Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - 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: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. (/thread-24510.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: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. (/thread-24510.html)
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - jacket3ree - 10-24-2023
Taking that three years literally, he would have left after the 2019 season, which was a disappointing season to be sure: 4-8 and a few beatdown losses including Cal and Notre Dame to end the season. This would be the first time they missed the postseason since 2008, snapping an 11-year streak of winning.
But wouldn't that have been a strange time to quit? What would the reaction have been, from the non-Kreskin fans? One bad year and the guy quits?
2018: 9-4 beat Cal, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Pitt in Sun Bowl, Utah is a problem
2017: 9-5 beat Cal, UCLA, Oregon (they sucked that year), UW, Notre Dame, Utah (!), a few narrow losses like TCU in Alamo Bowl, two SC Ls
2016: 10-3 beat everyone except teams from Washington and Indiana
2015: Numero tres. Not in the conference, in the nation. 12-2 (I guess he should have resigned after losing to Northwestern, right?)
2014: 8-5 chicken bowl season without much in the way of highlights, but UCLA and Maryland are B1G teams....
2013: 11-3, stole Cal's lunch money and made them eat it. Made #2 Oregon cry on national TV. Lost to an equal in Rose Bowl
2012: Not quite as dominant, but Rose Bowl trophy. Redemption in Eugene against #1.
2011: Dominant , but the every other year Oregon problem. The Fiesta Bowl was national semi quality.
People would kill for any one of those seasons now. Maybe he quit a year too late. Maybe. But three? Not in my opinion.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - mutoo1 - 10-24-2023
coach shaw was in attendance, sitting in the ucla section (124), waiting for his son to get a chance to play.
i, for one, am very grateful for what he did for stanford football and the new heights to which he & his staff and his recruits took stanford football.
i am also sad he could not successfully navigate the new era ushered in by nil $$ and the transfer portal, mostly due to institutional constraints, and that he could not pull his program out of its downward spiral.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - cardcrimson - 10-24-2023
(10-24-2023, 04:57 PM)mutoo1 Wrote: coach shaw was in attendance, sitting in the ucla section (124), waiting for his son to get a chance to play.
i am also sad he could not successfully navigate the new era ushered in by nil $$ and the transfer portal, mostly due to institutional constraints, and that he could not pull his program out of its downward spiral.
Glad to know Shaw was there for his son. Shows a lot, frankly.
As for the new era, NIL, the portal, and institutional constraints. Malarkey. As posted on the other site mentioned above, the difference between Harbaugh and Shaw?
"Harbaugh coached Stanford for four years, then left for the Niners.
Shaw coached Stanford for six years, then stayed for six more."
Again, glad to see that Shaw showed up for his son. Did his son play?
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - PAsportsfan - 10-24-2023
(10-22-2023, 11:26 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Not a single mention here or elsewhere about Shaw. Doesn't his son play for UCLA? Doesn't he still live in the area? Did he have the huevos to show up last night? Did he walk the UCLA sideline? Is he embarrassed with the shambles he left?
I think he might be doing commercials for T-Mobile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhK_DqTTNds
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - JohnR34231 - 10-25-2023
(10-24-2023, 04:13 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-24-2023, 03:55 PM)BobK Wrote: That’s Rivals Murky. Where some posters even could have done better
The two sites definitely lean different directions. For the majority here, Shaw still walks on water. For many there, he is the Great Satan. Always good to listen to, and appreciate, differing perspectives, no matter what the subject matter.
I don't think that many here think Shaw walks on water, especially after the last few seasons. I do think they believe he deserves some plaudits for his successful years here and don't buy the notion that any coach worth his salt could have done as well, and perhaps better.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - 82lsju - 10-25-2023
(10-24-2023, 05:12 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Again, glad to see that Shaw showed up for his son. Did his son play?
the UCLA participation report for the games does not list him as playing
https://uclabruins.com/sports/football/stats/2023/stanford/boxscore/31682#starters
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - Mick - 10-25-2023
(10-24-2023, 04:57 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: Taking that three years literally, he would have left after the 2019 season, which was a disappointing season to be sure: 4-8 and a few beatdown losses including Cal and Notre Dame to end the season. This would be the first time they missed the postseason since 2008, snapping an 11-year streak of winning.
But wouldn't that have been a strange time to quit? What would the reaction have been, from the non-Kreskin fans? One bad year and the guy quits?
2018: 9-4 beat Cal, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Pitt in Sun Bowl, Utah is a problem
2017: 9-5 beat Cal, UCLA, Oregon (they sucked that year), UW, Notre Dame, Utah (!), a few narrow losses like TCU in Alamo Bowl, two SC Ls
2016: 10-3 beat everyone except teams from Washington and Indiana
2015: Numero tres. Not in the conference, in the nation. 12-2 (I guess he should have resigned after losing to Northwestern, right?)
2014: 8-5 chicken bowl season without much in the way of highlights, but UCLA and Maryland are B1G teams....
2013: 11-3, stole Cal's lunch money and made them eat it. Made #2 Oregon cry on national TV. Lost to an equal in Rose Bowl
2012: Not quite as dominant, but Rose Bowl trophy. Redemption in Eugene against #1.
2011: Dominant , but the every other year Oregon problem. The Fiesta Bowl was national semi quality.
People would kill for any one of those seasons now. Maybe he quit a year too late. Maybe. But three? Not in my opinion.
I don't think the issue is that Coach Shaw had the rough final four years. I think the challenge is that some of us saw systemic weaknesses across the board -- recruiting, coaching/HC, coaching/coordinators, strength training after the first four years of excellence. Years 1-3, Shaw averaged 2 1/3rd losses after a 1-loss final year of coaching from Harbaugh. Years 4-6, he averaged 3 1/3rd losses. Weaknesses were clearly evident. Not brobdingnagian weaknesses, he was about as good as the Sheriff at TW's best. And I think most of us could have lived with that. But there were four disquieting trends: (a) it was inexorable, (b) it was persistently moving in the wrong direction, © the failures, though small-ish early on were both numerous and broad-based and (d) Shaw couldn't or wouldn't replace ineffective personnel. And then, a 9-4 team turned into a 4-8 team. Alarm bells should have been going off, and they clearly weren't. Coach Shaw masked his failure with a 4-2 season in which his four wins were by a combined total of 10 points. Could just as easily have been 0-6.
If Coach Taylor has it in him, hopefully he'll follow Harbaugh's path (4, 5, 8, 12 wins).
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - gailtate - 10-25-2023
(10-23-2023, 10:07 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:cardcrimson dateline='[url=tel:1698122544' Wrote: 1698122544[/url]']
2006alum dateline='[url=tel:1698121654' Wrote: 1698121654[/url]']
cardcrimson dateline='[url=tel:1698111868' Wrote: 1698111868[/url]']
76lsjumb dateline='[url=tel:1698091071' Wrote: 1698091071[/url]']
You’re right. “Ridiculously obsessed” would have been a more appropriate term.
Who's obsessed? Our former coach has a son playing for our opponent. Interesting situation, don't you think? Add in he's our winningest coach ever, how he left, the shitshow he left behind. Pretty newsworthy, right? Yet crickets until this thread, and only one comment confirming he was in attendance. What's happened to journalism, or at least sportsboard investigative sleuthing?
Honestly, I'm so sick of hearing people whine about Shaw that I'm thankful every time we can go five posts without his name being mentioned. He's not our coach anymore, and whatever he did to contribute to the state of our football program has been so overdissected over the past year(s) that the topic has become a real, boring yawner.
And yet you're commenting on it. Must not be that boring of a yawner to you. . . .
Aren’t you clever…
I think "observant" is the most accurate descriptor.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - fullmetal - 10-25-2023
(10-22-2023, 01:30 PM)msqueri Wrote: In terms of other commentary I did my usual long thoughts posts on the various sites but can’t remember/figure out how to get around this board’s annoying screwing up of text, so if anybody wants to post my thoughts here that’s cool with me.
Always happy to help post by proxy if you need it.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - Leftcoast - 10-25-2023
(10-24-2023, 05:12 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Again, glad to see that Shaw showed up for his son. Did his son play?
I was at the game and somewhat bored after the first half blow-out destroyed any drama other than fear of a shut-out. We started watching to see if Shaw's son Carter would play. A fellow fan pointed out that it was highly unlikely since he was wearing 7 the same number as another offensive player, Colson Yankoff. Yankoff is a running back on the UCLA two deep who WAS playing on many 2nd half plays along with many other players that normally don't get featured time. Sigh ....
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - Spiny_Norman - 10-25-2023
(10-25-2023, 02:59 PM)Leftcoast Wrote:(10-24-2023, 05:12 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Again, glad to see that Shaw showed up for his son. Did his son play?
I was at the game and somewhat bored after the first half blow-out destroyed any drama other than fear of a shut-out. We started watching to see if Shaw's son Carter would play. A fellow fan pointed out that it was highly unlikely since he was wearing 7 the same number as another offensive player, Colson Yankoff. Yankoff is a running back on the UCLA two deep who WAS playing on many 2nd half plays along with many other players that normally don't get featured time. Sigh ....
UCLA was penalized in the 4th quarter for an "equipment violation" for having 2 players wearing the same jersey number in the game at the same time. I believe the referee said they were both wearing #7.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - 81alum - 10-25-2023
(10-25-2023, 04:48 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:Thoughtful, reasonable.(10-24-2023, 04:13 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-24-2023, 03:55 PM)BobK Wrote: That’s Rivals Murky. Where some posters even could have done better
The two sites definitely lean different directions. For the majority here, Shaw still walks on water. For many there, he is the Great Satan. Always good to listen to, and appreciate, differing perspectives, no matter what the subject matter.
I don't think that many here think Shaw walks on water, especially after the last few seasons. I do think they believe he deserves some plaudits for his successful years here and don't buy the notion that any coach worth his salt could have done as well, and perhaps better.
I find the endless negative carping about the coach who has the most wins by far in Stanford history to be revolting. I didn't like it when he was still coach and even when I AGREED that he should go I thought the carping to be positively ungrateful, given what he gave us. I find it even more repugnant now that he is long gone. It is past beating the dead horse. There are posters who are beating the bleached bones into dust and then picking up bone chips with tweezers to pulverize them a little more. It makes me wonder if the depth of anti-Shaw sentiment has more to it than simply the obvious downturn at the end of his career. Is something personal involved?
To paraphrase a certain famous novel, Shaw gave us the best of times, and the worst of times. He gave us an age of wisdom, and an age of foolishness. If I had been offered a 96-54 record the day before he took the job, with 2 Rose Bowl wins, 3 top 10 finishes and 6 top 20 finishes, followed by 5 mediocre to poor finishes, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. What is more, I think nearly everyone here--given Stanford's prior inability to sustain a strong football program over time--would have too.
The virulent anti-Shaw attitude expressed by many on this board seems to me to be disappointment that he could not sustain what Harbaugh and he started. But he was loyal to Stanford and stayed past the his best winning seasons because he loved Stanford and wanted to do what no one else in Stanford history has done--sustain football success in the long term. All (ALL!) the other great modern coaches in Stanford history bailed after their initial success--because every one of them knew the challenge of sustaining that level of excellence at Stanford was incredibly difficult. You want to criticize Shaw because he believed so strongly in Stanford that he took the risk of staying long term when no one else would?
Think of what you are saying. Assume you are in the same room with the man.
"Thank you Coach Shaw for winning more games than any other coach in Stanford history. Thank you for coaching us to the only 2 Rose Bowl wins in 50 years. Thank you for the 5 bowl wins. Thank you for understanding the importance of Stanford ethics and academics and not lowering our team to the level of our competitors. Thank you for believing so strongly in Stanford football and our way of competing that you turned down numerous other opportunities to stay with your alma mater even when the program ran into trouble. Now F#$@ off you loser! You should have left years earlier. Your lack of clairvoyance and confidence that you could continue your prior success is contemptible, and you disgust us."
No, he did not walk on water. But I doubt the man who did could have coached our team to better success.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - gailtate - 10-27-2023
(10-25-2023, 05:13 PM)81alum Wrote:(10-25-2023, 04:48 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:Thoughtful, reasonable.(10-24-2023, 04:13 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-24-2023, 03:55 PM)BobK Wrote: That’s Rivals Murky. Where some posters even could have done better
The two sites definitely lean different directions. For the majority here, Shaw still walks on water. For many there, he is the Great Satan. Always good to listen to, and appreciate, differing perspectives, no matter what the subject matter.
I don't think that many here think Shaw walks on water, especially after the last few seasons. I do think they believe he deserves some plaudits for his successful years here and don't buy the notion that any coach worth his salt could have done as well, and perhaps better.
I find the endless negative carping about the coach who has the most wins by far in Stanford history to be revolting. I didn't like it when he was still coach and even when I AGREED that he should go I thought the carping to be positively ungrateful, given what he gave us. I find it even more repugnant now that he is long gone. It is past beating the dead horse. There are posters who are beating the bleached bones into dust and then picking up bone chips with tweezers to pulverize them a little more. It makes me wonder if the depth of anti-Shaw sentiment has more to it than simply the obvious downturn at the end of his career. Is something personal involved?
To paraphrase a certain famous novel, Shaw gave us the best of times, and the worst of times. He gave us an age of wisdom, and an age of foolishness. If I had been offered a 96-54 record the day before he took the job, with 2 Rose Bowl wins, 3 top 10 finishes and 6 top 20 finishes, followed by 5 mediocre to poor finishes, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. What is more, I think nearly everyone here--given Stanford's prior inability to sustain a strong football program over time--would have too.
The virulent anti-Shaw attitude expressed by many on this board seems to me to be disappointment that he could not sustain what Harbaugh and he started. But he was loyal to Stanford and stayed past the his best winning seasons because he loved Stanford and wanted to do what no one else in Stanford history has done--sustain football success in the long term. All (ALL!) the other great modern coaches in Stanford history bailed after their initial success--because every one of them knew the challenge of sustaining that level of excellence at Stanford was incredibly difficult. You want to criticize Shaw because he believed so strongly in Stanford that he took the risk of staying long term when no one else would?
Think of what you are saying. Assume you are in the same room with the man.
"Thank you Coach Shaw for winning more games than any other coach in Stanford history. Thank you for coaching us to the only 2 Rose Bowl wins in 50 years. Thank you for the 5 bowl wins. Thank you for understanding the importance of Stanford ethics and academics and not lowering our team to the level of our competitors. Thank you for believing so strongly in Stanford football and our way of competing that you turned down numerous other opportunities to stay with your alma mater even when the program ran into trouble. Now F#$@ off you loser! You should have left years earlier. Your lack of clairvoyance and confidence that you could continue your prior success is contemptible, and you disgust us."
No, he did not walk on water. But I doubt the man who did could have coached our team to better success.
You had me until paragraph #6. Shame you felt you had had finish with a caricature, over-wrought tantrum.
C'est la vie.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - gailtate - 10-27-2023
(10-25-2023, 05:13 PM)81alum Wrote:(10-25-2023, 04:48 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:Thoughtful, reasonable.(10-24-2023, 04:13 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-24-2023, 03:55 PM)BobK Wrote: That’s Rivals Murky. Where some posters even could have done better
The two sites definitely lean different directions. For the majority here, Shaw still walks on water. For many there, he is the Great Satan. Always good to listen to, and appreciate, differing perspectives, no matter what the subject matter.
I don't think that many here think Shaw walks on water, especially after the last few seasons. I do think they believe he deserves some plaudits for his successful years here and don't buy the notion that any coach worth his salt could have done as well, and perhaps better.
I find the endless negative carping about the coach who has the most wins by far in Stanford history to be revolting. I didn't like it when he was still coach and even when I AGREED that he should go I thought the carping to be positively ungrateful, given what he gave us. I find it even more repugnant now that he is long gone. It is past beating the dead horse. There are posters who are beating the bleached bones into dust and then picking up bone chips with tweezers to pulverize them a little more. It makes me wonder if the depth of anti-Shaw sentiment has more to it than simply the obvious downturn at the end of his career. Is something personal involved?
To paraphrase a certain famous novel, Shaw gave us the best of times, and the worst of times. He gave us an age of wisdom, and an age of foolishness. If I had been offered a 96-54 record the day before he took the job, with 2 Rose Bowl wins, 3 top 10 finishes and 6 top 20 finishes, followed by 5 mediocre to poor finishes, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. What is more, I think nearly everyone here--given Stanford's prior inability to sustain a strong football program over time--would have too.
The virulent anti-Shaw attitude expressed by many on this board seems to me to be disappointment that he could not sustain what Harbaugh and he started. But he was loyal to Stanford and stayed past the his best winning seasons because he loved Stanford and wanted to do what no one else in Stanford history has done--sustain football success in the long term. All (ALL!) the other great modern coaches in Stanford history bailed after their initial success--because every one of them knew the challenge of sustaining that level of excellence at Stanford was incredibly difficult. You want to criticize Shaw because he believed so strongly in Stanford that he took the risk of staying long term when no one else would?
Think of what you are saying. Assume you are in the same room with the man.
"Thank you Coach Shaw for winning more games than any other coach in Stanford history. Thank you for coaching us to the only 2 Rose Bowl wins in 50 years. Thank you for the 5 bowl wins. Thank you for understanding the importance of Stanford ethics and academics and not lowering our team to the level of our competitors. Thank you for believing so strongly in Stanford football and our way of competing that you turned down numerous other opportunities to stay with your alma mater even when the program ran into trouble. Now F#$@ off you loser! You should have left years earlier. Your lack of clairvoyance and confidence that you could continue your prior success is contemptible, and you disgust us."
No, he did not walk on water. But I doubt the man who did could have coached our team to better success.
You had me until paragraph #6. Shame you felt you had had finish with a caricature, over-wrought tantrum.
C'est la vie.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - 2006alum - 10-27-2023
(10-27-2023, 01:47 PM)gailtate Wrote:(10-25-2023, 05:13 PM)81alum Wrote:(10-25-2023, 04:48 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:Thoughtful, reasonable.(10-24-2023, 04:13 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-24-2023, 03:55 PM)BobK Wrote: That’s Rivals Murky. Where some posters even could have done better
The two sites definitely lean different directions. For the majority here, Shaw still walks on water. For many there, he is the Great Satan. Always good to listen to, and appreciate, differing perspectives, no matter what the subject matter.
I don't think that many here think Shaw walks on water, especially after the last few seasons. I do think they believe he deserves some plaudits for his successful years here and don't buy the notion that any coach worth his salt could have done as well, and perhaps better.
I find the endless negative carping about the coach who has the most wins by far in Stanford history to be revolting. I didn't like it when he was still coach and even when I AGREED that he should go I thought the carping to be positively ungrateful, given what he gave us. I find it even more repugnant now that he is long gone. It is past beating the dead horse. There are posters who are beating the bleached bones into dust and then picking up bone chips with tweezers to pulverize them a little more. It makes me wonder if the depth of anti-Shaw sentiment has more to it than simply the obvious downturn at the end of his career. Is something personal involved?
To paraphrase a certain famous novel, Shaw gave us the best of times, and the worst of times. He gave us an age of wisdom, and an age of foolishness. If I had been offered a 96-54 record the day before he took the job, with 2 Rose Bowl wins, 3 top 10 finishes and 6 top 20 finishes, followed by 5 mediocre to poor finishes, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. What is more, I think nearly everyone here--given Stanford's prior inability to sustain a strong football program over time--would have too.
The virulent anti-Shaw attitude expressed by many on this board seems to me to be disappointment that he could not sustain what Harbaugh and he started. But he was loyal to Stanford and stayed past the his best winning seasons because he loved Stanford and wanted to do what no one else in Stanford history has done--sustain football success in the long term. All (ALL!) the other great modern coaches in Stanford history bailed after their initial success--because every one of them knew the challenge of sustaining that level of excellence at Stanford was incredibly difficult. You want to criticize Shaw because he believed so strongly in Stanford that he took the risk of staying long term when no one else would?
Think of what you are saying. Assume you are in the same room with the man.
"Thank you Coach Shaw for winning more games than any other coach in Stanford history. Thank you for coaching us to the only 2 Rose Bowl wins in 50 years. Thank you for the 5 bowl wins. Thank you for understanding the importance of Stanford ethics and academics and not lowering our team to the level of our competitors. Thank you for believing so strongly in Stanford football and our way of competing that you turned down numerous other opportunities to stay with your alma mater even when the program ran into trouble. Now F#$@ off you loser! You should have left years earlier. Your lack of clairvoyance and confidence that you could continue your prior success is contemptible, and you disgust us."
No, he did not walk on water. But I doubt the man who did could have coached our team to better success.
You had me until paragraph #6. Shame you felt you had had finish with a caricature, over-wrought tantrum.
C'est la vie.
Well, the same could be said of the post that follows 81's, and at least his had 5 thoughtful paragraphs to precede it...
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - Mick - 10-28-2023
I'm of two minds about retaining once-effective employees who have declined in production. Some managers (like Bill Walsh) take the attitude that it's better to get rid of someone a year early than a year late. That may be true in football -- although he let Ronnie Lott go after the 1990 season, and Lott led the NFL in interceptions the next year and was first team all-pro and he let Jerry Rice go, and Rice had multiple 1,000-yard receiving seasons after joining the Raiders.
I had a friend in my business who ran sales and marketing for an AmLaw 200 law firm for four years. His results were first in terms of average growth for his cohort of 100 firms. He was let go by a new CEO, who handpicked his successor. Their growth was halved the next year, and halved again (to 1/4th of my friend's average). The decision to let him go probably cost that firm between $20 mms. and $25 mms., and my friend went on to significant success elsewhere. Sometimes, you get rid of the wrong person.
On the other hand, I have had three once-effective senior employees over the last few decades that became ineffective for an extended period. I tried to manage them back to success, and it was my own ego that led me to believe that I could reclaim them. But they weren't going to return to effectiveness, for a variety of reasons. None of the three remotely recognized that their effectiveness had been radically reduced, despite blatantly obvious lack of results. And it was absolutely my fault that they were in place for too long once they were ineffective.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - msqueri - 10-28-2023
Thank you to those who asked for my thoughts. The issue was the one where copying and pasting on mobile shows up microscopically and I couldn't figure out how to change that on my cell phone, nor could I use a laptop because I was flying Sunday. And then I didn't check the site this week. So sorry for leaving folks hanging. In case folks are still interested, here are my Sunday thoughts:
1. Another game showing this very well may be the worst team in Stanford history. The silver lining is that there was enough fight in the first half to give Taylor something he can internally spin as a sign of progress. He can say that compared to the other top ten contender we faced this game at least saw us battle for a handful of drives. He can say that we played Oregon tougher than Portland State, Hawaii, and Colorado and had the exact same final score as Colorado. For a team and fan base that will be squinting to discern any evidence of forward momentum, it wasn't a total failure. But it was pretty close and the game only reinforced how bad we are. From Oregon's first touchdown drive onward the game was in pick-the-score mode for the Ducks. The final margin was one befitting the #162 team, indicating that at least through five weeks the level of team we saw against Sacramento State and Oregon is about representative of where we are. Without significant improvement the rest of the way, this will probably be the worst team in school history.
2. The best thing we can say is that the team showed some grit to hang in there as long as they did while so comprehensively and massively outmatched. They made it further than they did against USC and than some teams have against Oregon. Still, the game showed how incredibly far we still have to go. Oregon has faced one of the most Charmin soft schedules in the nation (Portland State, Texas Tech, Hawaii, Colorado, and us) and even still we did worse than average in pass defense, run defense, and yards per play and on offense we had the lowest yards per play of any team to play Oregon this season, less even than Hawaii (#109 in yards per play in FBS) and Portland State (#61 in FCS). Yikes.
3. If one is inclined to dissect the game (and that's what I do with these posts, but fundamentally the story is a pretty simple one of one team totally outmatching the other), the story was that Oregon could do what it wanted on the ground. That shouldn't have surprised me as Oregon is #1 in the nation in yards per carry and we are #111 in yards per carry allowed, but seeing how little the defense looks like a Wisconsin defense continues to be disappointing. I know all the excuses in terms of talent and experience, but I think it's fair to say the defense has under-performed and that the defensive staff has not hit the ground running like good coaches sometimes do with defensive rebuilds (e.g., Gregory at Cal in 2002, Stoops at Arizona in 2004, Shafer at Stanford in 2007, Holt at Washington in 2009, Wilcox at Cal in 2017, Leavitt at Oregon in 2017). Perhaps I should have expected that with a first-time coordinator. I hope the defense gets better. An optimist might say that we've faced the top two scoring offenses in the country and it gets easier from here but a realist would point out that both Washington and Washington State are both top five as well and every game we have left is against an above-average scoring offense, though Colorado and Cal are average in advanced metrics.
4. On offense, the passing game hovered around Oregon's average in pass defense, which is depressing considering Colorado is the only decent passing attack the Ducks have faced, and the run game (which had been a bright spot of our season) abandoned us yesterday, doing a shade better than Colorado had but still under two yards per carry and the first game under this staff with less than 100 yards rushing. Pale's absence and not playing Smith more may be adversely impacting the run game and giving up a lot of sacks definitely continues to harm the run stats. There may also be an element of a wake-up call as we start to play Pac-12 teams, as we didn't have great run stats against Arizona either. In the post-game press conference, Taylor emphasized struggles in the red zone but those failures mirror our failures everywhere else on the field. It's not like we're getting the job done in the other 80 yards. I suppose Taylor's point may be that since we are so bad that elevates the importance of clawing out more points in the red zone in the rare events we're there.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - msqueri - 10-28-2023
5. It's not been as interesting as I would have anticipated to get weekly data points on the QB competition. Each week just makes it seem increasingly likely that the QB of the future has yet to play yet and reinforces the main impressions I have, which are that given the current personnel Taylor's two-headed QB system is probably our best move for now, Daniels gives us more as a passer but has decision-making issues (and I'm starting to wonder about injury susceptibility), Lamson is a super game and competitive runner with ball security issues, neither is good, and I don't know what needs to happen to give Patu a chance. The Oregon game was actually one of Lamson's better performances, #92 of 112 QBs nationally this week in Total QBR, but if we're talking about somebody competing with Cal's Sam Jackson for worst QB in the conference (and we are) I feel like we need to give Patu a look at some point. One thing I will say about Lamson is I like how he plays, especially given the adversity and low prospects for success, and in the post-game interview I liked his vibe (seemed to embody the Taylor line that it means so much to him....Lamson's not the body language of somebody who doesn't care that we're losing).
6. As others have rightly pointed out all season, it's so hard to disentangle all the factors leading to crappy offense. While QB play hasn't been good, it's hard when the team is #121 in sacks allowed and doesn't have weapons. On the pass protection, I'd be curious what Borghi and other experts observe but my sense the last few weeks is that the line may be making some strides and that a fair amount of the blame falls on the QBs for the sacks. It feels like we're developing some stability in the starting five though if Pale's injury isn't serious that's an interesting variable going forward. Leyrer was benched in this one and Anderson took over at left tackle, having a bad game but a big step for him to play an entire game and win some reps. On the lack of weapons, it's dire. Nobody is in the top 30 in the Pac-12 in yards from scrimmage (Yurosek is #34). The lowest Stanford's top weapon registered in the conference under Shaw was Higgins at #21 last year and Montgomery at #20 in 2014. I figured maybe some years under Teevens or Harris we might have had a top weapon as non-standout as what we're now experiencing but nope. I just checked and it turns out that you have to go all the way back to J.D. Lodato in 1962 to find a top weapon with as few yards per game as what we're now seeing, and football was a different sport back then so it's probably fair to say we've never had our weapons be quite this irrelevant. There's still time this season for Yurosek to gain his way out of this ignominious distinction and at least be comparable to Teevens era Kerry Carter and Mark Bradford and Harris era Anthony Kimble, but I think it's increasingly clear 2023 is about as bad as Stanford's offensive weapons have ever been. That makes it all the stranger that we're not playing one of our 2-3 best weapons in EJ Smith. There are a few cases where playing time decisions don't appear to be based on game performance, which is a potential red flag. I wonder if Irvin is doing better in practice or if there's something else going on here. It was interesting that Taylor turned the post-game question on RB competition into a compliment on Smith's fourth quarter runs; he probably knows that playing our most productive back 25 snaps in two weeks will court controversy. Given the dearth of weapons, it was disappointing to see nobody build on their earlier breakouts, with Bachmeier in particular following up his breakout with a real stinker. [This week's moving the chains (first down) leader board: Lamson (5), Ayomanor (3, plus drew a pass interference), Daniels (2), Reuben (2), Smith, Yurosek, Filkins]
7. Not much to say positive about defensive performances yesterday either. Manley and Sinclair were the only defenders to have three positive plays show up in the box score. Manley's game was particularly interesting, looking like a weak link on numerous of Oregon's biggest plays but, as I said, making more positive plays than his peers, which contributed to him having the highest PFF grade on the defense. This is one of those games where any game balls I give out on either side of the field will feel very unsatisfactory. A game to forget basically across the board. I'll be interested to keep an eye on whether Frausto-Ramos and Thompson finally getting worked in a bit may portend some threats to playing time for Manley or, more likely, Slocum. It's been troubling to see how little non-Wright or Edwards underclassmen have been playing at DB. Speaking of Edwards, it was a rough game for him but if we had any depth that was maybe a case where he could have gotten rest heading into a bye after getting dinged against Arizona. The biggest personnel story on our defense is that the OLBs are giving us nothing. Nothing. At this point I'm with those who really want to see Cooper freed. Regardless, that room needs to have a gut check over this bye and get their heads out of their butts. It doesn't get any easier to rush the passer than playing Colorado, which has given up an insane 5.2 sacks and 46.6 sack yards allowed per game. There is something terribly wrong with this defense if we can't get 3+ sacks against Colorado.
8. It was big for Karty's Groza campaign that he bounced back with a 53 yarder. He's now tied for the national lead in made field goals, though he still has work to do to make up for missing two field goals. I've seen enough from the punter competition to view that as, unfortunately, an area where we are demonstrably making playing time decisions inconsistent with on-field performance. As I've chronicled earlier, Flintoft has been better than Weselman this season and has higher upside. Yet in this game we gave the two alternating opportunities in very similar situations, Flintoft did better, and then Weselman got the remaining opportunities. I don't think it's good if we play our worst players when better performing players are available. In total, Weselman ended up with a net punt of 42 to the Oregon 31, a net punt of 42 to the Oregon 25, and a net punt of 33 to the Oregon 36 whereas Flintoft's one opportunity was a net of 47 to the Oregon 24. This is consistent with what's happened in other games too, and it served us right to keep giving Weselman chances and therefore be bit by a 33 yard net giving Oregon good field position. Farrell had a moderately positive kick return but nothing to write home about.
9. Game balls: Connor McLaughlin, Zahran Manley, Josh Karty, Al Netter
10. Now we head into a bye that is about as well-timed as a team could possibly hope for. It's close to midway through the season, comes at a time when we have several key contributor injuries that could be cleared up in a few weeks, and heads into a game against arguably the worst team remaining on our schedule. Colorado and Cal are the obviously winnable games (though neither will happen unless we play better than we have so far this season) and it matters for morale and avoiding backsliding even further as a program that we not go winless the rest of the way. The Colorado game is a big one and this bye gives Stanford a big leg up. Whether it's the Colorado game or otherwise, I hope we can have multiple games the rest of the way that are clearly better than anything we've seen so far. I'm bringing a ton of patience and perspective to this season but to be honest the season so far has been disappointing even for those with patience and perspective. Five games without a single good game (one mediocre performance, adjusted for opponent) is troubling. We knew this would be tough but it would be nice to start seeing some reasons for optimism. Nonetheless, the big picture remains unchanged and will all season: this is the beginning of a rebuild and fundamentally the team will require multiple years of new culture, processes, and players to turn it around, if it is going to turn around.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - 82lsju - 10-28-2023
here's the missing item 1
1. Another game showing this very well may be the worst team in Stanford history. The silver lining is that there was enough fight in the first half to give Taylor something he can internally spin as a sign of progress. He can say that compared to the other top ten contender we faced this game at least saw us battle for a handful of drives. He can say that we played Oregon tougher than Portland State, Hawaii, and Colorado and had the exact same final score as Colorado. For a team and fan base that will be squinting to discern any evidence of forward momentum, it wasn't a total failure. But it was pretty close and the game only reinforced how bad we are. From Oregon's first touchdown drive onward the game was in pick-the-score mode for the Ducks. The final margin was one befitting the #162 team, indicating that at least through five weeks the level of team we saw against Sacramento State and Oregon is about representative of where we are. Without significant improvement the rest of the way, this will probably be the worst team in school history.
RE: Shocking lack of commentary from last night's game. - cardcrimson - 10-28-2023
Instead of "paste", try "paste and match style."
Works for me. Pasting results in microtext, matching style gives a readable result.