After Saturday night, I finally concluded that Stanford is no longer Stanford. In the recent decade, Stanford won with a bruising offensive line and a punishing defense, but that wasn't the case against USC. Simply put, the Trojans beat Stanford at their own game, and the Cardinal had no answer.
Stanford has always been a predictable team on offense, and that was fine, but it only worked with a dominant offensive line. Needless to say, Stanford's line couldn't control the line of scrimmage, and as a result, the offense struggled.
The Cardinal deploy a run first offense, yet they couldn't establish their running game against USC. Yes, they averaged 6.5 yards per carry, but take away Love's seventy five yard touchdown, and Stanford didn't even get over one hundred yards rushing.
Although the line plays some part in the rushing woes, I think most of the blame lies on David Shaw. As head coach, he should realize that the line can't dominate like they used too and the offense needs to be less predictable.
Here was the game plan:
1st down: Run
2nd down: Run
3rd down: Pass
When the offense lined up in their power package, I'm pretty sure USC sent eight guys, and Love ran straight into a wall. Meanwhile, when Stanford did rarely pass, they lined up with an empty backfield. David's Shaw play calling couldn't be more obvious.
Last year, Stanford used play action passes, screens, and misdirections, but against USC, there was no creativity. Luckily, this is an easy problem to fix, and with plenty of stars, Stanford should bounce back on offense, but it might be harder to find a solution on defense.
Whatever happened to #partyinthebackfield? Yesterday, it seemed like our defensive lineman counted to five Mississippi before rushing the quarterback as Sam Darnold felt almost no pressure.
Then, there's the fact USC ran for 307 yards...
I'm not even going to look up if that's the most rushing yards allowed in the Harbaugh-Shaw era because frankly I don't want to confirm my beliefs. Although Ronald Jones II and Stephen Carr will be playing on Sundays in the near future, 307 yards is just unacceptable.
The Stanford rush defense used to be legendary, but now, the secondary is supposed to lead the way. That wasn't the case Saturday. Darnold threw for 316 yards, and USC receivers made corners look silly. However, I wouldn't point fingers at the secondary. Sam Darnold held the ball forever, and you can only guard someone for so long.
Ultimately, Stanford shouldn't be too ashamed with this loss. USC was not the same team that showed up against Western Michigan, and the Trojans have a legit shot at the CFB Playoff.
As for Stanford's future, I was all aboard the Stanford bandwagon last week after seeing them crush Rice, but now, I'm less optimistic. Stanford isn't as great as I thought; Rice is just really, really bad. Still, Stanford has a shot at winning the North, but it will be a challenge.
Comments
I was not high on Stanford to start the year
Given that they had a lot of questions on offense and defense, there was no reason to assume they’d come out of the gate doing great. However, I expect them to improve as the year goes on and have a solid season.
By worldblee on 09.11.17 8:20am
Fear the Tree.
Whoever scheduled the game with Northwestern and the Aussie Trip should be hanged by the neck, fed to the buzzards. The team looked like they were sleep walking from mid-way through the 1st quarter all the way to the end. They appeared to be a step slow. This team can now go up or down. 1) They can cry in their beer, and poor mouth for the rest of the season. 2) The guys have way too much pride to lay down. One game does not a season make.
By bodumb on 09.11.17 9:52am
"One game does not make a season."
Great line, and so very true.
By Max McArthur on 09.11.17 11:22am
Harsh realities.
I cannot disagree with any of the critical analysis presented here, as the offense was predictable, and the defense got pushed around. That being said, they seemed to be on the field for the better part of the contest, and were set up for failure in that sense. On the other hand, I have to give credit to a USC program which looks to be "back". Their offensive and defensive lines were truly the difference, and as was stated here, that has been Stanford’s formula for success since the Jim Harbaugh revolution. Sam Darnold is a great young Quarterback, so I cannot say that his stellar play is surprising to me in any way. What did surprise me however, was just how ordinary he made an elite Stanford secondary look. Again though, they were flat out gassed, as the Stanford offense never managed to control the ball for any stretch of time in the game. In any case, the College Football season is a wild ride, and this tough loss can only serve as fuel for the Cardinal going forward. Win or lose, Roll Red.
By Max McArthur on 09.11.17 11:14am
We got beat, plain and simple
1. Blaming the coach is hardly insightful or informative, as every win or loss of every sport is ultimately is linked to the coaches. So unless you’re suggesting we fire Shaw, such comments are pointless.
2. Stanford’s O-line is not the issue. The issue is our D-line got man-handled by USC’s road-graders. The very first possession USC ran the ball and we knew they were going to run the ball. Our D-line was overpowered. This was a potential problem identified at the end of last year and the hope was that our linebackers would pick up the slack. We could not get USC off the field because they could essentially run it at will.
The truth is, USC could have been running on us for years now, but Kiffen/Sarkisian were so in love with their offensive genius and USC’s NFL receivers, USC threw the ball way more than they should have.
If USC commits to running the ball, I don’t know that any team in the conference can truly stop them. Only thing that can slow down USC is injuries and failure to commit to running. Yes, that’s how Stanford used to be, but right now, USC has the better O-line vs D-Line matchup.
3. Stanford should have a legitimate shot at winning the North unless UW’s line is the same as USC’s, or UW’s D-Line is the best in the conference.
By Blackjoy on 09.11.17 11:15am
Here are some statistics to underscore the issues with the D-line
This is a list of the highest rushing yards amassed by an opposing team in each year:
2007 Washington 388
2008 Oregon 307
2009 Wake Forest 251
2010 Oregon 388
2011 Oregon 232
2012 UCLA 284
2013 Army 284
2014 Oregon 267
2015 Notre Dame 299
2016 Colorado 241
So, yes, the USC game marks the first time in the Shaw era (2011 to present) that a team has rushed for more than 300 yards. But in Harbaugh’s four years, it happened a number of times (four in total). But Harbaugh first needed to establish the tough defense that became our subsequent calling card. More telling than game highs like this are the averages. And there is a clear trend here that is disturbing. The list below shows the average rushing yards per game given up during the season.
2007 169.3
2008 152.9
2009 137.9
2010 120.85
2011 84.3
2012 97
2013 89.7
2014 104.5
2015 139.3
2016 145.7
Anybody see a trend? It would tempting to conclude that Shaw’s first seasons were still benefiting from Harbaugh’s defensive system and that the D-line has been softening ever since. I can expand this to include total offense to determine whether a similar trend is observable; but the run defense is clearly declining. This year has only a sample of two games, but Rice managed more rushing yards (147) than the average of all last year. The front seven is visibly softening; and that is a huge threat to our identity and the prevailing system.
Layman has pointed out that Randy Hart’s tenure as D-line coach (2010-2015) coincides neatly with the best years in this list. Hart has been gone since the end of 2015.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 09.11.17 12:42pm
Interested in yards per rush
Because teams like Arizona and Oregon are going to have a lot of snaps and rush attempts. Because that army game of 284 yards was a shut out with army just going 1-2 passes with an interception. Rice rushed only for 3.8 yards per rush
Otherwise these aren’t bad in hindsight since we went against good backs like Jonathan Franklin, Philip Lindsay (my pac-12 OPOY candidate) or 4.5* OL against ND
By layman on 09.12.17 10:58am
They're a better team than Stanford
Especially on the OL and at QB.
Frankly there isn’t much of a weak link on that SC team, they likely deserve their spot in the top 5.
Having said that, they are probably the best team Stanford will play this year. There’s still a chance of winning the North, but keep in mind that Oregon is better than they were last year, UW is still very, very good. The two remaining non-con games will be harder as well — SDSU next week is a very tough assignment, and ND looks significantly better than they were last year as well.
My sense is that this is a good but not great team — a team with some great elements (RB, secondary), some weak ones (DL) and some developing ones (QB). That probably adds up to something like 8 wins I would guess, maybe 9. Which is fine. We can’t expect more wins than that with a team with as many flaws as this one has now that the conference has really picked up.
By Brendan Ross on 09.11.17 3:05pm
So this is when Shaw changes his offensive scheme?... this time... This time I mean it....
After every loss we all say the same thing. Shaw needs to open up the playbook. Or Shaw needs to pass more. Or Shaw needs to change things up on offense. Different ways of making the same complaint and usually it is said from the standpoint of "Shaw has learned his lesson in this game."… and also, I’m a huge Stanford fan, so I have nothing but hope that Shaw will change things up starting this Saturday and avoid running up the middle when the opposing defense stacks the box…. this time.
By NowBoy on 09.12.17 8:58am
Offense is not the problem
Unless you can go through every play call and point out what was called and what should have been called and why it would have been a better call based on the personnel and execution, then you are just shooting from the hip on this comment.
I hear this type of comment on sports radio about my local NFL team. People call in, who have zero experience coaching or playing in the NFL, but are convinced the OC has no idea how to call plays. It’s laughable.
"after every loss we say the same thing." And how many losses has that been since Shaw has taken over? Shaw has kept Stanford as one of the most relevant teams in the Pac-12 since he’s been here. Clearly Shaw and staff no what they are doing. Sometimes the other team outplays you, it’s just that simple. Looking for problems where they don’t exist can make things worse, not better.
By Blackjoy on 09.12.17 11:05am
Offense is not THE problem but it is a problem
Defense wins games, yes. Our D-line didn’t match up and theirs did a hell of a job. As you said, sometimes you get outplayed. But when our O-line/offense/plays fail to establish the running game than what is the problem? We got outplayed and that’s all there is to it? We should have won because our offense scored enough points and our defense should have done the rest? I’m not going to pretend to know which problem is bigger than the other but you can’t deny there are problems on the offense and things to learn/change after watching that game.
By NowBoy on 09.12.17 11:45am
Every team has "problems"
Look, you act like Stanford and Shaw are the only football team in the country that got beat on Saturday or Sunday. USC played a type of defense I haven’t seen since Pendergast was at Oregon aka Luck’s last year, I believe. So the players simply didn’t have the experience in defending it.
"We should have won because our offense scored enough points and our defense should have done the rest?"
One of the most fundamental oversights by football fans is in understanding the relationship between a teams defense and offense. The more you stop the other team, the more plays your offense gets to run, the more you can manipulate the opposing defense. A LOT of offensive play calling in football is based on creating tendencies in the defense, then exploiting those tendencies. The most common is play-action. Your run, run, run, run, then you fake the run and pass. From there it gets far more complex. But for it to get more complex, the basics have to work and you have to get opportunities.
Stanford isn’t going to score on every possession. And we certainly aren’t going to do it against USC’s talent. So expecting Stanford’s offense to keep pace with USC when we forced them to punt ONCE the entire game is totally unrealistic. Not only that, USC dominated us in Time of Possession, which means we ran far fewer plays.
Stanford did not play a perfect game. Laymen nails a lot of the "problems" in that it comes down to our O-line wasn’t dominant. Our tackles need a lot of work. In the Rice game, our tackles were getting beat to the outside. In the USC game, our tackles got beat tothe inside. Why? Coaching, experience, and talent, or lack thereof. But the bottom line is that when you can’t get the other team off the field on 3rd down, you’re not going to win. Just ask the rest of the PAC-12 how it went for them when they couldn’t stop our running game?
Against USC, our biggest problem was our lack of a D-line. If we force a few more punts, it totally changes the complexion of the game. The strength of our D is the secondary, but if you don’t force the other team to pass, then we aren’t playing to our strengths. The Defense wasn’t a total loss. They held their own for a bit during the 2nd and 3rd quarter, but we just wore down by the 4th.
I’m hoping Shaw and Co. can figure this out for San Diego. I’m not sure who else in the conference players power football like USC.
By Blackjoy on 09.12.17 1:23pm
I will try and do a breakdown of the personnel in a fan post
Can’t help but feel this was a very vanilla game plan without that edge of a season on the line game. Coaches just put a lot of personnel and 2s in huge stretches just getting more game film to help resolve the competition on the field plus coach freshman and RS freshman class early.
Feel free to call me out on my observations:
I have a similar huge post for the defense too and I can’t help feel that a lot of people had a trial by fire to give them experience and assess the talent
By layman on 09.12.17 11:19am
Comments
The challenge you have in calling out this play is that you don’t know who made this call. It’s common knowledge that the Stanford offense gives the QB three plays to run and the QB has to call the right lay at the LOS based on the defensive alignment. One of the things that made Luck so special is that he was brilliant and checking down to the right play. So it’s possible some of those bad run plays were bad check downs.
And let me point out something else. The last time we played against a defense coached by Pendergast, he confused the bejeesus out of Luck and we lost to Oregon. Pendergast knows our system and he intentionally would have the linemen and linebackers disguise the defenses. If it worked against a 4th year Luck, we can’t blame Chryst too much.
It seemed to me that halfway through the game, USC was playing up. The LBs were taking away the short passing game and run game and daring Stanford to throw deep. We couldn’t do it because our o-line couldn’t hold of the pressure. The only way you stop that is you pick up the blitz and go over the top. We did it in the 4thQ, but then we couldn’t stop USC from scoring.
By Blackjoy on 09.12.17 1:35pm