clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Stanford 55, Arizona 17: The Exorcism of bad David Shaw

New, 1 comment
Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images

Stanford 55, Arizona 17

Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.

Basics Arizona Stanford Nat'l Avg
Total Plays 67 69
Close Rate (non-garbage time) 54.4%
Avg Starting FP 21.9 33.4 29.6
Possessions 11 11
Scoring Opportunities*
3 9
Points Per Opportunity 5.67 6.11 4.72
Leverage Rate** 71.9% 73.8% 68.2%
Close S&P*** 0.446 0.739 0.583
* A scoring opportunity occurs when an offense gets a first down inside the opponent's 40 (or scores from outside the 40).
** Leverage Rate = Standard Downs / (Standard Downs + Passing Downs)
*** When using IsoPPP, the S&P formula is (0.8*Success Rate) + (0.2*IsoPPP)
EqPts (what's this?) Arizona Stanford
Total 28.0 55.5
Rushing 11.1 30.8
Passing 16.9 24.7
Success Rate (what's this?) Arizona Stanford Nat'l Avg
All (close) 37.5% 59.5% 41.4%
Rushing (close) 33.3% 62.5% 42.3%
Passing (close) 45.5% 55.6% 40.5%
Standard Downs 43.5% 67.7% 46.9%
Passing Downs 22.2% 36.4% 29.7%
IsoPPP (what's this?) Arizona Stanford Nat'l Avg
All (close) 0.73 1.31 1.26
Rushing (close) 0.80 1.01 1.07
Passing (close) 0.63 1.76 1.47
Standard Downs 0.51 1.20 1.10
Passing Downs 1.82 1.93 1.78
Line Stats Arizona Stanford Nat'l Avg
Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) 2.58 3.44 2.82
Std. Downs Sack Rt. 14.3% 0.0% 4.9%
Pass. Downs Sack Rt. 0.0% 14.3% 7.1%
Turnovers Arizona Stanford
Turnovers 0 0
Turnover Points (what's this?) 0.0 0.0
Turnover Margin +0
Exp. TO Margin Stanford +0.66
TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) Arizona +0.66
TO Points Margin +0
Situational Arizona Stanford
Q1 S&P 0.488 0.687
Q2 S&P 0.443 0.875
Q3 S&P 0.667 0.973
Q4 S&P 0.434 0.532
1st Down S&P 0.514 0.823
2nd Down S&P 0.542 0.797
3rd Down S&P 0.487 0.709
Projected Scoring Margin: Stanford by 27.5
Actual Scoring Margin: Stanford by 38

Stanford finished drives! Capitalizing on nine of its 11 scoring opportunities. Granted, it looked like bad David Shaw would grab a hold of this offense yet again with two first quarter field goals kicked inside of Arizona's 25 yard line, but the run game, and specifically the offensive line as a whole, were determined to not let that happen.

As for Arizona, boy did they miss Anu Solomon. Rich Rod decided to rotate quarterbacks Jerrard Randall and Brandon Dawkins, resulting in the Wildcat's offense inability to ever get going. All Stanford had to do was focus on stopping the run, which they did quite well. Arizona had a 20 play 73 yard drive that resulted in a Field Goal -- I can't even fathom how mad Rich Rod must've been to kick that field goal -- which I would have to assume goes against every idea of the spread offense.

Formations/Basics

Arizona Stanford
Backs-Wide % of Plays Yds/Play % of Plays Yds/Play
0 backs, 5 wide 10.6% 2.1
1 back, 2 wide 2.9% 1.5
1 back, 3 wide 1.5% 0.0 13.2% 11.1
1 back, 4 wide 59.1% 6.1 14.7% 15.1
2 backs, 0 wide 13.2% 4.1
2 backs, 1 wide 36.8% 8.6
2 backs, 2 wide 8.8% 3.2
2 backs, 3 wide 25.8% 3.2 7.4% 9.0
3 backs, 0 wide 2.9% 1.0
3 backs, 2 wide 3.0% 4.5
No Huddle? % of Plays Yds/Play
Arizona 100.0% 4.7
Stanford 4.4% 21.3
Arizona Stanford
Hash % of Plays Yds/Play % of Plays Yds/Play
Left 31.3% 2.8 47.1% 7.4
Middle 19.4% 4.5 16.2% 14.0
Right 49.3% 5.9 36.8% 7.2

Look at Stanford going with the no-huddle! They did that on one drive, it was right before halftime, and it resulted in a touchdown. Then Stanford resumed bludgeoning Arizona to a pulp for the rest of the game. 58.8% of the time they used two wide receivers or less and averaged a healthy 7.5 yards per play out of those sets. This game was never in doubt, even when Shaw was kicking field goals in the first quarter. Stanford even ran three plays out of the Wildcat! Not sure why, but they did.

Passing

Arizona Stanford
Passing Comp Rt Yds/Pass Passing Comp Rt Yds/Pass
Behind Line 3-4, 32 yards 75.0% 8.0 2-2, 7 yards 100.0% 3.5
0 to 4 2-8, 9 yards 25.0% 1.1 6-6, 63 yards 100.0% 10.5
5 to 9 6-8, 52 yards 75.0% 6.5 9-9, 81 yards 100.0% 9.0
10 to 19 4-6, 53 yards 66.7% 8.8 3-5, 63 yards 60.0% 12.6
20 to 29 2-3, 50 yards 66.7% 16.7 0-0, 0 yards N/A N/A
30-plus 0-4, 0 yards 0.0% 0.0 1-1, 42 yards 100.0% 42.0
Arizona Stanford
% Blitz: 17.1% 36.0%
Avg. Rushers 4.1 4.1
Passing (no blitz) 13-27, 157 yards, 2 sacks, 5.4 yds. per att. 14-15, 173 yards, 1 sacks, 10.8 yds. per att.
Passing (blitz) 4-6, 39 yards, 0 sacks, 6.5 yds. per att. 7-8, 83 yards, 1 sacks, 9.2 yds. per att.
Reason for INC/INT Arizona Stanford
QB Fault 12 0
Good Defense 2 1
WR Fault 2 0

When Kevin Hogan has time to throw, as the offensive line has been giving him this season, he's a good quarterback. His two (!!) incompletions were an overthrow as he was getting hit and just a good play by the Arizona defense in almost coming up with an INT. Hogan was only sacked once where it was a factor of UofA only rushing three and dropping eight into coverage. The Arizona defense couldn't generate a ton of pressure, and it was clear they missed Scooby Wright quite a bit.

Rushing

Arizona Stanford
Rush-Yds YPC Rush-Yds YPC
To Edge 4-14 3.5 5-39 7.8
Toward Tackle 5-10 2.0 4-78 19.5
Up Middle 11-21 1.9 6-10 1.7

The running game was explosive, as Barry Sanders Jr. had a 65-yard touchdown run where he wasn't even touched until Arizona's 3 yard line. Christian McCaffrey also had seven runs of over 10 yards. Arizona, as mentioned earlier, really struggled to do much of anything this game.

QB Activity

Arizona Stanford
QB Move Rushes-Yds Passes-Yds Sacks-Yds Rushes-Yds Passes-Yds Sacks-Yds
Rollout 1-0
Option - speed option 1-5 2-11
Option - zone read 6-45 1-6
QB Draw 7-36 1-2
Sack - in pocket 1-(-5) 1-(-9)
Sack - coverage sack 1-(-5) 1-(-5)

Keller Chryst was the one who did most of the running for Stanford (he also had an amazing block on a big McCaffrey run), with David Shaw utilizing the option game with Chryst at the helm. The one thing the Arizona QB's did do well was run the ball.

These are two programs with very different trajectories this season. Stanford looks to be the favorite in the North, and Arizona, especially without Solomon and Wright, looks to be on a downward trend.