27-24, good guys.

Go Beavs

Here’s the yearly back and forth with Hank at GoMightyCard. My answers to his questions will be up at his website shortly.

1. When Mike Bloomgren left, quarterback coach Tavita Pritchard was elevated to offensive coordinator. There didn’t seem to be much of an external search, and most observers were a bit disappointed, thinking that Pritchard didn’t seem to have the résumé to warrant the promotion. We can never really know what’s going on in the coaching offices, but the speculation is that Pritchard is a figure head and that David Shaw is actually in charge of the offense. Shaw has said in the past that he leaves to the play calling to his coordinator, but that he takes over in the red zone. There has never been a public delineation of how the work is divided, but it’s been a huge source of contention in the fanbase. The other area in which Bloomgren is missed is the offensive line. He was in charge of that unit from 2011 to 2017, a stretch of time when Stanford football was defined by offensive line success. Since his departure… that hasn’t been the case. Stanford is currently dead last in the conference in rushing offense, something that would’ve been unthinkable five years ago.

2. No one, it seems, is lukewarm on Shaw. Discontent has been building for two or three years, and what once were whispers are now full-throated roars. What’s interesting is that many of your complaints about Jonathan Smith, specifically the aversion to risk on 4th down, are things we hear about Shaw. (It’s my guess that not even Smith is willing to punt from inside his opponent’s 30; Shaw is.) People are tired of Shaw’s conservative nature, and there’s a growing belief that he hasn’t done a good job managing his coaching staff. The mark of a good program is that coaches are routinely hired away by teams looking to replicate that program’s success. (Look at how Alabama cycles through coordinators.) While it might be difficult to replace quality coaches, the upside to that carousel is that new ideas come into the program. None of that has happened at Stanford in quite some time, and some fans are wondering if the current swoon might be because this staff, from to top bottom, isn’t properly preparing these players for success. There has been some inconsistent recruiting, but there is far too much talent on the offense for them to be performing as they have been. (In fairness, the offense is currently decimated by injuries, but that wasn’t true earlier in the season.) Just as many Oregon State fans were pleasantly surprised to see Smith firing a coordinator this week, many Stanford fans would be thrilled to see Shaw clean house a bit this off season. The next time he fires someone from his staff, however, will be his first. So we’ll see.

But to get back to your original question, Shaw is in no danger. Zero. I’d like to see him make some changes, but I’d also like him to be the head coach for the next twenty years.

3. Saturday’s loss to Utah was awful, certainly the worst of Shaw’s career. If you’re an optimist, you can convince yourself that this was a young Stanford team missing its starting quarterback and top three wide receivers. You’ll remind yourself that the team is incredibly young, particularly the offense. You’ll tell yourself that things will be better next year. But if you’re a pessimist — and there are LOTS of pessimistic Stanford fans right now — you’re convinced that the last ten years were a fluke and that Stanford football will never see the top half of the conference again. I’m an optimist. I’m not sure we’ll see another four-year stretch with three Rose Bowl appearances, but I still have faith in Davis Shaw, and I still believe things will be better next year.

4. The three best Stanford players this year have been quarterback Tanner McKee, tight end Ben Yurosek, and cornerback Kyu Blu Kelly. The problem for the Cardinal is that two of those three (McKee and Kelly) likely won’t play on Saturday. Kelly is definitely out, and McKee has been described as somewhere between doubtful and questionable. Given Shaw’s conservative approach to discussing player injuries, that means there’s about a 1% chance that McKee plays. In perhaps the most stunning personnel decision of his eleven years, Shaw announced that true freshman Ari Patu would start this Saturday if McKee is unable to go, a surprising acknowledgement of backup Jack West’s struggles against Utah. If Patu knows what’s good for him, he’ll be looking for Yurosek, who’s developing into Stanford’s next great tight end. Yurosek is a difficult cover for a linebacker, and if the Stanford offense is to have any chance at all of being effective, he’ll have to be heavily involved in the game plan. Aside from Yurosek, I don’t see any matchup advantages for Stanford on either side of the ball.

5. Given the recent struggles of the defense and the fact that a true freshman will be starting at quarterback, I just can’t imagine the Cardinal winning this one. I obviously hope I’m wrong, but this feel like a 27-10 Oregon State win.

Jonathan Smith demonstrated the backbone Riley never had, sacks Tibesar.
Sunday evening Smith makes the move for which many here were pleading, names Trent Bray to the interim DC job.

• What immediate changes to the on field results do you expect?
• What scheme changes can realistically be expected before the CW?
• What does Bray have to do to have the “interim” removed?
• Thoughts on how you expect the rest of the staff/team to react?
• Who can Bray change into the next Vontaze Burfict?

Have at it, a much more positive thread than the previous (very well named) Sunday Blues!

Feel free to go general……as always…(as if you degenerates need to be told)!

Let me know if you have any questions for the Stanford blogger, Hank of GoMightyCard. We’ll be doing our yearly routine.

Some thoughts on last night copied from the prior thread, in case you missed these. They sum up my feelings at this point in the Smith tenure. Don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful Smith brought in legit 3-star talent and made us respectable, but I don’t see how a guy with that type of [poor] feel is going to be the answer.

People seem to be making excuses that we’re not that good, etc…well the entire league is not that good, and we should be 8-1. Think about that. With boring “conservative” coaching, we’d very likely be 8-1. Sure, we can’t know definitely that punts and properly management of 4ths would have resulted in wins, but looking at the games in retrospect, very likely. I don’t buy we don’t have the talent. We don’t have the coaching talent. The one thing Smith has done very well is bring in legit 3-star talent, so I disagree we don’t have the talent. The HC is losing the games with reckless calls. I saw this first at Nevada in 2018 and commented on it that game as something to watch because the management was so extraordinarily stupid. Sure enough that pattern continued, and I’d say last night it got even worse, because Smith now doesn’t go for two when it IS the correct move. It’s almost like he realized his stupid decision earlier in the game and was trying to self-correct there. That’s a HC way too much in his own head. Need a HC with “feel”…hard to explain what that is, but you know it when you see it, and Smith doesn’t have it.

—

Just to back up my comment (which I made well before the TD). You go for two for a host of reasons:

1. You were gifted a 2nd life with the 60yd FG…
2. Defense is awful and even more winded than usual (altitude!).
3. On the road.
4. Both teams have to go for 2 next time anyway, so front run that…
5. Crowd was into it…12th man. Refs were going to start wanting to go home…

There are more reasons, but those are obvious.

Run Colletto and take your chances. That was your best play to win that particular game. If the coach is going off a play-sheet and has no feel for that, then he has to go. Will cost you too many games. Smith built up recruiting and got us close, and now someone good but mature has to take over.

Goooo Beavs.

Run da ball. 38-24