[msqueri]

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

I can't share your optimism here. IMO Arizona held Arizona to their lowest yards per play. Jayden de Laura was way, way off. There are off-field issues that may account for it, but he was indecisive and often held the ball too long. Had he not been injured and left the game, it is entirely possible Stanford would have won. It was pretty clear that Arizona was mailing it in to a large extent. They had lots of plays where somebody obviously was not on the same page as the rest of the team. These were mental mistakes. They are not a very good team, but they also didn't play anywhere near as well as they have previously this year.

The enemy gets a vote. As you note, that is relevant in terms of how they play against us. But it's also relevant in terms of how we play against them. This is very hard to disentangle (and in fact is the impetus/ambition behind my postgame thoughts exercise generally, though I recognize that it's impossible to know exactly how much of a given performance is because of us and how much is because of them). You're right that de Laura had a bad game but you overdraw the conclusion. It doesn't necessarily mean Arizona as a whole had a bad game (though as we'll see below I think they did, just not quite as "mailing it in" as you suggest).

PFF grades give us a somewhat objective third party way to measure this. Arizona's 65.7 grade was their third best of four games this year, better than they played against Mississippi State, and it would have been below average but not bottom tier of their performances last year. The passing game grades were the worst of the year, the running game grades better than the Mississippi State game, and the defensive grades generally their second best of the season after the Northern Arizona game. In one category, pass blocking, they graded off the charts elite as their best performance of the season.

If we're going to consider the point that the enemy gets a vote, which we absolutely should, the bottom line is we didn't get Arizona at their best but we didn't get them at their worst either. You are probably right that our defensive performance was less impressive than it seemed because Arizona's offense was a bit off, but if we're going to make that point then our offensive performance may have been a bit more impressive than I allowed considering Arizona's defense played well by their standards.

Ultimately, all of this is intertwined. Arizona's defense playing well by their standards can be related to playing a poor offense. Arizona's offense playing poorly by their standards can be related to Stanford's defense giving them looks that confound. This is why I try to triangulate based on how units have done against other teams, in both the opponent's case and our case. I think in totality the evidence points to our performance against Arizona being that of a bad but not terrible team (somewhere in the 80s) and our defense deserving more of the credit than the offense in making it competitive.

[msqueri]

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

I can't share your optimism here. IMO Arizona held Arizona to their lowest yards per play. Jayden de Laura was way, way off. There are off-field issues that may account for it, but he was indecisive and often held the ball too long. Had he not been injured and left the game, it is entirely possible Stanford would have won. It was pretty clear that Arizona was mailing it in to a large extent. They had lots of plays where somebody obviously was not on the same page as the rest of the team. These were mental mistakes. They are not a very good team, but they also didn't play anywhere near as well as they have previously this year.

The enemy gets a vote. As you note, that is relevant in terms of how they play against us. But it's also relevant in terms of how we play against them. This is very hard to disentangle (and in fact is the impetus/ambition behind my postgame thoughts exercise generally, though I recognize that it's impossible to know exactly how much of a given performance is because of us and how much is because of them). You're right that de Laura had a bad game but you overdraw the conclusion. It doesn't necessarily mean Arizona as a whole had a bad game (though as we'll see below I think they did, just not quite as "mailing it in" as you suggest).

PFF grades give us a somewhat objective third party way to measure this. Arizona's 65.7 grade was their third best of four games this year, better than they played against Mississippi State, and it would have been below average but not bottom tier of their performances last year. The passing game grades were the worst of the year, the running game grades better than the Mississippi State game, and the defensive grades generally their second best of the season after the Northern Arizona game. In one category, pass blocking, they graded off the charts elite as their best performance of the season.

If we're going to consider the point that the enemy gets a vote, which we absolutely should, the bottom line is we didn't get Arizona at their best but we didn't get them at their worst either. You are probably right that our defensive performance was less impressive than it seemed because Arizona's offense was a bit off, but if we're going to make that point then our offensive performance may have been a bit more impressive than I allowed considering Arizona's defense played well by their standards.

Ultimately, all of this is intertwined. Arizona's defense playing well by their standards can be related to playing a poor offense. Arizona's offense playing poorly by their standards can be related to Stanford's defense giving them looks that confound. This is why I try to triangulate based on how units have done against other teams, in both the opponent's case and our case. I think in totality the evidence points to our performance against Arizona being that of a bad but not terrible team (somewhere in the 80s) and our defense deserving more of the credit than the offense in making it competitive.