11-20-2022, 02:51 PM
6. The offense did provide the biggest bright spot of the day, which was unquestionably Mitch Leigber. This was his coming out party, a converted safety and eighth (or fifth, depending on how departed guys are counted) string back just had 136 yards from scrimmage against a real major college football defense. That's more yards from scrimmage against Cal than Travis Dye, Bucky Irving, or Nakia Watson had. As Zach Charbonnet and Xazavian Valladay haven't played Cal, that means none of the premier backs in the Pac-12 had more yards from scrimmage against Cal than Leigber did. This wasn't just a good day for an emergency back, this was a good day. It also met the eye test, principally with the great red zone catch in the first quarter that bailed out a bad McKee throw. Moreover, PFF didn't think Stanford's line run blocked well at all yesterday, with all the linemen grading sub-par. In the last nine games, Filkins against Notre Dame is the only player with more first downs in a game than Leigber had. [This week's moving the chains (first down) leader board: Leigber (7), Yurosek (4), Higgins (4), Humphreys (3, also drew a pass interference), Daniels (2), Tremayne, Bowman, Taylor] Leigber really ran, caught, and battled with spirit. Coupled with Daniels' very effective running (aside from fumbling the game away, a big caveat of course which is why I addressed it earlier), Stanford had its second best rushing game since losing Smith, a tick behind the UCLA game, and better than five Power Five teams did against Cal this year. It was a very solid running game. Stanford's coaches next season and Leigber himself have interesting decisions about where he will play. He's now more established at running back than safety, and there will be opportunities in both rooms next year (especially accounting for the fragility of all the backs who might be back).
7. The run game being solid yesterday accentuates just how bad the passing game continues to be. The national median in yards per attempt is 7.5 and we just managed our sixth straight game in which we couldn't even get to median. In this game, we had both a passer rating and a yards per attempt that were worse than every team Cal has played this season other than UC Davis. Something I've been saying a lot in these updates: read those sentences again. We're hardly ever even average in passing these days, and how we are recently is a lot worse than that. It's comprehensive failure in the passing game. The coach, as we all know, doesn't have a clue. The celebrated WR corps has been such that it's only been able to have one decently productive player at a time, Wilson before his injury and Higgins since then. Yurosek has only been in ok, in essentially a three-way tie for receiving TE #2-4 in the conference after being in essentially a tie for #1 last year. And then there's McKee. We've been talking about this for weeks but the level of his disappointment this season is really coming into focus. He's 80th of 121 QBs in Total QBR, but comparing him to Stanford QBs is where I think this will become vivid for people. His 50.5 Total QBR is worse than Pritchard was in 2008, Nunes was in 2012, Chryst was in 2016, or Burns was in 2016. The closest Stanford comparison is Chryst in 2017. This is not only disappointing, it's makes-whether-he-should-start-in-2023-even-if-he's-back disappointing. He's played so badly that I am starting to think it's more likely he comes back than not, but even if he does there's a conversation to be had about just how bad he's been.
8. Fans flirted in the middle of the season with a narrative that the defense was the bright spot for the Cardinal in 2022, and maybe that could have been the case without injuries, but as we limp into the off-season it's clear the defense is the same disaster it's been for years under Anderson. #125 in yards per play, #113 in scoring defense, #126 in points per drive defense, and #85 in Defensive FEI before last night's game is accounted for (so likely declining further) is not a silver lining in any respect. The defense is an atrocity just like the offense. Yesterday, we gave up the third most yards per play anybody has against Cal (only USC and Arizona worse, even UC Davis and UNLV didn't give up quite as much). From a scoring perspective it wasn't much worse than Cal's norm, but it's probably pointless to read anything into points allowed yesterday since on the one hand the scoop and score was a significant scoring event that wasn't the Stanford defense's fault and on the other hand Plummer's inexcusable interceptions took a lot of points off the board, so in multiple ways the scoring total doesn't necessarily reflect how the defense played. Looking just at other metrics it's a familiar verdict for us: really bad defense that, accounting for context, may not be quite as really bad as the offense. I think if one looks dispassionately at this there's as little rational case for retaining Stanford's defensive coaches as there's been for years. But Shaw never looks at his coaching staff dispassionately or even rationally. That's why we need a wholesale cleaning house. Until Shaw is gone I will continue pointing out that firing the whole offensive staff but not the defensive staff or vice versa will be insufficient.
9. Part of the reason I'm so down on the defense is that the defensive performance was that bad even though Cal gave them every opportunity. A dysfunctional offense was playing with its two primary coaches freshly fired. The coaches who stepped in committed head-scratching malpractice. Despite Stanford being a solid pass defense team and one of the worst run defense teams in the country, Geep Chryst's calls led to only 22 run plays, by far Cal's season-low. This was lunacy. One read is he made the mistake Shaw makes time and again - "focusing on us" rather than recognizing the enemy has a vote. Geep was probably reacting to how bad Cal's run game has been - under three yards per carry six games in a row, with four of those under two yards a carry. But this was so stupid to do against Stanford. Predictably, Stanford held up well against the pass, the fourth stingiest any pass defense has been against Cal as measured in either yards per attempt or passer rating, and got gashed on the ground. Even Cal's horrible run game got 5.14 yards per carry. So why run only 22 times? Malpractice. Maybe Geep was throwing a bone to his son's alma mater. This game was awful versus awful. In the battle of an immobile object against an ineffectual force, the immobile object won out.
10. Individual defensive players did not stand out much in my read of the play-by-play. Gilman and Porter had the big interceptions but nothing else, though interestingly PFF thought Gilman had a great game. Kelly had four quality plays but just as many victimized coverage breakdowns. The only player who really showed up numerous times in an impressive way on the play-by-play was Moi, thanks to his tackle for no gain on 2nd and 2, tackle for loss on 1st and 10, stop for no gain on 3rd and 1, and tackle for loss on 1st and 10, not to mention another good play in which we accepted a penalty. The other thing I'll laud on the defense is numerous of the seniors playing hurt and with evident spirit. This applies to several guys, but Miezan in particular had a sack and a run stop as well as two special teams tackles. As Shaw emphasized with great pain in the post-game press conference, guys were trying. As he doesn't say but is clear to all of us, they try and still suck. Another reason the coaches must go.
7. The run game being solid yesterday accentuates just how bad the passing game continues to be. The national median in yards per attempt is 7.5 and we just managed our sixth straight game in which we couldn't even get to median. In this game, we had both a passer rating and a yards per attempt that were worse than every team Cal has played this season other than UC Davis. Something I've been saying a lot in these updates: read those sentences again. We're hardly ever even average in passing these days, and how we are recently is a lot worse than that. It's comprehensive failure in the passing game. The coach, as we all know, doesn't have a clue. The celebrated WR corps has been such that it's only been able to have one decently productive player at a time, Wilson before his injury and Higgins since then. Yurosek has only been in ok, in essentially a three-way tie for receiving TE #2-4 in the conference after being in essentially a tie for #1 last year. And then there's McKee. We've been talking about this for weeks but the level of his disappointment this season is really coming into focus. He's 80th of 121 QBs in Total QBR, but comparing him to Stanford QBs is where I think this will become vivid for people. His 50.5 Total QBR is worse than Pritchard was in 2008, Nunes was in 2012, Chryst was in 2016, or Burns was in 2016. The closest Stanford comparison is Chryst in 2017. This is not only disappointing, it's makes-whether-he-should-start-in-2023-even-if-he's-back disappointing. He's played so badly that I am starting to think it's more likely he comes back than not, but even if he does there's a conversation to be had about just how bad he's been.
8. Fans flirted in the middle of the season with a narrative that the defense was the bright spot for the Cardinal in 2022, and maybe that could have been the case without injuries, but as we limp into the off-season it's clear the defense is the same disaster it's been for years under Anderson. #125 in yards per play, #113 in scoring defense, #126 in points per drive defense, and #85 in Defensive FEI before last night's game is accounted for (so likely declining further) is not a silver lining in any respect. The defense is an atrocity just like the offense. Yesterday, we gave up the third most yards per play anybody has against Cal (only USC and Arizona worse, even UC Davis and UNLV didn't give up quite as much). From a scoring perspective it wasn't much worse than Cal's norm, but it's probably pointless to read anything into points allowed yesterday since on the one hand the scoop and score was a significant scoring event that wasn't the Stanford defense's fault and on the other hand Plummer's inexcusable interceptions took a lot of points off the board, so in multiple ways the scoring total doesn't necessarily reflect how the defense played. Looking just at other metrics it's a familiar verdict for us: really bad defense that, accounting for context, may not be quite as really bad as the offense. I think if one looks dispassionately at this there's as little rational case for retaining Stanford's defensive coaches as there's been for years. But Shaw never looks at his coaching staff dispassionately or even rationally. That's why we need a wholesale cleaning house. Until Shaw is gone I will continue pointing out that firing the whole offensive staff but not the defensive staff or vice versa will be insufficient.
9. Part of the reason I'm so down on the defense is that the defensive performance was that bad even though Cal gave them every opportunity. A dysfunctional offense was playing with its two primary coaches freshly fired. The coaches who stepped in committed head-scratching malpractice. Despite Stanford being a solid pass defense team and one of the worst run defense teams in the country, Geep Chryst's calls led to only 22 run plays, by far Cal's season-low. This was lunacy. One read is he made the mistake Shaw makes time and again - "focusing on us" rather than recognizing the enemy has a vote. Geep was probably reacting to how bad Cal's run game has been - under three yards per carry six games in a row, with four of those under two yards a carry. But this was so stupid to do against Stanford. Predictably, Stanford held up well against the pass, the fourth stingiest any pass defense has been against Cal as measured in either yards per attempt or passer rating, and got gashed on the ground. Even Cal's horrible run game got 5.14 yards per carry. So why run only 22 times? Malpractice. Maybe Geep was throwing a bone to his son's alma mater. This game was awful versus awful. In the battle of an immobile object against an ineffectual force, the immobile object won out.
10. Individual defensive players did not stand out much in my read of the play-by-play. Gilman and Porter had the big interceptions but nothing else, though interestingly PFF thought Gilman had a great game. Kelly had four quality plays but just as many victimized coverage breakdowns. The only player who really showed up numerous times in an impressive way on the play-by-play was Moi, thanks to his tackle for no gain on 2nd and 2, tackle for loss on 1st and 10, stop for no gain on 3rd and 1, and tackle for loss on 1st and 10, not to mention another good play in which we accepted a penalty. The other thing I'll laud on the defense is numerous of the seniors playing hurt and with evident spirit. This applies to several guys, but Miezan in particular had a sack and a run stop as well as two special teams tackles. As Shaw emphasized with great pain in the post-game press conference, guys were trying. As he doesn't say but is clear to all of us, they try and still suck. Another reason the coaches must go.