I was wrong about the Stanford vs Colorado outcome. This year has been a strange year for Stanford football. One week they’re controlling a top-15 (at the time) Washington team. The next week, they get manhandled by a bad UCLA team. Then, behind the return of KJ Costello, the Cardinal bounced back versus Arizona. On Saturday, their offense was awful versus one of the worst defenses in the country. I think I should stop making predictions entirely for Stanford.
The biggest takeaway I made from the Colorado game was that Stanford has officially lost its identity as the tough, physical team that no one wants to face.
Just look at this play:
This play decided the game. If Stanford stops the Buffaloes, they have plenty of time to pick up enough yards to attempt a game-winning field goal. If Colorado converts, they run down the clock and attempt a game-winning field goal. Clearly, the latter occurred, despite Stanford being ready for the play.
Stuart Head is in position to stop Laviska Shenault Jr., but the Colorado receiver catches Head dead in his tracks—a fundamental mistake for a defender.
I played three years of high school football, and as a freshman, we were taught how to properly tackle. The first thing we learned was to keep our head up (for safety reasons), yet the Stanford safety fails to keep his head up. The second thing we learned was to step into the tackle, so we could use our momentum to take down the defender. Head comes to a stop and as a result gets run over.
Head is a safety. For the most part, his job is to be the last resort option to make a tackle. In this case, he really was playing the job of last resort. The blame does not entirely lie on him; plenty of it goes to Ryan Beecher, who read the play terribly. There’s an enormous gap created by the offensive line, making it clear where the runner is headed, yet he doesn’t fill it.
Head and Beecher’s inability to make the play represent a bigger issue though. No longer is the Stanford filled with superstars, and no longer are they a feared group.
Stanford legends like Shayne Skov or Blake Martinez would have certainly filled the gap correctly and almost certainly would have made the tackle in the backfield. Or a safety like Jordan Richards would not have been caught in his tracks.
Stuart Head and Ryan Beecher don’t exactly fill the shoes of Skov and Richards. Head and Beecher represent the bend-but-don’t break defensive philosophy; Skov and Richards didn’t bend or break. Their defenses absolutely shut down opposing running games and terrorized quarterbacks.
From 2012-2014, the Cardinal allowed less than 100 yards rushing per game and averaged 49 sacks per season. This year, the Cardinal allow just over 150 yards rushing per game and have sacked the quarterback 21 times. They are not exactly partying in the backfield, which keeps their offense off the field and does not set the Cardinal offense with good field position.
Say what you want about Stanford’s struggling offense, but if Stanford wants to go back to being a championship contender, they’ll need to start by fixing their defense.
How do they fix the defense?
Maybe, they just need to recruit better, but many of past Stanford legends were not highly-touted. Stanford’s 2013 defense might be considered their best ever, and for the most part, the group was filled with three-star recruits.
Defensive tackle David Parry was unranked out of high school, and safety Ed Reynolds, defensive end Henry Anderson, outside linebacker Trent Murphy and Richards were all three-star recruits. Defensive end Ben Gardner was a two-star recruit.
Every player listed went on to play NFL football in some capacity. Do you think many guys on Stanford’s defense have NFL chances? They’re likely slim.
So what’s the issue? It’s player development. I think it stems from the injuries and lack of depth on Stanford’s roster, which does not allow Stanford to practice at full speed, fearing potential injuries.
Stanford players are likely practicing with less ferocity in practice, and it’s showing in games.
Comments
Yes, the toughness is gone
Intellectual Brutality is a dim and distant memory. Four-star recruits become three-star players, the opposite of earlier player development. The team is injury-prone and lacking depth. There are plenty of plays in that game that cost Stanford the victory. This was just one of them.
But it didn’t just happen this year: it’s been ongoing since the end of 2014. Yes, even in 2015, the toughness was starting to wane, but we had Hogan and McCaffrey to make up for it with potent offense. In 2016, the Dawgs manhandled Stanford on both sides of the line. This was no longer your "Revenge of the Nerds, Party in the Backfield" team. The Shayne Skov days of eye-black and linebacker terrorism were over and, so far, have not returned. The 2019 edition of Stanford football is just the nadir of this overall trend.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 11.12.19 12:21pm
so are "injuries and lack of depth"...
…just a matter of fate?
By holdthemayo! on 11.12.19 1:42pm
Absolutely not
Better strength training, better player development, better recruiting, and you have healthier players with adequate depth. We used to have that every year, but have lost it.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 11.12.19 2:45pm
Player Development is Indeed Critical
John Wooden, certainly the most successful men’s college basketball coach, once said something like, "I can’t coach height or quickness." Consequently, he recruited for both and then could concentrate on teaching everything else. At Stanford, we all know that there are severe academic limitations on who can be recruited. But within that pool, certain things stand out. Here are some of the 40 yard dash times of relatively recent Stanford players:
Bryce Love 4.35 David Yankey 5.48 Paulson Adebo 4.36-4.47 Curtis Robinson 4.84
Ed Reynolds 4.42 Nate Herbig 5.41 Austin Jones 4.43 Colby Parkinson 4.86
Christian Mc 4.48 Shayne Skov 5.10 Connor Wedington 4.48 Malik Antoine 4.78
Tyler Gaffney 4.49 Ben Gardner 5.03 Simi Fehoko 4.5 Aeneas Di Cosmo 4.78
Jordan Richards 4.65 Henry Anderson 5.03 Nathanial Peat 4.52 Stephen Herron 4.76
Blake Martinez 4.71 Tristan Sinclair 4.54 Jacob M-Farrar 4.75
Trent Murphy 4.86
Among these, Blake Martinez, Jordan Richards, Trent Murphy, Christian Mc, and Henry Anderson also ran the 20 yard shuttle in 4.2 or lower.
So, in addition to size, speed and quickness matter in success on the gridiron. [This explains, for example, in part why Curtis Robinson and Colby Parkinson have not lived up to their 5 star billing and why Malik Antoine always seems late in coverage.]
But none of these are determinative. Certainly, if you can run 4.5 or under (and you can keep injury free), you should have a good to excellent college career and will be drafted by the pros. However, if you run between 4.5 and 5.0, you can still have an excellent college career and a chance at the pros (and in Blake Martinez’s case, an excellent pro career). Even if you run above 5.0 you can be coached to have a good college career, though highly unlikely to last long in the pros.
So if you look at Stanford’s current roster, it is loaded with players who enter Stanford with the size and speed to play well in college and have a shot at the pros. [No idea what the quickness measurement is for these players.] An effective strength and conditioning coach can guide them to becoming bigger and stronger. Good position coaches can train them how to play college football. The raw material is there for Stanford. It is up to the coaches to develop it. If they can’t, then you fire them David Shaw. Plain and simple.
By SU74 on 11.12.19 3:48pm
Great post.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 11.15.19 2:32pm
rushing yards and sacks are fun stats
what about ppg? it’s not clear to me the defense was the killer against colorado. they held colorado to 16 points. the offense has to be able to score more than 16 points.
By hutre67 on 11.12.19 10:09pm
Football game swing with a handful of plays
Games at a comparable level of talent do come to a handful of plays usually. Yes, would have been nice to get that 4th down stop. Remember 2012 when skov stayed home on mariota on a 4th down. Or Solomon Thomas against north Carolina in 2016.
But the play you referred to above is hardly the one that concerned me overall. Stanford had more than its fair share of chances and even the lucky bounces. A muffed punt negated by holding, Simi with an unclean catch not caught by replay and montez’s pass hitting DL helmet, etc.
The plays to highlight are KJ locking onto Colby in the first redzone attempt when Simi was open. He also threw a duck in the redzone that was sure to be points. A holding penalty on wedington on a nice gain before the above play. Kyu Kelly surrendering a PI to get Colorado to the final game winning position or adebo with a face mask.
If you play close games far too often, the variance catches up. Good teams put bad competition away. Stanford is not one such team this season due to injuries and some poor play calling.
However, I am very much con bend-dont-break. Yes it works from a ppg as people have pointed out. But it doesn’t create opportunities for the other side with field position, creates softer play and less instinctual. I don’t mind the occasional glitchy game if it creates more fun to see tackles.
Btw the best takeaway was your last line. It starts right from spring camp. Remember not having enough to scrimmage which leaves so many rough edges in game time. With the lack of continuity and chemistry, this is a team with the sum of parts showing way less than the talent it contains.
By layman on 11.13.19 9:11am
Stanford Lacks Talent
I disagree. I don’t think the team has the raw talent this year. The team has only played one solid game – against the Huskies – but even then the offense wasn’t that great. No outstanding players that will be drafted in the first 5 rounds if at all except maybe Adobo. Backups and walk-ons playing often. The whole team looks slow and sluggish with no spark. Penalties constantly occur at inopportune times. Hardly any turnovers. I could go on and on. To be perfectly honest, Stanford is probably the worst team in the Pac 12. I think even OSU is a better team consistently and Stanford was very, very fortunate to beat them. Turns out, the win against Northwestern is nothing to brag about as they are also a terrible team this year (one win to date). The farm boys are mired in mediocrity and there is little hope for the rest of this season especially now with injuries sending out Costello and Adebo for the next two games at least. Rain is predicted in the Palouse and could help a bit but WSU seems to have our number (3 straight losses) and we cannot mount any pressure on the QB and poor pass defense, we are in trouble. If we keep the AXE this year it will be a miracle but if Stanford does win the Big Game it will be the one and only redeeming memory of this dreadful season.
By gaffman on 11.13.19 6:54pm
Shaw Does Not Get It
At the press conference he said that he had rewatched the game a number of times and that "we were very close" (to executing successfully), just did not get there. I guess, sort of. It’s always the execution, not the plan.
If KJ suffered an injury serious enough to shut him down for the WSU game, why was he still playing in Colorado? Not sure when it might have happened but given the poor performance of the offense, was the injury an issue? It is not like Davis Mills has not shown he can play.
I am sympathetic for Shaw trying to coach his way through the injuries we have suffered. But it is by no means the whole story of our inconsistency and ineptitude.
WSU on the road will be a real challenge.
By hoyaparanoia on 11.14.19 1:50am