[Austroturf]

I really think the regression in defensive performance has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group. 

We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking.

One of Stanford's virtues during this recent run of success has been the coaching staff's ability to turn the Ben Gardners of the world into elite players.  Our success vs. USC in recent years has also been attributed to our ability to take lesser talents, coach them up and then form them all into a well-disciplined unit that is greater than the sum of the parts.  USC consistently out-recruits us on the 4- and 5-star level; but we have dominated the last decade in head-to-head match-ups.  

Now if our ability to do that is also subject to the law of regression to the mean, then that explains a lot, but is certainly not satisfactory.  It either means we are not finding players like Ben Gardner anymore; or, if we do find them, we are unable to coach them up to elite level. Or perhaps a combination of both.  In any case, I miss the days when our 3-stars played like 4 and 5 star athletes.  

I appreciate the information on recruiting difficulties on the defensive line.  I was completely unaware of that.  If you have a link to that article, that would be great.  

The Coaches' Poll for this week is out.  UW slots in at #19, while we drop out altogether and come in at #38 (just counting further the teams that also receive votes).  Interestingly, the Dawgs have lost to three unranked teams (Auburn, Oregon and Cal.), while we have lost to #16 (Utah), #11 (WSU) and #3 (ND).  Must be their 6th win that makes the difference.

---

Good insight.  I don't want to underestimate what the Cougs have achieved; but I also think that the air-raid, if forcefully countered, can become a house of cards.  Wazzu is running it very well and has had a lot of success; but, as d4cohn pointed out, they are having that success against teams with Big-12-like defensive units; and sadly, ours has devolved into such a unit.  The air-raid system is certainly less susceptible to the blitz because the routes tend to be shorter and the release is normally quicker; but I would have loved to see this same game with one of our elite defensive units (2010-2014) on the field.  A few sacks and a few batted passes would have shaken up the air-raid, gotten the stop, and the flow of the game would have looked very different.  A team with a menagerie of hulks on the front-seven would have a blast defusing the air-raid system.  Let's see how the Bears do next week; but they have to travel to Pullman, and that is a tall order for any team.

I don't agree with the idea that 7 hulks would be good. The air raid eats that up. What you need is four lock-down pass defenders that can tackle and one linebacker that can handle the #5 receiver. Basically, very few teams have that.  If you look at past Stanford defenses, the thing that fixed our "Oregon problem" was an improvement in speed, particularly sideline to sideline speed. It wasn't that our DL was great, it was rather that our linebackers were. The could run and they could tackle. The "party in the backfield" only mattered because the "normal" Oregon read-option / stretch plays were contained so they had to resort to a more conventional set of pass plays. Our DBs were also an improvement over the previous Stanford norm, but they probably were no better than what we have now. It was also true that we could control the TOP so that our defense wasn't out there the entire game, which we can't do now (at least nearly as well).
The air-raid is a different beast. However, against both the spread and the air-raid, you need to be able to tackle one-on-one. The 2010-2014 teams were generally good at that. Our defense this year basically is not particularly good at it. The "bend but don't break" defensive philosophy that we use relies on the idea that we can force you to execute a long, multi-play drive, and that most teams are not efficient enough to do that. They will have a bad play, get behind the sticks, and not convert. That happened in the first half against WSU.  The air-raid will take the short pass play if it is all that is available. If the DB makes the tackle, the offense has to execute a LOT of plays perfectly to score. Most team's who run the air raid can't do that. In the second half, WSU could. However, they were greatly helped by our DBs NOT making the tackle and reducing the number of plays they had to execute perfectly. That beat us.

Great analysis.  I suppose our defense also got tired on those long drives, which exacerbated the problem of tackling one-on-one.

[Austroturf]

I really think the regression in defensive performance has to due with regression to the mean in recruiting rankings. Being able to take two stars like Ben Gardner, and produce All Pac-12 and NFL players was never going to be sustainable. While not every 5-star pans out, and not every staff is equally good at maximizing talent, generally speaking, the teams with the most 5-stars are the ones contending for CFP and national championships. We don't have the playoff or AP rankings for this week yet, but #1-#8 (Alabama, Clemson, ND, LSU, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State), and several teams in #10-#15 below that in the Coaches poll, are the top recruiters in the country. They get more 4 and 5 star players than we do (except maybe ND). DL talent is particularly thin across the country (see the most recent ESPN insider article regarding concerns on DL recruiting depth in Class of 2019), so the top programs in recruiting (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State) are able to get standout players at a inherently thin position group. 

We generally recruit at a #15-#25 level, and the performance on the field the last three years is generally reflective of that recruiting ranking.

One of Stanford's virtues during this recent run of success has been the coaching staff's ability to turn the Ben Gardners of the world into elite players.  Our success vs. USC in recent years has also been attributed to our ability to take lesser talents, coach them up and then form them all into a well-disciplined unit that is greater than the sum of the parts.  USC consistently out-recruits us on the 4- and 5-star level; but we have dominated the last decade in head-to-head match-ups.  

Now if our ability to do that is also subject to the law of regression to the mean, then that explains a lot, but is certainly not satisfactory.  It either means we are not finding players like Ben Gardner anymore; or, if we do find them, we are unable to coach them up to elite level. Or perhaps a combination of both.  In any case, I miss the days when our 3-stars played like 4 and 5 star athletes.  

I appreciate the information on recruiting difficulties on the defensive line.  I was completely unaware of that.  If you have a link to that article, that would be great.  

The Coaches' Poll for this week is out.  UW slots in at #19, while we drop out altogether and come in at #38 (just counting further the teams that also receive votes).  Interestingly, the Dawgs have lost to three unranked teams (Auburn, Oregon and Cal.), while we have lost to #16 (Utah), #11 (WSU) and #3 (ND).  Must be their 6th win that makes the difference.

---

Good insight.  I don't want to underestimate what the Cougs have achieved; but I also think that the air-raid, if forcefully countered, can become a house of cards.  Wazzu is running it very well and has had a lot of success; but, as d4cohn pointed out, they are having that success against teams with Big-12-like defensive units; and sadly, ours has devolved into such a unit.  The air-raid system is certainly less susceptible to the blitz because the routes tend to be shorter and the release is normally quicker; but I would have loved to see this same game with one of our elite defensive units (2010-2014) on the field.  A few sacks and a few batted passes would have shaken up the air-raid, gotten the stop, and the flow of the game would have looked very different.  A team with a menagerie of hulks on the front-seven would have a blast defusing the air-raid system.  Let's see how the Bears do next week; but they have to travel to Pullman, and that is a tall order for any team.

I don't agree with the idea that 7 hulks would be good. The air raid eats that up. What you need is four lock-down pass defenders that can tackle and one linebacker that can handle the #5 receiver. Basically, very few teams have that.  If you look at past Stanford defenses, the thing that fixed our "Oregon problem" was an improvement in speed, particularly sideline to sideline speed. It wasn't that our DL was great, it was rather that our linebackers were. The could run and they could tackle. The "party in the backfield" only mattered because the "normal" Oregon read-option / stretch plays were contained so they had to resort to a more conventional set of pass plays. Our DBs were also an improvement over the previous Stanford norm, but they probably were no better than what we have now. It was also true that we could control the TOP so that our defense wasn't out there the entire game, which we can't do now (at least nearly as well).
The air-raid is a different beast. However, against both the spread and the air-raid, you need to be able to tackle one-on-one. The 2010-2014 teams were generally good at that. Our defense this year basically is not particularly good at it. The "bend but don't break" defensive philosophy that we use relies on the idea that we can force you to execute a long, multi-play drive, and that most teams are not efficient enough to do that. They will have a bad play, get behind the sticks, and not convert. That happened in the first half against WSU.  The air-raid will take the short pass play if it is all that is available. If the DB makes the tackle, the offense has to execute a LOT of plays perfectly to score. Most team's who run the air raid can't do that. In the second half, WSU could. However, they were greatly helped by our DBs NOT making the tackle and reducing the number of plays they had to execute perfectly. That beat us.

Great analysis.  I suppose our defense also got tired on those long drives, which exacerbated the problem of tackling one-on-one.