[msqueri]

6. This week's moving the chains (first down) list: Filkins (7), Wilson (6), Higgins (2), Humphreys, Yurosek. Filkins' 100 yard rushing game is a nice accomplishment but he was responsible for a turnover, again, and like many was part of the pass blocking problem. A very EJ Smith-like game: nice production but too many losing plays. With those two being interchangeable in those respects, it's hard to say Smith's absence mattered. But Shaw wasn't wrong about the tackle absences (though Rouse eventually came back in) being deeply detrimental. Stanford fans a few months ago never would have believed it, but the Hinton injury loomed large. Nobody was good in pass blocking yesterday, but McLaughlin and Miller especially had a night to forget. The player of the game was Wilson with his monster 188 yards from scrimmage and two touchdowns. As I always say, dude is a pro and effort will never be an issue. As Jacob Rayburn said, we need 22 Michael Wilsons. For the moment, he's the per game yards from scrimmage leader among all Pac-12 receivers. 

7.  Alas, Wilson's contributions stand alone among all Stanford pass catchers. Our much-ballyhooed receiving weapons have been awful this year. Aside from Wilson, nobody else is even top 25 in the conference in receiving. According to PFF, through three games Yurosek, Higgins, and Tremayne are three of our four worst starters (Yurosek and Higgins the two worst). Brutal start to the year for these guys. 

8. I had been interested in evaluating the continued evolution to the slow mesh RPO but did not find this game particularly insightful. Nobody has the identity they want with 8 sacks and multiple turnovers. What annoyed me was hearing announcers talking about the identity being more solidified later in the year, as if we didn't have all off-season and are in week four of the season. Also, talk of injuries as an excuse should reckon with Washington's defense having as much adversity on that front as our offense.  

9. Special teams now seems like a definitive weakness for Stanford, at least compared to the Alamar norm. I hold my breath on all special teams plays other than punts, which seem solid (Sanborn had net punts of 38, 43, 50, and 41, with one downed at the 3). Kick returns are especially depressing. It's like we're giving yards away. 

10. Game balls: Wilson, Miezan, Sanborn, Gould

11. I'm of two minds on the outlook going forward. In the focus-on-what's-ahead-of-you sense, we knew this would be a tough game and we'll be heading right back to the Pacific Northwest for an opportunity to shock the world with a road upset of a ranked team. If we can do that, a 2-2 start keeps alive hopes of a stabilizing mediocre season. A case can be made that the sacks and turnovers story of our season so far has been so extreme that a reversion to the mean (coupled perhaps with proven performers like Yurosek and Tremayne pulling their heads out of their nether regions) changes the picture entirely. I have no doubt that's the line Shaw will be trying to sell. But in a bigger picture health of the program sense, it's hard to see a program that's gone about a calendar year without a major college football win reversing this. Stanford's bottom of Power Five football ways are clearly not a fluke. It's who we are. I can't watch either our games or our frustrated try-hard-but-can't-compete players' interviews and think this is a coaching staff, roster, or culture that will turn things around. Sadly, for Stanford to have any real major college football prospects going forward a disastrous season may very well be better or us than a mediocre one.

[msqueri]

6. This week's moving the chains (first down) list: Filkins (7), Wilson (6), Higgins (2), Humphreys, Yurosek. Filkins' 100 yard rushing game is a nice accomplishment but he was responsible for a turnover, again, and like many was part of the pass blocking problem. A very EJ Smith-like game: nice production but too many losing plays. With those two being interchangeable in those respects, it's hard to say Smith's absence mattered. But Shaw wasn't wrong about the tackle absences (though Rouse eventually came back in) being deeply detrimental. Stanford fans a few months ago never would have believed it, but the Hinton injury loomed large. Nobody was good in pass blocking yesterday, but McLaughlin and Miller especially had a night to forget. The player of the game was Wilson with his monster 188 yards from scrimmage and two touchdowns. As I always say, dude is a pro and effort will never be an issue. As Jacob Rayburn said, we need 22 Michael Wilsons. For the moment, he's the per game yards from scrimmage leader among all Pac-12 receivers. 

7.  Alas, Wilson's contributions stand alone among all Stanford pass catchers. Our much-ballyhooed receiving weapons have been awful this year. Aside from Wilson, nobody else is even top 25 in the conference in receiving. According to PFF, through three games Yurosek, Higgins, and Tremayne are three of our four worst starters (Yurosek and Higgins the two worst). Brutal start to the year for these guys. 

8. I had been interested in evaluating the continued evolution to the slow mesh RPO but did not find this game particularly insightful. Nobody has the identity they want with 8 sacks and multiple turnovers. What annoyed me was hearing announcers talking about the identity being more solidified later in the year, as if we didn't have all off-season and are in week four of the season. Also, talk of injuries as an excuse should reckon with Washington's defense having as much adversity on that front as our offense.  

9. Special teams now seems like a definitive weakness for Stanford, at least compared to the Alamar norm. I hold my breath on all special teams plays other than punts, which seem solid (Sanborn had net punts of 38, 43, 50, and 41, with one downed at the 3). Kick returns are especially depressing. It's like we're giving yards away. 

10. Game balls: Wilson, Miezan, Sanborn, Gould

11. I'm of two minds on the outlook going forward. In the focus-on-what's-ahead-of-you sense, we knew this would be a tough game and we'll be heading right back to the Pacific Northwest for an opportunity to shock the world with a road upset of a ranked team. If we can do that, a 2-2 start keeps alive hopes of a stabilizing mediocre season. A case can be made that the sacks and turnovers story of our season so far has been so extreme that a reversion to the mean (coupled perhaps with proven performers like Yurosek and Tremayne pulling their heads out of their nether regions) changes the picture entirely. I have no doubt that's the line Shaw will be trying to sell. But in a bigger picture health of the program sense, it's hard to see a program that's gone about a calendar year without a major college football win reversing this. Stanford's bottom of Power Five football ways are clearly not a fluke. It's who we are. I can't watch either our games or our frustrated try-hard-but-can't-compete players' interviews and think this is a coaching staff, roster, or culture that will turn things around. Sadly, for Stanford to have any real major college football prospects going forward a disastrous season may very well be better or us than a mediocre one.