[Goose]

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.

Totally agree it is intertwined. However, I think a problem with using PFF is that it grades what the player did but not really whether they did what they were supposed to do. Arizona made lots of mental mistakes, and I don't think PFF can really encompass that. For instance, the running back that was held in to block was undoubtedly supposed to go downfield as a safety valve if nobody was there to block. Stanford was tending to take wide pass rushing lanes, resulting in a big "hole" in the middle. Arizona could have exploited it but did not. The backs stayed in or went toward the sideline, often obviously the wrong one because the QB, when the pressure started to get through, looked the opposite direction. Other times he actively impeded the QB from going up the middle by getting in the way. Receivers would break off their pattern early, resulting in overthrows. You can't say who was wrong in that case, because you don't know what was called.

In any case I agree Stanford's defense played much better than they did the previous week. They would eventually get home on the pass rush, but seldom were they able to do so quickly. If Arizona wasn't slow on the draw, that pass rush wouldn't have worked because the ball would have been gone. Sac St would take off running immediately when it opened up. Arizona didn't, and that made a brobdingnagian difference. The opponent being stupid counts for a lot in their "vote" :-).

[Goose]

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.

Totally agree it is intertwined. However, I think a problem with using PFF is that it grades what the player did but not really whether they did what they were supposed to do. Arizona made lots of mental mistakes, and I don't think PFF can really encompass that. For instance, the running back that was held in to block was undoubtedly supposed to go downfield as a safety valve if nobody was there to block. Stanford was tending to take wide pass rushing lanes, resulting in a big "hole" in the middle. Arizona could have exploited it but did not. The backs stayed in or went toward the sideline, often obviously the wrong one because the QB, when the pressure started to get through, looked the opposite direction. Other times he actively impeded the QB from going up the middle by getting in the way. Receivers would break off their pattern early, resulting in overthrows. You can't say who was wrong in that case, because you don't know what was called.

In any case I agree Stanford's defense played much better than they did the previous week. They would eventually get home on the pass rush, but seldom were they able to do so quickly. If Arizona wasn't slow on the draw, that pass rush wouldn't have worked because the ball would have been gone. Sac St would take off running immediately when it opened up. Arizona didn't, and that made a brobdingnagian difference. The opponent being stupid counts for a lot in their "vote" :-).