Then again, he didn't need to say much.
"We played well," he said. "Played well. Played real well. It was good. It was good."
That was his opening statement.
And what more was there to say?
Okay, okay, everyone said a little bit more, but let's look first at just how dominant this victory was:
- The last time Stanford's allowed fewer points? November 2006. But that was to Denver.
- The last time Stanford's allowed fewer points to a Pac-10 team? February 2006. But that was to Washington State.
- The last time Stanford's allowed fewer points to a Pac-10 team with an offensive pulse (i.e. not Washington State)? 1982, a 42-34 loss to UCLA. (Of course, I don't think they had the shot clock then, which explains the thrilling 18-16 loss to Oregon State two years earlier.)
- The last time Stanford's won such a game (holding a non-WSU Pac-10 foe under 43)? 1962, 74-42 over Cal.
- Oregon last scored fewer points in 1991. They lost 78-39 at Montana.
- The Ducks' 29 percent shooting (14-of-48) was their season-worst – by a whopping 11 percent. They shot 40 percent in a December loss at Nebraska.
- And, for you Title IX enthusiasts out there, the men and the women beat Oregon by identical 72-43 scores tonight.
Okay, here's Trent Johnson:
We've been pretty consistent. With as good as Oregon is, I was more pleased with what happened at the offensive end. We defended, but also rebounded. Plus-3 [17-14 rebounding margin] at halftime, but I thought we were dominating. A lot of guys, any time you play a lot of guys, it's good.
The first time he's focused on offense first, instead of defense. He explains why in a minute.
On whether the game assuages his concerns about Hill:
I'm never worried about him. It went down for him today. It went down for him against Washington State.
I ask what he's pleased with that a casual fan might not notice:
Offensive execution and that we had an opportunity to play a lot of guys. I think it's pretty obvious whether you're a casual fan or an insider of the game, a coach, that we play physical defense, so if we get better offense, we have a chance to win a lot of basketball games.
With automatic first-half two-foul benching and not playing for late-game two-for-ones two big exceptions, Johnson's on the same page as the fan base more often than I appreciated prior to this season. Sometimes, he just doesn't say what we're all thinking.
Yeah, definitely. Porter's pretty much had his way with us. Mitch did a great job, and Drew did a good job.
On whether he'd describe the team as methodical:
Methodical's good. Grind, slug, all that's good.
On the defensive intensity:
Yeah, that's how we like it to be. We may not be that way the whole day. I look at our defensive efficiency and say that's what's going to take care of us. I'm not worried about shots because they're going to fall.
On the difference in Stanford's defense from the game in Eugene to this contest:
Our defensive help and our on-ball pressure. All week, we paid a lot of attention in practice to it. When guys got beat, we helped, but most of time guys didn't get beat.
I ask about Brook's effect on the offense:
It just opens up everything for everyone else. Brook's going to have an easier time scoring because they can't just focus on him.
On whether Brook's presence opens up the paint for him:
Teams are starting to rightfully pay a lot of attention to Brook, so he's starting to open the lane up for me. In this case, they did a lot of high screens, doubling down to the front, and bringing the double to post, so I make sure I'm ready to catch and shoot, catch and make plays. It was a good showing taking care of ball. That's how we practice, what they're going to do defensively. Brook does take up a lot of room, and it's great for us.
I know those quotes weren't the season's most inspiring (but they were shellshocked, I told you that right off the bat), so how about some bonus material from my fellow Detroiter Malik Hairston. He didn't lack for quotables, literally rattling them off by the sentence in this first paragraph. Talk about made-for-TV, I've never heard anything like it:
They dominated us on the glass. We killed ourselves on the perimeter. We couldn't make shots. It seemed like they had 10 blocks in the first half. You saw Oregon at their worst night. It's the most embarrassing loss of my senior year.
Chop those up, throw in some game footage, and there's your 11 o'clock news. Good thing, because Ernie Kent ducked the print reporters postgame.
On Hill's offensive performance:
Law Hill's a good player, good size, rebounds well. When they're shooting the basketball that much, they're that much better down inside.
I ask about Oregon's composure:
I don't think composure had anything to do with it. They were the aggressors. They dominated. It was a terrible effort by Oregon.
Malik, you know I've got love for the 313 (and Porter's a Detroiter too), but we're going to have to disagree. To my eyes, Oregon quit in that halftime locker room, if not earlier.
On the post defense:
We couldn't make shots. We took it inside, and couldn't make it at the rim. They changed a lot of shots.
Are you fully subscribed to The Bootleg? If not, then you are missing out on all the top Cardinal coverage we provide daily on our website, as well as our full-length feature articles in our glossy magazine. Sign up today for the biggest and best in Stanford sports coverage with TheBootleg.com (sign-up) and The Bootleg Magazine (sign-up)!