I'm starting to think I'm a jinx. In 2015, I attended Stanford's two losses against Northwestern and Oregon, and so far this year, I've wasted money on a ticket twice. Am I to blame for the loss? Or is it Keller Chryst?
After last week's USC game, I assumed that the Trojans were a legit team, and the Cardinal would still be relevant in the PAC-12 North. However, the Trojans are not as good as we all thought, and neither is Stanford.
Texas arrived in LA Saturday for a highly anticipated but lopsided matchup between two legendary programs. Many expected USC to run away with a victory, but the Longhorns shut down Ronald Jones and Stephen Carr while limiting the Trojans to 17 points in regulation and taking the game into double overtime, and to make matters worse, Texas doesn't have a great defense this year; Maryland scored 51 against them. Need I say more?
Meanwhile, Stanford's defense can only dream about stopping any sort of running attack. The defensive line gets pushed back three or four yards before even making contact with the runner, and the linebackers seemed to have forgotten how to tackle.
Take a look at this clip:
As said above, the defensive lineman are nowhere to be seen, and the linebackers infiltrate the backfield, but somehow, this play turns into a first down.
Oh look, the same thing happens here:
However, the defense did their part, allowing only 20 points. This loss is not their fault.
The loss lies mostly on Keller Chryst's hands. He threw for only 72 yards and threw two crucial interceptions that cost Stanford, which resulted in a 4.9 quarterback rating. This week, he might have had the worst performance by any FBS quarterback, against a less than subpar Aztec secondary.
Chryst stared down his receivers, held on to the ball too long, missed open guys, and threw into coverage. He made all four mistakes on this play:
This interception alone cost Stanford the game.
It's 3rd and 12, deep in Stanford territory, with little time left before half, so the likelihood of scoring is slim. All Stanford needs to do is not make a turnover and head into halftime leading 7-3. Instead, Chryst never takes his eyes of Trenton Irwin and throws to him despite being covered by three or four Aztec players.
Meanwhile, Connor Weddington is wide open at the top of the screen. Dump it off to him, and see if he can make it to a first down. If he doesn't make it, no biggie. Just punt, and Stanford leads at half. However, this didn't happen, and the Aztecs scored quickly and entered halftime with a 10-7 lead.
Furthermore, Keller Chryst had a chance to redeem himself not once but twice, and I wouldn't have even remembered his costly interception.
Driving in the fourth quarter, Stanford was up 17-13 with a chance to take a comfortable lead but faced third down around midfield. Chryst dropped back and saw Colby Parkinson wide open in the middle yet failed to complete an easy pass. The ball probably landed two yards short of Parkinson, and his tight end never had a chance at catching it. If Chryst makes the pass, Stanford would've entered field goal territory with a new set of downs.
Lastly, Chryst's final mistake came with the game on the line:
To me, it looks like this ball is thrown up for grabs, but this is more Shaw's fault than Chryst's. Yes, it was poorly thrown, but there was no need to send everyone deep with a minute and two timeouts left. Rather than a Hail Mary, throw curls or outs towards the sideline.
Shaw made a poor decision to end the game, but this one should be clear; consider other options. What does Stanford have to lose? They're currently 1-2, and the offense couldn't possibly get worse. Let's see if Costello can change up the pace. Hogan replaced Nunes and led Stanford to the Rose Bowl. Maybe, Costello can do the same.
Perhaps, Chryst isn't the problem. Perhaps, it's me. I didn't make the trip to Australia, and Stanford didn't seem to have any issues. Next week, I'll be up at the Farm for the UCLA game, and if Stanford loses, I promise not to go to anymore games for the rest of the season.
Comments
Not Chryst's fault
He’d be a reasonable QB on most teams. His major failing on this one is that he isn’t the most mobile, which bodes poorly with the hot air we call an offensive line. The state of the team is squarely Shaw’s responsibility, from his recruiting deficits, to his horrific development of players, to his complete inadequacy in constructing a sensible offensive plan, to his surrendering attitude of going for a field goal when it’s fourth and inches. We have a teddy bear as a coach; teddy bears are for kids, not football.
By hpaskov on 09.18.17 6:00pm
They've recruited good O linemen by rankings
They just don’t seem to learn how to pass block any more. Luck used to get sacked in the single digits for an entire season, partly due to his own mobility and play adjustments, but mostly due to good line play. I don’t know how things have gotten so much worse over time.
By SN94703 on 09.19.17 4:36pm
RIP TWU
What you’re referring to right there happens from good coaching. Bloomgren, imo, ain’t cuttin it.
By hpaskov on 09.19.17 8:50pm
The team is good right now
However w/a weak QB it makes everything look worse that what it is…. Just once Coach Shaw may have to abandon this idea behind younger guys coming in and learning the system… If the younger guys can help u win, put them in the game and adjust your system!! DUh! LOLl
By Slot_Man22 on 09.19.17 9:48pm
Fear the Tree.
Everyone wants to blame the "O Line." I say, "Balderdash." The problem is with Shaw and his oversized play pad. The 2nd problem is with our QB. We played a good team, and should have won the game. Sad to say, "The D played their hearts out, and may have run out of gas." Go back in past years and see the really big games we lost because of poor play calling. Oh well, the season is not lost.
By bodumb on 09.18.17 7:01pm
Chryst/Shaw
Yeah, there is truth in the two comments above. Stanford right now has three plays: 1-yd run by Love, 60+ yd run by Love (limit 2 per game), and block/sack/fumble/underthrow/interception by Keller Chryst. The D played well enough to win the last game. The offense, outside the given two big runs by Love, was horrific. Shaw’s play calling varies from unimaginative to stupid. Chryst’s QB play is abysmal, for the following reasons: 1) he is basically immobile; 2) he doesn’t make reads, he stares down one receiver; 3) he holds the ball far too long before making a decision (the CBSSN commentators noted once or twice that his sack was his fault, not that of the O line); 4) he DOES make bad decisions; 5) if he throws early, he (and also Burns) tends to under throw the pass; and 6) he’s a lobber, not a bullet passer – everything is on some ballistic arc. The "great season" is dead; now it is plug on for a really brutally bad season (like 6-6) or make a change for the future, and maybe see some upside. Costello throws a rocket ball; he has at least some pocket skills and foot speed, witness the scamper against Rice; and he is the QB of the future, or so it seems. Let’s make it now, and be assured. It can’t really get any worse.
By jafco99 on 09.18.17 7:35pm
Couldn't agree more
Plus by giving Costello a chance, it gives some clarity deterring whether he or Davis Mills is the guy. If Costello plays out of the mind, the job is his next year. If he can’t convince us, he’ll have to beat out Mills next year.
By charliefoy on 09.18.17 7:45pm
Agree No Downside
Chryst has had 9 starts. 6 ones last year that worked out OK given the competition (both opponents and Ryan Burns) and 3 this year that have been increasingly bad (even the Rice game was not terribly positive in my view). He is in his fourth year on the Farm. While I guess that his ACL (or whatever happened to him since it was never disclosed) may be making him more immobile this year, that is no reason to keep him on the field. Just do not see the upside.
Having said all of that….guess we need to get ready for the Ryan Burns II tour as he knows the playbook! Or maybe Wildcat to Love on every play………………..
By hoyaparanoia on 09.18.17 8:23pm
I think most of us here would like to see Costello
The problem is, not sure Shaw will go along.
By worldblee on 09.19.17 8:25am
Simple Fix
Fire Mike Bloomgren. Easy. My question is what has he done to still be OC? Throw out 2015 when he had both an elite QB and a Heisman winner* and he has no resumé whatsoever. I have said it before and will say it again: hire a proven offensive mind with staffing building experience who is trying to rebuild a reputation (ala Kiffin at Alabama) and let them build their own staff. Possible options: Mark Helfrich, Sonny Dykes, likely Kevin Sumlin, likely Rich Rod, likely Kliff Kingsbury.
By stanfordman on 09.18.17 7:53pm
David Shaw is the OC for all practical purposes
He gameplans the pass game while Mike bloomgren handles the run game. We need a QB coach who is co-OC to help invigorate the passing game with short throws and easier reads
By layman on 09.19.17 8:25am
Why would you throw out a year when they had an elite QB and a Heisman winner?
They had to recruit and groom them, after all.
By DavidShawShankRedemption on 09.19.17 12:49pm
Because that's not a typical year
We used to do more with less, and now do less with more. We’re turning into Notre Dame.
By hpaskov on 09.19.17 8:51pm
Or UCLA
By RavenousUte on 09.19.17 9:56pm
Not So Simple
David Shaw is not going to countenance ANY of the personalities you note on HIS Stanford team. But that does not mean that there are not PLENTY of ideas that could work……………..starting with the OC from SDSU who put together a Stanfordesque game plan to beat us this past Saturday.
I respect Shaw’s rights to pick the assistants that work well for the team and with him. But Tavita Pritchard (hello…………….does he get an offer from any FBS team as a QB coach???) and perhaps Bloomgren need to be upgraded or managed better.
By hoyaparanoia on 09.18.17 8:18pm
one look
What I noticed during the u$c and sdsu game (and the receptions sort of support this) is the main target that Chryst goes to is Irwin… Under pressure, first read (and only read?) is Irwin… A few years ago the only read was Montgomery – wildcat, backfield, receiving… Stanford has lots of options – proof Rice (yes, they aren’t good), but 4 tight ends, 3 solid receivers (Irwin, Whiteside, Stewart (and Weddington)), and running backs on the swing… I know nothing about coaching football, however it seems the blitz can be broken by quick hits, and swing passes… then the Love run will always continue to work, and downfield passing may open up.
Oh, and run run pass every 3 downs could be changed too… Just a thought. Go Cardinal – tough to challenge when so much success has happened, but I remember the late 70’s with Walsh – Francis, Nelson, Lofton, Keller, Margerum… Get the ball away from the middle and let playmakers make plays in open space!
By etgo on 09.18.17 8:52pm
It always seems like Stanford QBs are taught to look at the field by a one-eyed Cylon
Must lock onto only one receiver… Must not look at the rest of the field…
By worldblee on 09.19.17 8:28am
What kind of English do they teach down at the Farm?
This mistake is so middle school. You guys should be embarrassed.
By daveman on 09.18.17 11:07pm
Rule of Tree writers are not necessarily Stanford graduates.
I noticed that mistake, as well, and cringed.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 09.18.17 11:34pm
that comma slipped by me
thanks for catching it!
By charliefoy on 09.19.17 7:17am
Comma?
The sentence should read: "This week, he might have had the worst performance…. "
By Jeff Tarnungus on 09.19.17 8:08am
rereading it, needed a comma after quarterback
your correction is correct as well
By charliefoy on 09.19.17 8:14am
Let's appreciate the work they put in to write the articles
As someone who routinely makes such mistakes while writing research papers, I am sympathetic to the effort made by the contributors. We can help point out the errors to be fixed and not belittle them.
By layman on 09.19.17 8:30am
I Cringed But Witheld Comment For The Same Reason
But I was tempted to create a KC10 user name and pound the writer mercilessly for failing to execute the comma play, staring down the comma as he wrote, and then mistaking the "of" and "have" read option play out of the "might" set!
In both cases, we need to just show some more Love.
By hoyaparanoia on 09.19.17 8:43am
Yeah, I didn't want to be the grammar ogre
But our visitor from Cal made it sound as if incorrect grammar is a Stanford thing…. And as a proud alum, I could not remain silent.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 09.19.17 9:02am