The CardBoard
Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt - 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 (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt (/thread-25844.html)


Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt - msqueri - 11-02-2025

1. Farewell, home win streak. It was nice while it lasted. This was a harsh (if redundant) reminder of how bad we are and how far we have to go to build any meaningful enthusiasm, much less momentum. Even after winning four home games in a row, the home crowd did not turn out in the way I would hope home wins would start generating attendance. The product on the field unfortunately validated the views of those who still want to see more before investing time in heading to the games. It was especially discouraging that we got handled so easily in a home game where the opponent had one of its all-time most difficult road trips (Pitt last played at Cal, USC, and Oregon in the 1960s, at UCLA in 1971, and at Washington in 1979) and we had four takeaways and other things that made a true freshman QB look discomfited. It was befitting one of the worst teams in the land to lose with that kind of home field advantage by 15 (by the way, not a cover as the line was 13.5) to a non-ranked team missing numerous star players and to have that margin only be thanks to a garbage time touchdown against backups and three opponent end zone or goal line turnovers. This is the fifth time in six games we've had a scoreboard outcome not even befitting a top 100 team. That makes me wonder if maybe the heinous SP+ ranking of #115 might hold as much water as the still really bad Sagarin ranking of #86. In either case, this looks like the wasted year many of us saw coming after Taylor was initially given a third year.

2. We were fortunate to get out of there only losing by 15. More than a third of our points and none of our opponent's came in garbage time. Our only non-garbage time touchdown was a terrible throw by Gulbranson that easily could have been intercepted if not returned (but great play by Williams), and the Marcus Brown first down to help us get three of our other six non-garbage points was a similar story of a dangerous throw we got lucky on. Pitt coughed the ball up three times in the end zone or at the doorstep of the goal line, and they seemed more poor decisions than spectacular Stanford plays (though I definitely give credit to the defense for creating turnovers for once). This was uglier than the scoreboard suggested (but the opposite being true against Miami reminds us that these things can even out). We scored 1.0 points per non-garbage drive, making the #28 points per drive defense look like #4. If you count the pick six against the offense, we netted less than half a point per drive the offense was on the field, less than half the offensive productivity of what would befit the worst offense in America. The silver lining saving it from crossing from ugly to fugly was that the defense played credibly in the face of not much help, as has happened several times. Giving up 2.55 points per non-garbage drive made the #25 points per drive offense look like #44.

3. This was one where the eye test for assessing the offense was harsher than stats. The overall offensive stats I'm going to relate reflect that the enemy gets a vote. Pitt has a good defense. We weren't far behind their season average in yards per play allowed and did better than Duquesne, Central Michigan, Boston College, and Syracuse and almost identically to Louisville. It's generally tough sledding for offenses against Pitt. I don't want to make too much of this point, however, as Pitt was playing without their mega star safety Brookins (the #6 best graded safety in the nation), one of their two star linebackers Biles (the #3 best graded LB in the ACC), and a starting safety, which is also a good reminder that by this point in the season everybody is banged up. Ultimately, this was the second game in a row in which we played a good team credibly for a stretch but bad interceptions became too much to overcome. Gulbranson also really cost us with a sack to knock us out of field goal range in a 21-13 game in the third quarter. We can't put it all on the QB when the offensive line is the struggle-fest it is but it's hard to escape the role interceptions have played the last two weeks.

4. Part of the reason we were vulnerable to dying by Gulbranson's sword is that there was no feasible way to establish the run or balance in our offense. This was our first negative yards rushing game (and therefore of course our lowest yards per carry game) since the 2007 Oregon State game. Obviously the worst rushing performance in 225 games is not good. Performing that badly is always a shock, but if there was one game where one might have bet on it happening this would have been it. Pitt has a phenomenal run defense and we should have known that going in. It makes me think a bit less of a Reich as a gameplanner that he apparently thought we could have success on the ground today. He said as much in the post-game press conference and evidently thought so judging by the ill-advised decision to go for it on fourth down in our own territory on the fourth play of the game, against one of the best run defenses in the nation, with his team having one of the worst run offenses in the country, playing this game with a slew of backups at running back and offensive line, and with defense clearly being a more reliable unit we should bet on than offense. I could have told anybody who asked before the game that this matchup was not going to work out for our run game. Now that this one is in the books, Pitt is #1 in America in fewest yards per carry allowed and we are #135 in yards per carry gained (New Mexico State saving us from dead last). Facing that challenge we had to get unbalanced, with our most passing attempts of the year. Statistically, the bone-headed interceptions seriously marred what could have been a good passing game, but that's a bit like asking Mrs. Lincoln how she liked the play. Moreover, there were several other plays that could have been interceptions and several of the biggest passing plays were lucky or garbage-time. This was a case where we had the best yards, yards per play, touchdowns, and passer rating we've had in over a month and better than our season average in all respects (and we did better than Pitt's yards per attempt allowed), but I feel like stats would be lying if one read this as thinking the passing game was good. There were a fair amount of empty calories and the interceptions torpedoed us. Considering that four interceptions and no passing touchdowns would have been just as fair a representation as the 2:3 TD:INT ratio we actually ended up with, this cannot be considered a good passing game.

5. The defense had a pretty middle of the road game compared to Pitt opponents, giving up fewer yards per play than four Pitt foes, including Florida State and NC State in the Heintschel era. To the extent the defense played fairly well it was about pass defense, which was right on both our season averages and Pitt's norm in passing offense. Notably, it was the second worst game of the Heintschel era, which dovetails with my eyeball impression that we made things uncomfortable for him. That being said, it's beyond me why he risked the ball as recklessly as he did in the red zone and why he risked his body as recklessly as he did in a game they had under control. True freshmen gonna true freshmen sometimes. Run defense was a less happy story. In fact, it constituted a breakdown. We had our second highest yards per carry allowed and that was despite Pitt playing without their star running back Reid and in a year in which Pitt has struggled to run the ball, with a yards per carry clip bad for #112 in the nation. We let them get right against us, gaining over half a yard per carry more than they have against any Power Four team, even the horrible Syracuse and Boston College run defenses. That's a super ugly run defense game by us, exemplified by Heintschel's comical scramble for a first down when he was dead to rights in the backfield. Low key horrifying run defense and tackling performance by Stanford, despite the overall game being a solid one for the defense. The defense does, again, get a lot of credit for actually forcing turnovers. There was luck involved on all four, but ballhawking defenses create their own luck and we have seen precious little of this kind of takeaway game. That was good to see.

RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt - msqueri - 11-02-2025

6. This feels like the first time this year in which the QB situation can legitimately be called a controversy. It's just hard to escape the optics of a sixth year player who has had a bad year being so reckless with the ball the last two weeks that he has been the proximate cause for letting second half competitiveness against good teams slip through our grasp. One doesn't need to think highly of Brown at all to think there is logic in playing the redshirt freshman. Notably, whereas Reich went most of the season refusing to even play Brown in garbage time, in this game we actually put Brown in for several drives before the mathematical dividing point for garbage time (Brown's short fourth down pass to Farrell that got stopped for a turnover on downs was the mathematical end of the game). That is a significant change that, coupled with Gulbranson's performance, makes me think it's possible Brown gets the nod going forward in a way I really didn't think was a possibility in previous weeks. That performance for Gulbranson was 83rd of 104 quarterbacks nationally in Total QBR this week, a middle of the road game by his bad standards this year (the fifth best of his nine games). He is now 127th of 135 on the season and still battling with the Syracuse QB for the basement of Power Four. Brown edged Gulbranson in Total QBR this week in the former's two drives of non-garbage time and then subsequent two drives of garbage time, however much of that was against backups. Illustratively, the guys in coverage on Brown's touchdown to Williams are #24 and #30 on the Pitt defense in snaps this year. I don't think we can take much positive (at least not much meaningful) out of Brown's game. But in a situation where we've seen such struggles from Gulbranson it would be very reasonable to make a change. We now have nine data points of Gulbranson and two games in which Brown has played somewhat significantly and in that sample Gulbranson has our four best and five worst performances, with both of Brown's better than Gulbranson's median and Gulbranson's last two. We are left with a situation in which Reich can reasonably continue to insist Gulbranson gives us our best chance to win (after all, Brown has never shown he can do what Gulbranson did against Virginia, Florida State, and San Jose State) but can just as reasonably change course on the basis of Brown playing better in recent weeks and Gulbranson's norm being so bad that there's little harm in trying something else. I am not going to get worked up about this either way as, fundamentally, I don't think either is good and I don't think this season matters. But it's as interesting of a subplot as we have until there's a new coaching staff.

7. For all the things we haven't been able to do this season, dialing up passing games with multiple 100 yard receivers is something that has happened surprisingly often. Yesterday was the third time in the last six games (Farrell and Williams against Virginia, Williams and High against San Jose State, Williams and Roush against Pitt), and against SMU Roush was 11 yards from joining Williams. The WR1 has clearly been Williams, who is now 8th in the ACC in receiving, not quite where Ayomanor was last year but nonetheless a level I think that has pleasantly surprised most of us. Williams paced us yesterday in both meaningful action and garbage-time, with quite a lot of connections with Brown in the latter. It was interesting to see Williams appear visibly wistful in the post-game press conference about playing with Brown. Others may have had a different read but to me it seemed like he gave a clear vibe he came to Stanford in part to play with Brown and would enjoy a QB switch and, regardless, looks forward to following and cheering on Brown's future. He said the right classy things about Gulbranson, just seemed wistful to me. Roush also had a nice game yesterday and now leads ACC tight ends in receiving yards and is neck and neck with the other top guys on a per game basis. Gulbranson extending the play and finding Roush behind the defense for our first first down of the game and one of our seven longest plays of the season was a great moment for both men (Gulbranson was not all bad). We need to do some soul-searching (and more importantly portal mining), I think, about the large number of key receiving targets on offense and players at all levels of the defense who we will be without next year. We lose some stuff. [Moving the chains (first down) leaderboard: Williams (6), Roush (3), Farrell (2), Hampton (2), Blackburn, Marcus Brown, High, Irvin] Not sure what else there is to say about the offensive line. We need to get older, and I don't mean thinking another year of development will make the difference for House, Ugorji, Williams, Brown, etc.

8. Have a day Brandon Nicholson! Two interceptions in the end zone is something any player would remember for the rest of their lives. Happy for him, a guy whose high school ballhawking really attracted me and who I have been waiting to be more than mediocre in college. PFF viewed Nicholson as our star yesterday, and certainly the picks will be most evocative for eye test fans. I was hesitant to give the game ball as one of the picks came in garbage time and there were other players who were our most valuable defenders when the game was still being contested, but PFF informs me Nicholson played 40 coverage snaps (64 total) without giving up a catch and had interceptions on two of his three targets, so that seems hard not to give a game ball too. But there are several guys I feel like I'm spurning. Cooper had arguably his game of the year with a fumble recovery, pass breakup, run stop, and sack to force a punt. Galvan has been one of our stars practically weekly, and in this one his first half boasted two run stops, a forced fumble to give us awesome field position, and a pass breakup. Leigber had not one but two tackles for loss in run defense as well as a solid tackle on a pass play. Patterson had four run stops and a sack to force a punt. Barth, who has had a bad year, had his third straight week tied for season low snaps with 15 but made the most of it with a pass breakup, hurry to force Nicholson's non-garbage time interception, and a non-credited hurry that directly contributed to Cooper's sack to force a punt. If I didn't hold myself to the one game ball for each phase rule I'd find a way to carve it up for all these guys. Ultimately, though, this defense needs takeaways and Nicholson gave two and that must be rewarded. There were some other players who showed up with multiple positive plays, including Tafiti, McAllister, Rose, Aybar, and Dubre (garbage time standout with two goal line stops, one of which was a forced fumble and fumble recovery).

9. Special teams felt pretty neutral. Kenney made field goals of 39 (bad kick he was very lucky to doink in) and 45 yards. It's nice to have a kicker good enough I view that as a bad game due to the lack of style points. Flintoft had net punts of 51 to the 40 (slightly out-kicked coverage but such a good booming punt that it was nonetheless a great result, 43 to the 50 (not ideal but ok punting from so far back, at least the hang time forced a fair catch), 30 to the 11 (situationally solid), 46 to the 23 (solid), and 49 to the 30 (very good). High's opening 27 yard return gave us only three extra yards than a fair catch would but just subjectively was a nice jolt of energy to start. On a net basis High gave those yards right back on the next return with an 18 yard return that only got to the 22. But then his third return definitively made it a positive contribution with a 27 yard return to the 42. Thorpe handled his punts and had one two yard return on a short punt (so not going to complain about that net at all) but on one occasion I thought it was crazy not to attempt a return, perhaps indicative of some meat we're leaving on the bone in the return game. We gave up a few long kick returns, including a 41 yard return after a touchdown, and Neely made the coverage tackles on both of those. Barth, in addition to his defensive contributions, had a kick coverage tackle for a good result that was made great by a Pitt holding call that pinned them back at the 9 to start the drive. Pulsipher had the punt coverage tackle to make Flintoft's boomer pay off.

10. Game balls: CJ Williams, Brandon Nicholson, Barth (kind of cheating combining defense and special teams), Paul Williams

11. We have the ball squarely in our court to break the three win season streak. Both North Carolina and Cal are very real opportunities. The Tar Heels are first. Nothing we have done on the road yet this season would predict a win in that game but that's only because we've been so bad. We don't have to be that good to win that one. Hopefully we can have our best road game of the season and break through to that fourth win. Whether it's Gulbranson (my current guess but it's legitimately entering controversy realm as I said) or Brown, we can do this. Let's go, no more three win seasons!

RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt - BostonCard - 11-02-2025

Don't you usually give one of the coaches a game ball as well?

BC

RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt - msqueri - 11-02-2025

Yep, was too hasty. Went with Paul Williams due to the stress of all the injuries in his room and the degree of difficulty facing a touted QB. Nicholson playing great and others playing ok in that circumstance seems like nice work for the CB room. Wanted to give to Byham for the tight ends but he’s ostensibly offensive coordinator (I don’t really believe it) and that can’t be rewarded.

RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt - ADPinWDC - 11-02-2025

We win the last three and go bowling.  No problem.  

Domers will want to pound us by 50 for playoff seeding.

RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt - BostonCard - 11-02-2025

More likely we go 0-3 and for the umpteenth consecutive year wind up 3-9. 

BC

RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt - cctop - 11-02-2025

(11-02-2025, 02:07 PM)msqueri Wrote:  Even after winning four home games in a row, the home crowd did not turn out in the way I would hope home wins would start generating attendance. The product on the field unfortunately validated the views of those who still want to see more before investing time in heading to the games.

Many years ago, Terry2 did a detailed analysis which showed that it takes two years of consistent winning before fans start to return.

RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt - Goose - 11-02-2025

(11-02-2025, 02:07 PM)msqueri Wrote:  Even after winning four home games in a row, the home crowd did not turn out in the way I would hope home wins would start generating attendance.
IMO the most ominous aspect of the very small crowd was the fact the student section was very, very empty. Luck et. al. went to some trouble in order to generate a relatively full student section for the first home game after school started and students were present. Unfortunately about 2/3 of that crowd left at halftime. For the last game, they never showed up at all.
 
These students are the alumni of tomorrow. If they don't enjoy Stanford football now when they are students, one can say with some certainty that they will not be supporting the team either with their presence at the games or financially with their contributions in the future, no matter what Stanford's W-L record may be. They just don't care. This is the real elephant in the room. We can possibly get a great coach and tons of NIL money in the near future, but if nobody cares going forward it will definitely be an ephemeral condition. This is IMO the most important problem to solve.

RE: Sunday morning (err, afternoon) thoughts - Pitt - fullmetal - 11-03-2025

I think the undergrad experience is important, but it's not a deciding factor.  As an alum, watching games with the local alumni club in the fall, traveling to bowl games, and organizing game watch parties are all part of my life even though the win-loss record was terrible during my years and even though I didn't go to many games during my undergrad years.  I will say that the Gerhart/Luck/McCaffrey/Love era really solidified Stanford Football's position in my life.  Perhaps I'm an outlier.