Despite Some Misleading Numbers, the Stanford Secondary is Improved
Editor's Note: SB Nation's Bill Connelly lauded the Cardinal's defense through two weeks in this piece, pointing out the miniscule 2.4 yards per play Stanford allowed against Duke after limiting San Jose State to 4.2 yards per play one week earlier. For anyone still concerned about the Stanford secondary's performance to date, longtime Rule of Tree commenter Darius Tahir (@dariustahir) explains the importance of context when reviewing stats and looks ahead to tomorrow's big test against USC.
Is there some way we can get the allegedly-damning-evidence that the Stanford passing defense has allowed 574 yards through two games thrown out? It’s incredibly misleading. This isn’t to say the Barkley/Woods/Lee trio won’t light up the Stanford secondary, but that’s more due to moving up several weight classes—say, welterweight to heavyweight—than any particular defects the Cardinal have shown versus their opponents so far.
Saying a defense has given up 280 yards passing is useless without knowing whether it took 10 or 280 attempts to get there. In this case, knowing that Stanford opponents have thrown the ball 98 times (for about 5.85 yards per attempt) is what’s known as important context. Or the fact that Stanford’s yards per attempt surrendered is second in the Pac-12, to Oregon. Again, important context.
At any rate, the manner in which Stanford opponents have passed the ball—with a marked emphasis on those short little passes that require quick reactions and sure tackling from the secondary—actually turns out to be decent preparation for USC.
I selected a few games -- Stanford (2011), Oregon (2011) and Syracuse (2012) -- to show the passing mix USC uses to attack opposing defenses, at least in terms of distance down the field it’ll attack with the actual pass (as opposed to yards after catch.) (Note: the Stanford game excludes data from the OT periods. OT periods are magical fantasylands with great field position and exhausted defenses. For example, Stanford did a pretty decent job on defense against USC in standard time—27 points surrendered—but then overtime happened. Also, you’ll notice the number of passes attempted deviate upwards from the official pass data. That’s because I count passes attempted on plays wiped out by penalty and give my best guess on some other plays, e.g. sacks. The idea is to try and ascertain what Kiffin and the Trojans would want to do in an ideal land without referees and sacks and what have you.)
| Opponent | 0-10 yards | 10-20 yards | 20+ yards |
| Stanford (2011) | 30/45 (67%) | 10/45 (22%) | 5/45 (11%) |
| Oregon (2011) | 26/26 (72.2%) | 6/36 (16.7%) | 4/36 (11.1%) |
| Syracuse (2012) | 28/34 (82.4%) | 2/34 (5.88%) | 4/34 (11.76%) |
USC gets a lot of hype for being a downfield, aggressive offense, and by first glance at the numbers, you might be inclined to say that that hype is undeserved. I don’t think that’s the best reading of the numbers, however. I’d argue somewhat differently: USC is defended in a way that makes those little dink-and-dunk passes profitable, and that’s due (in part) to the hype. But of course Marqise Lee and Robert Woods are lethal weapons deep, so perhaps this is the best deployment of resources. The key for USC’s offense is that both of these guys are multifunctional: they can go deep; they can also embarrass your defensive backs’ attempts to tackle short.
USC, if anything, might be more inclined to go short this week than usual. With Khaled Holmes going down, and Matt Kalil absent, the USC offensive line may be patchy—and that’s exactly what you don’t want against a relentless Stanford defense. Short throws and Barkley’s quick release might be a perfect antidote.
Which puts things on the defensive backs’ tackling skills. They were excellent tackling against Duke, which accounts for Sean Renfree’s 70% completion rate and his 5.0 yards per attempt. In fact, if we just want to consider the first two games, the defensive backs are ahead of last year’s pace (ever-so-slightly):
| Year | Completion % | YPA | TDs | INTs |
| 2011 | 62.5% | 7.15 | 0 | 0 |
| 2012 | 67.3% | 5.85 | 1 | 3 |
TDs have gone up, but only slightly. Completion percentage is substantially up, probably due to opponents’ testing us in short passing situations (which is not, given the secondary’s tackling troubles last year, the most irrational strategy ever conceived), but that is way counterbalanced by the dramatic decrease in yards per attempt and passes picked. (Of course, there are some confounding factors: Stanford had one away and one home game in 2011 versus two at home in 2012; on the other hand, San Jose State is another year deeper into the MacIntyre coaching regime and Sean Renfree should theoretically be at the peak of his powers as a senior…so who knows?)
The secondary appears much better, through two games. Can it make it three? It remains to be seen.
7 comments
|
Add comment
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I love this sort of analysis.
I think it’s interesting that Connelly figures USC will try to open up its vertical passing game against Stanford, while Darius suggests short passes might be a better strategy given the state of the Trojans’ offensive line.
This makes me think the front-seven’s ability to generate pressure on Barkley will be even more important. Force short passes, tackle well. Rinse and repeat.
by Scott Allen on Sep 14, 2025 8:45 AM PDT reply actions
My thought is simply that USC almost HAD to be holding something in reserve for tougher games...
…they threw so many short passes that they have to be setting up something more vertical later on. But if Stanford tackles well and doesn’t bite on fakes, it could be well-equipped to slow down USC quite a bit.
Follow me at @SBN_BillC!
SB Nation
Rock M Nation
Football Outsiders
Football Study Hall
by Bill C. on Sep 14, 2025 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
this game
is hard for me to get a good sense of. USC has such a history of not bothering to show up for games where they don’t respect the opponent (and obviously Syracuse would qualify) that I really can’t say whether the issues there (mainly O-line and defense) were real or just USC not bothering to show up. Similarly, both SJ St and Duke are pretty mediocre to lousy, and those games were drastically different. I could fairly easily see a Stanford win, and I could fairly easily see a blowout win for USC.
by cfn_ms on Sep 14, 2025 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Short passes
SC watched game tape of the Orange and noted how often they tackle as if they’re playing flag football, and confused they can be on the concept of slipping blocks.
Hence, short passes, bubble screens and the like that go for long gains with little risk of getting picked off.
Doubt the shorties would work as well against Stanford.
by Cardinal&Orange; on Sep 14, 2025 4:03 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I almost forget we had an Orange expert in our midst.
Did you watch the entire game? I had hoped to, but the weather delay spoiled those plans.
by Scott Allen on Sep 14, 2025 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Missed most of the 1st half, but saw the 2nd half (although admittedly I frequently flipped to other games due to my ingrained pessimism about their likelihood of winning). Was a bit shocked to see it as close as it was late in the game, but as noted above, SC usually starts the season a bit ragged, and the weird weather probably affected them a bit too.
Hard to say how much that game tells us about what to expect Saturday — not a lot in common between Cuse and Stanford teams. Hopefully that works in Stanford’s favor.
by Cardinal&Orange; on Sep 14, 2025 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I think
USC holds more creative versions of the same basic mix (i.e. a lot of short stuff, 4 or so deep strikers) in reserve. When I think about it, it makes perfect sense: if you can peel off a highly consistent 6-7 yards a pop with Lee and Woods abusing DBs physically, with the occasional huge play off of YAC, why wouldn’t you? It’s just a nice low variance approach.
by dth1 on Sep 14, 2025 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.

- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!

by dth1 on 






