[Mick]

As always msqueri has provided an incisive analysis of "what happened" on Saturday. This was such a pig mess it amazes me such an analysis was even possible. I really find points 1 through 3 to be spot on and compelling reading.

When Stanford hired TT it seemed probable he would bring a lot of his staff from Sacramento State with him. Stanford was going to get a coaching staff transplant. That didn't happen. Not only has TT never been a head coach at this level before but his staff has no experience either. On top of that they have no long history of working together successfully. From what we have seen TT doesn't seem to have a lot of known-good assistants breaking down his door to join the staff. That was and is "concerning". The fact TT is his own OC and QB coach is also concerning when QB play has been an issue. On could argue (and many did) that it was an out-of-the-box brilliant hire, TT "got" Stanford and would recruit well. The probability that next year's team will have less talent than this year's due to poor recruiting is chilling. Obviously TT et al haven't been able to deliver a narrative that brings good players to Stanford. Yes, the poor record doesn't help, but TT earned that. He has to rise above it, and so far he hasn't.

I am not sure this team is the worst team in Stanford history, but the data presented in heading 1 makes a good case for it. Sagarin may not be able to precisely analyze the relative rankings of teams that are off-the-charts bad. The data is undoubtedly very noisy. Dropping further year over year however lends support to the idea that if we weren't the worst team in Stanford history this year we have every chance of being so next year :-).

I find the introduction to item 6 to be an absolute gem. "As we could all see, it was a comprehensive defensive failure." This dictated the course of the game. Stanford's offensive statistics are IMO largely a chimera. Two long TD runs by your QB is a fluke. Daniels is a good runner but he isn't that good of a runner. Take those two runs away and you have an entirely different picture. Indeed there are some bright spots. I heartily agree that having better running backs (and being willing to stick with using them) is a bright spot. I am not totally sure but I think it is now possible to see a universe where Baklenko plays instead of McLaughlin :-). I also like a lot this from item 8 "Meanwhile, our (my) certitude that QB was what was holding the team back appears to have been a bit overstated. #95 of 130 is bad, but it's becoming increasingly clear a great many things on our team are that bad or worse. It's kind of sobering but Daniels is one of the ten or so best players on our team.". I think this is exactly correct. I think it is true despite the fact his accuracy is questionable and his ability to read the field is poor. That says a lot about where this team is.

There is (predictably) one area where I have to disagree with your take. From item 10 "One of my game balls will be controversial given the egregious breakdown in discipline and sportsmanship shown in the kick that led to disqualification, but football is about making plays and Bailey just makes them so much more than others on our team.". Indeed Bailey at times makes plays. It is true our defense lacks playmakers. It must also be said that at times Bailey's undisciplined play causes him to be in the wrong place and he therefore is unable to make what would have been a routine play. It may be that is happening less often than before. That said, kicking an opponent in the head intentionally has to be inadmissible. The poor performance by the defense coupled with an offensive player saying something or doing something improper can lead to massive frustration. This can lead to a defensive player taking a swing at somebody. That isn't supposed to happen and shows poor discipline. It is however understandable. Kicking somebody who is on the ground in the head isn't. It is just plain dirty play and reflects very badly on the player who does it and the University that tolerates it.

Remember the outrage when the USC players were stepping on the opponents? Well, right now that is us. I get it that he can make plays. Unfortunately in this game he did something highly improper. It can't be ignored because he is a good football player. It must be addressed in a public manner since it was a public act. The coaches can't let this kind of stuff be ignored. It has to be more than a slap on the wrist.

As I have said before I think Bailey will be in the transfer portal this year. I want to be able to follow that prediction up with "I hope I am wrong.". As of now, I can't say that. IMO he at least needs a trip to Canossa.

On our disagreement on Bailey:

The sleaziest, most dangerous, most inexcusable play I have ever seen as a Stanford fan was by Leigh Torrence in the Big Game on a punt coverage when in his frustration he just annihilated the defenseless Cal punt returner Tim Mixon in the 2004 Big Game blowout. It was the coup de grace on Teevens' tenure. One of our most admired, disciplined, and classy players of all becoming full thug, far worse than pretty much anything I have ever seen an opposing player do to us in the last 40 years. He was frustrated. I give our players a lot more grace than the highly paid coaches responsible for the demoralization.

For me, it was the Cal LB who facemasked Mike Mitchell, rupturing both Mitchell's knees. Mitchell, the #1 prep running back in the nation had the 4th highest career yards by a Stanford RB and was headed to the NFL, all ruined by some nobody Cal LB.

[Mick]

As always msqueri has provided an incisive analysis of "what happened" on Saturday. This was such a pig mess it amazes me such an analysis was even possible. I really find points 1 through 3 to be spot on and compelling reading.

When Stanford hired TT it seemed probable he would bring a lot of his staff from Sacramento State with him. Stanford was going to get a coaching staff transplant. That didn't happen. Not only has TT never been a head coach at this level before but his staff has no experience either. On top of that they have no long history of working together successfully. From what we have seen TT doesn't seem to have a lot of known-good assistants breaking down his door to join the staff. That was and is "concerning". The fact TT is his own OC and QB coach is also concerning when QB play has been an issue. On could argue (and many did) that it was an out-of-the-box brilliant hire, TT "got" Stanford and would recruit well. The probability that next year's team will have less talent than this year's due to poor recruiting is chilling. Obviously TT et al haven't been able to deliver a narrative that brings good players to Stanford. Yes, the poor record doesn't help, but TT earned that. He has to rise above it, and so far he hasn't.

I am not sure this team is the worst team in Stanford history, but the data presented in heading 1 makes a good case for it. Sagarin may not be able to precisely analyze the relative rankings of teams that are off-the-charts bad. The data is undoubtedly very noisy. Dropping further year over year however lends support to the idea that if we weren't the worst team in Stanford history this year we have every chance of being so next year :-).

I find the introduction to item 6 to be an absolute gem. "As we could all see, it was a comprehensive defensive failure." This dictated the course of the game. Stanford's offensive statistics are IMO largely a chimera. Two long TD runs by your QB is a fluke. Daniels is a good runner but he isn't that good of a runner. Take those two runs away and you have an entirely different picture. Indeed there are some bright spots. I heartily agree that having better running backs (and being willing to stick with using them) is a bright spot. I am not totally sure but I think it is now possible to see a universe where Baklenko plays instead of McLaughlin :-). I also like a lot this from item 8 "Meanwhile, our (my) certitude that QB was what was holding the team back appears to have been a bit overstated. #95 of 130 is bad, but it's becoming increasingly clear a great many things on our team are that bad or worse. It's kind of sobering but Daniels is one of the ten or so best players on our team.". I think this is exactly correct. I think it is true despite the fact his accuracy is questionable and his ability to read the field is poor. That says a lot about where this team is.

There is (predictably) one area where I have to disagree with your take. From item 10 "One of my game balls will be controversial given the egregious breakdown in discipline and sportsmanship shown in the kick that led to disqualification, but football is about making plays and Bailey just makes them so much more than others on our team.". Indeed Bailey at times makes plays. It is true our defense lacks playmakers. It must also be said that at times Bailey's undisciplined play causes him to be in the wrong place and he therefore is unable to make what would have been a routine play. It may be that is happening less often than before. That said, kicking an opponent in the head intentionally has to be inadmissible. The poor performance by the defense coupled with an offensive player saying something or doing something improper can lead to massive frustration. This can lead to a defensive player taking a swing at somebody. That isn't supposed to happen and shows poor discipline. It is however understandable. Kicking somebody who is on the ground in the head isn't. It is just plain dirty play and reflects very badly on the player who does it and the University that tolerates it.

Remember the outrage when the USC players were stepping on the opponents? Well, right now that is us. I get it that he can make plays. Unfortunately in this game he did something highly improper. It can't be ignored because he is a good football player. It must be addressed in a public manner since it was a public act. The coaches can't let this kind of stuff be ignored. It has to be more than a slap on the wrist.

As I have said before I think Bailey will be in the transfer portal this year. I want to be able to follow that prediction up with "I hope I am wrong.". As of now, I can't say that. IMO he at least needs a trip to Canossa.

On our disagreement on Bailey:

The sleaziest, most dangerous, most inexcusable play I have ever seen as a Stanford fan was by Leigh Torrence in the Big Game on a punt coverage when in his frustration he just annihilated the defenseless Cal punt returner Tim Mixon in the 2004 Big Game blowout. It was the coup de grace on Teevens' tenure. One of our most admired, disciplined, and classy players of all becoming full thug, far worse than pretty much anything I have ever seen an opposing player do to us in the last 40 years. He was frustrated. I give our players a lot more grace than the highly paid coaches responsible for the demoralization.

For me, it was the Cal LB who facemasked Mike Mitchell, rupturing both Mitchell's knees. Mitchell, the #1 prep running back in the nation had the 4th highest career yards by a Stanford RB and was headed to the NFL, all ruined by some nobody Cal LB.