidly. Edwards was pretty lucky on the interception but always have to shout out takeaways. Manley had a quiet game, which is good for a corner, and then had a key pass breakup to force a punt in crunch time. A week after seeming to lose out on his role to Aybar, Keneley had his first 70+ PFF grade of the season, though I only counted two positively contributing plays. It really was a fantastic team effort all around from a group of defenders who lack impact players but showed themselves capable of playing well together to combine for an elite performance. Like I said, I am not sure if there is precedent for a Stanford defensive performance with such solid weak links across the board. I also am not sure how much precedent there is for a dominant team defensive performance without any 80+ PFF grades. Total team effort by the defense.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - msqueri - 11-05-2023
10. I got what I've been clamoring for: all Flintoft all the time. Frankly, he did not have his best day, with nets of 34 to the 46, 39 to the 29, 33 to the 42, 29 to the 20 due to a touchback, 54 to the 10, and 35 to the 16. One boomer but overall pretty lacking in net distance and not very situationally effective. It would be funny if the competition with Weselman was bringing out the best in Flintoft and the calls to definitively bench Weselman prove to not be helpful, but for now I'm going to say this is only one game and Flintoft's mediocre outing is not indicative of what we'll see going forward. Karty made his kick but again is not being given all the opportunities he could be. I think going for it on 4th and 1 at the 14 is very defensible, something analytics are probably more supportive of than old school tendencies to get points on the board in a defensive game, but we are fortunate the defense kept holding so strong after that gut punch of a red zone turnover on downs. Getting zero points out of a red zone trip in such a low-scoring game is brutal. We later had a similar situation at 4th and 1 at the 23 in crunch time and again didn't let Karty eat. I know hindsight is always 20/20 but we ended up with three points instead of six and once again significantly damaged our All-American kicker's prospects for national honors. I give Taylor some slack because he is trying to establish an identity and going for touchdowns rather than field goals and being confident in high-leverage short yardage situations are part of that, but at the same time we are #100 in red zone touchdown conversion percentage and have the best kicker in America, so Taylor's decisions are costing the team points. In the return game, Farrell had an 8 yard punt return and a 9 yard kick return (!). I really can't emphasize enough how bad I think Farrell is at everything he does and how much we need to replace him on both offense and special teams. He is #54 of 55 qualifying kick returners nationally and has only returned two punts (neither has been great and if he qualified his average would be 49th of 55 nationally). On coverage, Morris had yet another awesome tackle. I am not kidding when I say he should get very serious all-conference consideration. Walk-on Kazemervisz has also had a very nice year on special teams.
11. Game balls: Levi Rogers, Teva Tafiti, Aaron Morris, Bobby April III
12. This is the first time this season I've felt that the team could genuinely have the psychological ingredients for some momentum. I don't want to overstate this because I take them at their word that the team-wide ethos is one week seasons, so fundamentally one shouldn't view any particular game as more or less likely to see the team show up. The character of this team is a steady, resilient bunch. That has shown up in consistency the last six weeks that is remarkable in hindsight - four games playing like a Sagarin 36-42 team. If anything, we are getting to a point where that respectable but still not quite good level of play is what we can expect. Still, I can't help but think that reaching those aforementioned psychological barriers (at least matching the last two seasons' win total, showing up two weeks in a row, beating a team nobody in the program had ever beaten before, finding a way to win despite offensive struggles, finding a way to salt a late lead) creates a different sense of momentum than we had after the Hawaii and Colorado wins. This feels like more solid ground in being on the right track. That doesn't mean we are immune from setbacks. We could fall on our face against Oregon State like we did against UCLA. I think we can keep this next one within two scores (though it's possible I'm getting carried away....Sagarin would have us down three scores), which for a resilient bunch learning how to win means we really could have a shot.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - CompSci87 - 11-05-2023
Interesting thoughts as always. Do you think QB runs are so much more effective for us than RB runs because our RBs are poor, because of the extra blocker when the QB runs, or because of the pass threat (since Lamson does pass sometimes)?
I suppose it's some combination, but I have no idea how much the different factors weigh.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - msqueri - 11-05-2023
(11-05-2023, 02:28 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Interesting thoughts as always. Do you think QB runs are so much more effective for us than RB runs because our RBs are poor, because of the extra blocker when the QB runs, or because of the pass threat (since Lamson does pass sometimes)?
I suppose it's some combination, but I have no idea how much the different factors weigh.
I think Lamson is good at it and Taylor has given up on his RBs. If we ran a normal offense where RBs got to touch the ball I think we'd see more effectiveness from the RBs. Filkins had 50+ yards rushing each of the first three games, Smith did in the second and third games, and Irvin did in the fourth game. But we ultimately concluded, due to the duress the QBs were under, that we weren't going to play that game anymore. As a result, RB carries are just not a part of this offense anymore.
We'll see what happens next year. I don't think what we've seen this year is the real Taylor offense or how we ideally want to operate. I also think it will be very interesting to get, hopefully, Davis, Tabb, and Ford injected into the RB room. They may be much more the workhorse backs Taylor will feel comfortable handing the rock to. But it's an open question for me how good our OL play is. A lot depends on whether Rogers comes back IMHO.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - Goose - 11-05-2023
I always find these thoughts to be interesting and, well, thoughtful. I am going to propose a different evaluation of Stanford's defensive performance and see what people think. Bad weather is normally considered to favor a running team, which neither Stanford nor WSU are. In this game, because of Lamson, Stanford was slightly "better" than WSU.
Both teams seemed to me to be playing a lot of the game at 7/8s speed. It was as if the footing wasn't good and this particularly affected the WSU passing offense. Lots of their passes seemed to be thrown a bit behind or a bit in front of the receivers. More importantly, one of the Stanford's defensive issues is lack of speed in the secondary. The DB are often more or less in the "right place" but are a step behind / away from the receiver. They often can't knock the pass away. Against WSU, the slightly slower pace seemed to allow the DBs to actually be closer to the receivers in general and provide much "tighter" coverage. This resulted in more passes defended. It wasn't that we were suddenly "better", but rather that WSU couldn't get open by simply running away from us. They also weren't getting to the spot they were expected to be "on time". This resulted in the QB missing throws and also holding the ball longer than normal, which helped the pass rush. His "hot read" often had a Stanford defender right there.
Both offenses were not good (to be charitable), but I admit that I just don't believe Stanford could suddenly cover WSUs receivers because we improved that much. I am indeed giving a lot of credit to the weather. It affected both team's passing game similarly. We had a hard time too. Stanford's defense did play well, but they had "help" from the weather. I don't think it translates into a "lock down" pass defense in the future.
Thoughts welcome!
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - cctop - 11-05-2023
(11-05-2023, 01:55 PM)msqueri Wrote: Lamson is a crucial component in helping us manage short yardage high leverage conversions, all the more important given our general struggles on offense, and he even had the pass yesterday that most contributed to our scoring.
Considering how the word "Wildcat" raised blood pressures on this board for so many years, it's funny how we've found mild success with it this year with Lamson.
Sure it's not actually a Wildcat since Lamson is listed as a QB, but given that he had 20 carries and 1 pass attempt against WSU it seems like a technicality.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - washingtonismoney - 11-05-2023
One small indicator that I like: Sam Roush's 60 yard game boosted his reception yardage stats by 30% on the year. It's not the same star track that Ayomanor and Bachmeier are on, but his play in basically his first real year -- ST play is basically getting your feet wet -- is a good sign, in my opinion, that Taylor's regime is developing guys on a reasonably broad base, as opposed to finding a couple gems but not really changing the state of the roster much.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - msqueri - 11-05-2023
washingtonismoney dateline='[url=tel:1699234131' Wrote: 1699234131[/url]']
One small indicator that I like: Sam Roush's 60 yard game boosted his reception yardage stats by 30% on the year. It's not the same star track that Ayomanor and Bachmeier are on, but his play in basically his first real year -- ST play is basically getting your feet wet -- is a good sign, in my opinion, that Taylor's regime is developing guys on a reasonably broad base, as opposed to finding a couple gems but not really changing the state of the roster much.
Absolutely not his first real year. 204 snaps at TE last year. Rogers is the only player on the offense who played yesterday and has more experience for us heading into this year.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - washingtonismoney - 11-05-2023
(11-05-2023, 06:55 PM)msqueri Wrote:washingtonismoney dateline='[url=tel:1699234131' Wrote: 1699234131[/url]']
One small indicator that I like: Sam Roush's 60 yard game boosted his reception yardage stats by 30% on the year. It's not the same star track that Ayomanor and Bachmeier are on, but his play in basically his first real year -- ST play is basically getting your feet wet -- is a good sign, in my opinion, that Taylor's regime is developing guys on a reasonably broad base, as opposed to finding a couple gems but not really changing the state of the roster much.
Absolutely not his first real year. 204 snaps at TE last year. Rogers is the only player on the offense who played yesterday and has more experience for us heading into this year.
Enh, got it. GoStanford made it sound like he was a special teamer.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - Jamesy - 11-05-2023
(11-05-2023, 06:19 PM)cctop Wrote:(11-05-2023, 01:55 PM)msqueri Wrote: Lamson is a crucial component in helping us manage short yardage high leverage conversions, all the more important given our general struggles on offense, and he even had the pass yesterday that most contributed to our scoring.
Considering how the word "Wildcat" raised blood pressures on this board for so many years, it's funny how we've found mild success with it this year with Lamson.
Sure it's not actually a Wildcat since Lamson is listed as a QB, but given that he had 20 carries and 1 pass attempt against WSU it seems like a technicality.
Lamson also lined up and carried a few times as a TE coming on a sweep similar to what yurosek was doing earlier in the year and on another play, he was lined up as a WR!
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - fullmetal - 11-06-2023
Great analysis, and here's hoping the team closes out the season on an upward trajectory!
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - SkiBum80 - 11-06-2023
Great write up, and as well documented in that write up, in the Palouse, our O was epically bad and our D was epically (to a slight degree more) great.
Looking at our season games so far, and lumping them into crude assessment buckets, my take is:
Win
Beatdown Loss
Competitive Loss
Competitive Loss
Beatdown Loss
(bye)
Win
Beatdown Loss
Competitive Loss
Win
So my assessment is a seemingly contradictory conclusion: Yes team is improved. No they are not on a discernable upward trend.
And this from someone who is so appreciative of the heart and character and commitment of both the players and coaching staff.
To explain:
The team is improved because they have shown, for both Offense like in Colorado game, and Defense in Wash State game, that they can play really well at a highly competitive level.
The problem with declaring a trend, is that a trend seems to imply a predictability of the next event, in this case the next game vs. OSU.
However, in spite of the examples of great play that have been shown possible, I do not have confidence (like if I were a betting man) as to which team will show up at OSU.
If our Colorado-game-Offense shows up, and our WashSt-game-Defense shows up too, then Yes surely on an upward trend.
But if the WashSt-game-Offense shows up, along with the not-long-ago UCLA-game-Defense, then it seems more likely there is no trend.
Only evidence that at times our guys can play great, but other times, extremely not so, and hard to know which will show up on any given Saturday.
This being said, I repeat my comment that Kudos due to Coach TT, Coach April, other staff, and the Gutsy players. For taking a brutally decimated roster so thin on much veteran experience, and turning it into a team already matching last year's wins, with 3 games yet to go! (assuming no bowl as I don't want to be accused of being a crazy person)
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - SamuelMcF - 11-06-2023
OSU is very good (#20 overall FEI) and super old in the trenches. This will be another "men vs. boys" game a la UCLA, except they actually average a higher YPC on the ground than the Chipster. They are one of the best rushing teams in the country. Very plausible we see another blowout.
By the way, our run defense actually performed very admirably against UCLA, holding them to 4.1 YPC - well below their season average of 4.9. Ditto vs. UW (3.4 YPC vs season average of 4.8) and Wazzu (4 rushing yards total allowed!!!). Run D has been pretty good lately, which is great to build upon for the future...but unfortunately our pass D is one of the worst in America. We were fortunate that weather had some effect on the Cougs game. I'm looking to see how the run D holds up against its biggest challenge this season outside of the Ducks.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - needle - 11-06-2023
Stanford ranks 19th nationally in time of possession, averaging a few ticks over 32 minutes per game. This is a surprise to me given Taylor's talk before the season about how playing fast gives the offense an advantage.
I've been thinking lately about the contrast in styles this season between Taylor and USC's Lincoln Riley. Both Stanford and SC have subpar defenses, but USC's potent offense definitely does not possess the ball as much as Stanford: the Trojans average 27:57 TOP per game.
The reason I bring this up at all is because Taylor frequently comments about how the offense needs to hold the ball to complement the defensive effort. The unstated context is that Stanford's defense isn't great. I don't tune into Riley's press conferences, but the data leaves me skeptical that Riley cares one bit about TOP.
We now see that SC is in what I'd call a mini-meltdown, with Riley unceremoniously ditching his longtime defensive coordinator, Alex Grinch, and the Trojans nowhere near in contention for the conference title. It's a disappointing year for SC.
I'm wondering if Riley might have been better served to make more of an effort to boost time of possession, as Taylor has done. Or, do people think that Stanford's TOP has not really been a factor at all in Stanford's limited defensive success?
I think the game plan in the first half of the Oregon game to emphasize time of possession clearly worked, with Stanford still in the game at halftime, a feat accomplished by few teams this year. But I also think this approach, albeit as an endgame strategy, hurt the team in the loss to UW, when Taylor called plays to gain just a few yards rather than attempting more downfield passes on a night that Daniels had nearly 400 yards passing.
Zooming out, I think Taylor constantly referring to helping out the defense in his media comments probably helps with team building, and I think it shows some flexibility in his coaching that is an admirable trait. The slowed pace for Stanford probably also has to do with having a first-year starter at quarterback. But, it is all debatable, and I'd also be interested in arguments that Stanford's TOP is an essentially meaningless metric, at least this year, no matter what Taylor has said.
RE: Sunday morning thoughts - Washington State - terry - 11-06-2023
Stanford's leaders in rushing yards this season are:
225 Lamson (91 att., 2.5 yds/att)
215 Filkins (38 att., 5.7 yds/att)
192 Smith (42 att., 4.6 yds/att)
187 Daniels (77 att., 2.4 yds/att)
It is possible that any of them could end up leading in the team in rushing yards this year. I'm pretty sure that Stanford has never had a QB as its leading rusher for a season.
The Stanford record for most rushing yards in season by a QB is 453 yards by Andrew Luck in 2010. It seems unlikely that either Lamson or Daniels will reach that level this year.