Inside the Numbers : Stanfurd
Well, here it goes again. The nervous feelings. The pit of the stomach. A Cal fan never feels confident against Stanford. Especially not one who came of age during the Holmoecaust. And ESPECIALLY not one who just watched the last two Cal games. This has been an up and down season for Cal. Rough losses. Big victories. It's almost over and we (hopefully) have a soft landing at the end. Although Stanford has clearly shown some vivacity this season. They managed to do two things we couldn't, beat OSU and Arizona.
And score more than 3 points against USC. Let's take a look at the nuts and bolts of this Stanford team to see who we will be facing off against tomorrow.
Here it goes again......
Finally, we've been posting a lot recently. Check it: YouTube Thurday, Roundtable, B-Ball Recap; Arizona analysis; Marshawn v. Browns; Top25; Bowl Scenarios; OSU Thoughts; Pete Newell Memories; Big Game Memories

All numbers are from here.
| TEAM STATISTICS | STAN | OPP |
| SCORING | 299 | 292 |
| Points Per Game | 27.2 | 26.5 |
| FIRST DOWNS | 202 | 238 |
| Rushing | 111 | 87 |
| Passing | 72 | 127 |
| Penalty | 19 | 24 |
| RUSHING YARDAGE | 2272 | 1548 |
| Yards gained rushing | 2577 | 1920 |
| Yards lost rushing | 305 | 372 |
| Rushing Attempts | 453 | 389 |
| Average Per Rush | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Average Per Game | 206.5 | 140.7 |
| TDs Rushing | 25 | 18 |
| PASSING YARDAGE | 1514 | 2619 |
| Att-Comp-Int | 248-139-12 | 374-236-6 |
| Average Per Pass | 6.1 | 7.0 |
| Average Per Catch | 10.9 | 11.1 |
| Average Per Game | 137.6 | 238.1 |
| TDs Passing | 10 | 15 |
| TOTAL OFFENSE | 3786 | 4167 |
| Total Plays | 701 | 763 |
| Average Per Play | 5.4 | 5.5 |
| Average Per Game | 344.2 | 378.8 |
| KICK RETURNS: #-Yards | 52-1172 | 57-1198 |
| PUNT RETURNS: #-Yards | 21-222 | 13-71 |
| INT RETURNS: #-Yards | 6-102 | 12-119 |
| KICK RETURN AVERAGE | 22.5 | 21.0 |
| PUNT RETURN AVERAGE | 10.6 | 5.5 |
| INT RETURN AVERAGE | 17.0 | 9.9 |
| FUMBLES-LOST | 23-9 | 29-14 |
| PENALTIES-Yards | 76-689 | 80-684 |
| Average Per Game | 62.6 | 62.2 |
| PUNTS-Yards | 49-1980 | 47-1789 |
| Average Per Punt | 40.4 | 38.1 |
| Net punt average | 38.1 | 31.6 |
| TIME OF POSSESSION/Game | 29:35 | 30:25 |
| 3RD-DOWN Conversions | 53/137 | 65/149 |
| 3rd-Down Pct | 39% | 44% |
| 4TH-DOWN Conversions | 7/12 | 6/10 |
| 4th-Down Pct | 58% | 60% |
| SACKS BY-Yards | 33-237 | 17-118 |
| MISC YARDS | -20 | 0 |
| TOUCHDOWNS SCORED | 37 | 35 |
| FIELD GOALS-ATTEMPTS | 13-15 | 15-19 |
| ON-SIDE KICKS | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| RED-ZONE SCORES | 37-39 95% | 40-50 80% |
| RED-ZONE TOUCHDOWNS | 30-39 77% | 25-50 50% |
| PAT-ATTEMPTS | 34-35 97% | 33-33 100% |
| ATTENDANCE | 171292 | 350631 |
| Games/Avg Per Game | 5/34258 | 6/58438 |
| Neutral Site Games | 0/0 |
Ok, let's look at some general stats first. We saw teams like OSU and USC just racking up the points and yards and first downs against their opponents. Stanford has barely outscored their opponents. They have fewer first downs. Fewer yards. The breakdown of offense is indicative of their style of offense. Tons more rushing yards than passing yards. 700 more. Clearly a run first team, the very kind of team that Cal plays well. They've actually even run fewer plays than their opponents.
Their 3rd down % is worse than their opponents. I feel that, looking at these numbers, we can handle this team if we play to our ability.
| RUSHING | GP | Att | Gain | Loss | Net | Avg | TD | Long | Avg/G |
| Gerhart, Toby | 11 | 191 | 1069 | 36 | 1033 | 5.4 | 14 | 46 | 93.9 |
| Kimble, Anthony | 11 | 112 | 716 | 28 | 688 | 6.1 | 6 | 83 | 62.5 |
| Loukas, Alex | 9 | 36 | 223 | 37 | 186 | 5.2 | 1 | 29 | 20.7 |
| Pritchard, Tavita | 11 | 58 | 268 | 140 | 128 | 2.2 | 1 | 40 | 11.6 |
Well, here it is. The crux of Stanford. The key to Stanford. Toby Gerhart. The Quizz of Stanford. The Jeremiah Johnson of Stanford. The every USC RB on that fucking team of Stanford. He has almost 200 attempts on the year. He's averaging 5.4 a carry, which I believe is more than Quizz. Almost 100 yards a game. He's the biggest part of their offense. If we can shut him down, we will be able to control this game, I believe. Said the same thing about Quizz, though, and we saw what happened there.
He's backed up by Anthony Kimble, who I know little about to be honest. His numbers look better than Gerhart, but in a more limited role. More yards per carry but about a hundred fewer carries. The main focus is Gerhart. If Kimble and Gerhart are both destroying us, then it could be a LOOONG day.
Toby Gerhart via grfx.cstv.com
| PASSING | GP | Effic | Cmp-Att-Int | Pct | Yards | TD | Long | Avg/G |
| Pritchard, Tavita | 11 | 113.4 | 125-217-10 | 57.6 | 1327 | 9 | 61 | 120.6 |
| Loukas, Alex | 9 | 115.6 | 9-18-1 | 50.0 | 125 | 1 | 41 | 13.9 |
| Forcier, Jason | 4 | 63.1 | 5-13-1 | 38.5 | 62 | 0 | 26 | 15.5 |
| Total.......... | 11 | 111.0 | 139-248-12 | 56.0 | 1514 | 10 | 61 | 137.6 |
| Opponents...... | 11 | 132.0 | 236-374-6 | 63.1 | 2619 | 15 | 55 | 238.1 |
Tavita Pritchard. Wasn't he the shmuckzoid that beat us last year? The name angers me to this day! Luckily, it appears he isn't very good. 120 yards a game. 57% completion rate. 113 QB efficiency. The passing game clearly not the strength of the team. That's why stopping Gerhart is so important. It's like the Oregon game. We were able to contain their run game and force them to pass. They couldn't. Masoli got 44 yards. If we can do the same here, we can control the game.
If we can force Pritchard to beat us, this game will most likely be ours. Similar to Masoli, also, he can scramble. He rushed for almost 50 yards against USC. But passingwise, he was 9-21 for about 100 yards.
Tavita Pritchard vtai grfx.cstv.com
| RECEIVING | GP | No. | Yards | Avg | TD | Long | Avg/G |
| Whalen, Ryan | 11 | 36 | 438 | 12.2 | 1 | 30 | 39.8 |
| Baldwin, Doug | 11 | 20 | 269 | 13.4 | 3 | 61 | 24.5 |
| Gunder, Austin | 11 | 15 | 123 | 8.2 | 1 | 18 | 11.2 |
| Kimble, Anthony | 11 | 12 | 88 | 7.3 | 1 | 15 | 8.0 |
| Gerhart, Toby | 11 | 11 | 100 | 9.1 | 0 | 21 | 9.1 |
As to be expected with the QB situation at Stanford, there are not great WR numbers. The leader, Whalen, averages less than 40 yards a game. Whalen leads the team with 36 receptions. I think there are like 4 WRs on Arizona with more than that. If these guys are beating us on Saturday, it means things have broken down. And bad.
Ryan Whalen via grfx.cstv.com
Ok, like GoDucks.com the Stanford website is freaking out. I've written the bottom portion out two times and it deletes it twice. Damn you, Stanford! You've rejected me yet again. So, I'll try to summarize my thoughts:
1. Arizona ran all over us, because we had to respect the pass so much. We were able to control Oregon, because we didn't need to respect their pass. On that spectrum, Stanford is far closer to Oregon. So, I think that this is the type of offense we can control. Gerhart will probably get his yards, similar to how JJ got his in Oregon. But hopefully, they will be empty yards. If Pritchard and Co. are passing all over us, it will be a LONG day. But I feel that given our defensive prowess, that will not happen. Hopefully!
2. On offense, I predict we see a LOT of running. Stanford just gave 300 yards each to USC and Oregon in their last 2 games. Now, of course, USC and Oregon are great running teams, no doubt about that. But we aren't exactly slouches. Apparently, Best is as healthy now as he has been in weeks. Plus, if our offensive line can play more like they did against Oregon than OSU and USC, I think we can give Riley the time he needs to make throws. On the road, they were abysmal. Hopefully, at home, it will be different.
Look, I get it. It's been a long season. An up and down season. Big wins. Crushing losses. And with our 2 crushing losses in a row there, you feel uncomfortable about the game. We all do. Plus, its Big Game. I was there in 2000 and 2001 when Stanford should have smacked us. But we held strong, losing at the way end (in OT in 2000). Throw the record books out in this one. But looking at the stats, looking at all the games, I feel reasonably confident that Cal can take this one. Our D is set up to stop a run-heavy offense as we face here. Our O is set up to run the ball a lot against weak run Ds as we face here. Let's get that axe back. Let's do this thing. Go Bears!
0 recs |
26
comments
| Add comment
|
Read Related
Comments
Isn't it the other way around on sacks?
The stat listed is “sacks by.” So stanfurd has made 33 sacks (near top of the conference) and given up just 17.
Realizing just how much Aaron Rodgers spoiled us.
by Ohio Bear on
Nov 21, 2008 7:17 AM PST
reply
0 recs
Duly noted. Sorry, I was writing this in a bit of haste, because chunks of it had vanished thanks to the Stanford D table. :(!
Please disregard the above ramblings as those of a clearly delusional fan.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Nov 21, 2008 7:38 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
Kimble's a very good back as well
Fortunately, from what I’ve seen, he’s just the chocolate version of Gerhart with not quite as much tail-end speed. They both do the same things. I haven’t watch too much of them, but they both are big, strong backs.
They have a great offensive line too…
...Scuzzlin fo a Jack in Da Box
by Thoroughbred on
Nov 21, 2008 7:26 AM PST
reply
0 recs
I don’t doubt that they have a great running game. But my hope is that our D is set up to contain that running game as we have done with MSU and Oregon previously. That puts the onus on Pritchard to beat us. Hopefully, he can’t and won’t!
Please disregard the above ramblings as those of a clearly delusional fan.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Nov 21, 2008 7:39 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
In the effort of developing my swagger: We are going to crush these bastards, Gerhart is going nowhere except to the group, if Kimble even shows up for the game he is going backwards all game long and Pritchard is going to our offensive MVP with all the picks he will give up and the sacks he’s going to take.
by CountDuku on
Nov 21, 2008 9:34 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
"If Kimble is destroying us, then things are truly bad."
I disagree, somewhat. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Harbaugh and the rest of the Furd staff haven’t dissected and contrasted Cal’s defensive performances against OSU and Zona compared to Ucla, Oregon, and MSU and have decided to feature Kimble as their back, using Gerhart as the short yardage & relief guy.
All that being said, I still like Cal’s defense against the Furd offense. In fact, I completely believe that Cal holds the Furd to less than 20 points (offensively). The pit in my stomach comes from the fact that Cal has yet to sustain a long drive, and our offense is so hit-and-miss that we may score fewer than 14 offensive points.
Go Bears!
by SoCal Oski on
Nov 21, 2008 7:52 AM PST
reply
0 recs
I meant that more as if if Kimble is destroying us, then Gerhart is ALSO destroying us. But I see the confusion there and accept the criticism. I will clarify.
Please disregard the above ramblings as those of a clearly delusional fan.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Nov 21, 2008 7:54 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
I don't think their secondary can cover our receivers, to be honest
We just need time in the pocket.
Osaisai, one of their CBs, is the Pac-10 100m champion (‘til Jahvid joins track), but he’s very raw and lacks coverage instincts. I believe he does either punt or kick returns too.
...Scuzzlin fo a Jack in Da Box
by Thoroughbred on
Nov 21, 2008 8:11 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
This is a good Stanford team
But I think Cal absolutely rolls tomorrow.
I share SoCal Oski’s concern about the Bears’ inability in recent weeks to sustain drives on offense. Indeed, Cal’s offense now ranks a horrid 111th in the country in third-down conversion percentage, at a paltry 29.7%.
That’s the bad news; here is the good news. The last two weeks for the Bears were not only on the road but against the 4th (OSU) and 6th (USC) best third-down-conversion defenses in the country. And guess who is #7: our own Cal Bears. Stanford, meanwhile, is way down in 95th place, and it gets even better for the Bears the following game, as Washington is #117 (out of 119). I thus expect Cal’s offense to rather suddenly get a lot better this weekend.
The only real source of concern for me, statistically, is that the Bears now rank 80th nationally in sacks allowed, while Stanford is #7 in sacks made. But this hasn’t prevented Stanford’s opponents from doing well in the passing game, as the Furd’s pass defense is statistically one of the worst in the conference.
Could Stanford end up controlling this game with Gerhart and Kimble? Yes. They average 5.0 yards per carry as a team, which is 19th best in the country. But USC (5.4) and Oregon (6.0) are even better, and the Bears were able to contain them pretty well.
The source for all these numbers:
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/mainpage.jsp
Go Bears!
by California Pete on
Nov 21, 2008 8:20 AM PST
reply
0 recs
should be up this afternoon
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on
Nov 21, 2008 9:51 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
should be interesting
not sure how to eat a cardinal and a tree.
The Maharg makes me look like an idiot.
by carp on
Nov 21, 2008 10:02 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
Reminder – trees don’t have meet, ergo the recipe should be vegetarian.
by Rishi on
Nov 21, 2008 10:24 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
We got you covered, Rishi
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on
Nov 21, 2008 10:28 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
"meet"?
is that some kind of tree sitting hippie vegitarian commie protien substance? ;)
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on
Nov 21, 2008 10:35 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
I think we will win, but because of visiting-team-Memorial-Stadium-suck-onset, not because we’re going to all of a sudden put 42 points up.
Other than our Oline vs their Dline, we have advantages at every matchup. Our WRs are better than their DBs, and our RBs are better than their Dline/LBs.
They’re going to try and blitz a lot to mess with Riley and our crappy Oline; but we have Best and Vereen, two guys who can kill blitz-opened backfields on swing/screen passes. They don’t really have this option.
Our DBs>their WRs/passing game, which will force them to run with their big lumbering backs. Our Dline plus our LBs > Gerhart and Kimble.
If we can get good field position or a special teams/defensive TD, I think we’ll be set.
Sheriff of the Welcome Team.
Welcome.
But Stop Arguing Nate vs. Kevin.
by Spazzy Mcgee on
Nov 21, 2008 11:06 AM PST
reply
0 recs
Agree with most, except Gerhart is surprisingly fast and shifty. Not just fast for a white guy, either. He’s just fast for a LB-sized guy. It’s pretty unsettling when you see him, and he’s definitely not lumbering.
...Scuzzlin fo a Jack in Da Box
by Thoroughbred on
Nov 21, 2008 11:38 AM PST
up
reply
0 recs
true...
…but the only significant defensive adjustment that SC made in the second half against Stanford was to bring a safety forward to defend on running plays, and that was more or less the end of that. Gerhart is good, but he is stoppable (eventually).
by DC Trojan on
Nov 21, 2008 1:01 PM PST
up
reply
0 recs
Yes. He is stoppable. SC’s safeties are otherworldly too.
...Scuzzlin fo a Jack in Da Box
by Thoroughbred on
Nov 21, 2008 1:06 PM PST
up
reply
0 recs
over/under on total # of punts for Cal and Cal + Stanfurd
I’m going with 6 and 15
The Maharg makes me look like an idiot.
by carp on
Nov 21, 2008 1:04 PM PST
up
reply
0 recs
I feel that OSU is a better team than Cal. However, if Cal didn’t have so many special team breakdowns in that game, it was definitely winnable. If Cal can keep the special team breakdowns to a minimum (and maybe get some solid punts out of Anger), then I think we can put ourselves in a solid position to win tomorrow. Its been a rough couple of games these past two games. However, both were winnable. Cal couldn’t seal the deal on the road, which is frustrating. But we are at home, so I think we should be able to seal the deal!
Please disregard the above ramblings as those of a clearly delusional fan.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Nov 21, 2008 5:43 PM PST
up
reply
0 recs
Look...
The bottom line is we’re going to kick Stanfurd’s pathetic asses. Should we lose – for the second year in a row – even diehards like myself may become disenchanted. Let us all pray this does not happen. Again, not a religious man, but with Cal football it never hurts to pray to the supposed Almighty…
"I look forward to a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose."
John F. Kennedy
by CaliSeth on
Nov 21, 2008 11:32 PM PST
reply
0 recs
Correction...
I meant to say disheartened, not disenchanted. I love the Bears too much to become disenchanted! Never, ever, will I become disenchanted! With me working about 80 hours a week to save my sorry job/ass, I have become delusional. The economy is tough, many of my friends have been laid off. It has literally become survival of the fittest out here guys! This is the fucking jungle man! As such I no longer have the luxury of getting drunk every night and spouting off here. That is why in my brief Friday night drunkery I used the wrong word I was looking for. My body is having trouble adjusting back to large amounts of hard grain alcohol…. Yikes!
GO BEARS!
BEAT THE WORTHLESS FUCKING FURD!
Spoiled trust fund babies can all burn in eternal HELL! Damnation to ALL! I pray for their parents stock portfolios to crash, so that they may all try to join the real world, were the will undoubtedly fail! Muah ha ha! Bitches!
"I look forward to a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose."
John F. Kennedy
by CaliSeth on
Nov 21, 2008 11:44 PM PST
up
reply
0 recs















