Three Offseason Questions: Stanford

Three Offseason Questions: Stanford - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Three Offseason Questions: Stanford (/thread-13797.html)

Three Offseason Questions: Stanford - SamuelMcF - 05-16-2017

http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/109438/three-offseason-questions-stanford-cardinal

My personal favorite quote in this article is that "Thanks to McCaffreys decision to skip the Alamo Bowl, Stanford got a glimpse into what life would be like without him and the results were mixed."

1. Indeed, McCaffrey skipped the Alamo Bowl. Our whole team did...to play in the Sun Bowl.
2. The results were great when Chryst was playing. Love played really well all game despite the QB change.

Re: Three Offseason Questions: Stanford - OutsiderFan - 05-16-2017

I don't need ESPN's blog to give me the questions that are most important.

1. Will Chryst be back healthy in time to start?

2. Will the OL improve its pass blocking?

3. How is Solomon Thomas replaced?

Anyone who asks "how will they replace McCaffrey?" just isn't very informed about Stanford football.

Re: Three Offseason Questions: Stanford - fullmetal - 05-16-2017

Kyle Bonagura, I am muchly disappoint.Â I expected much better from Kyle than making that Alamo Bowl statement... /facepalm

Also, one of his questions is whether Foster Sarell or Walker Little play from day 1--maybe an ice cube's chance in hell.Â David Shaw wants to see his freshmen absorb the legendarily large playbook before they see the field.Â Also, the frosh will need to settle into the daily grind of Stanford life a bit before adding the pressures and burdens that being a starter (and thus team leader?) entail.Â I mean, I'd love to see them excel on the field if they earn that position, but they're still going to be raw freshmen in the college game.

Re: Three Offseason Questions: Stanford - CTcard - 05-16-2017

(05-16-2017, 11:34 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I don't need ESPN's blog to give me the questions that are most important.

1. Will Chryst be back healthy in time to start?

2. Will the OL improve its pass blocking?

3. How is Solomon Thomas replaced?

Anyone who asks "how will they replace McCaffrey?" just isn't very informed about Stanford football.

(05-16-2017, 12:05 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Also, one of his questions is whether Foster Sarell or Walker Little play from day 1--maybe an ice cube's chance in hell.Â David Shaw wants to see his freshmen absorb the legendarily large playbook before they see the field.Â Also, the frosh will need to settle into the daily grind of Stanford life a bit before adding the pressures and burdens that being a starter (and thus team leader?) entail.Â I mean, I'd love to see them excel on the field if they earn that position, but they're still going to be raw freshmen in the college game.

I didn't think that article was so bad - outside of the trip up on the name of the bowl game we played. Though perhaps I just have low expectations. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that a national writer not uniquely focussed on Stanford would be as up to date on the minutiae of Stanford's situation as our best fans (i.e. us). Nevertheless, the article discussed three significant issues for the team, I would say probably three of the four most important.

For OF - Bonagura basically had two of your three issues. Chryst exactly, though he framed the OL issues in terms of the incoming frosh. That wouldn't be my choice, but it's a distinction without much difference. Then of the two stars we lost, he focused on the RB rather than the DL. Probably not where the team is most vulnerable, but it is not unreasonable.

Finally, I think it is more likely than not that Sarell and Little will play from day one, certainly at least one of them. As noted by Bonagura (correctly) we have had several OL play from day one and the current situation is both that the returnees have been more shaky and the new guys are more highly touted than these past cases. Despite common wisdom, Shaw seems to play a reasonable number of true frosh, and these are two likely candidates. For the most part Bonagura did not suggest these two would be starters, writing quite a bit about Stanford's extra linemen formations and the number of past frosh who have taken that role. He did finish off with the thought that both may be in the mix to start as well, which again doesn't seem unreasonable given the state of the OL and their reputation - after all Herbig started as a true frosh and he was a three star.

Re: Three Offseason Questions: Stanford - Phogge - 05-16-2017

Other issue. Will the high roller seats be less filled?

Re: Three Offseason Questions: Stanford - Goose - 05-16-2017

(05-16-2017, 10:42 AM)SamuelMcF link Wrote:http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/109438/three-offseason-questions-stanford-cardinal

The results were great when Chryst was playing.

Quote: Love played really well all game despite the QB change.

True.

Re: Three Offseason Questions: Stanford - SamuelMcF - 05-16-2017

(05-16-2017, 02:52 PM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=SamuelMcF link=topic=16896.msg193195#msg193195 date=1494956567]
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/109438/three-offseason-questions-stanford-cardinal

The results were great when Chryst was playing.

Great? That is a bit of a stretch in MHO. The score was 7 to 7 when Chryst got hurt, as I recall. It may be possible to give him credit for the ensuing FG, as Burns just lost yardage. The defense actually won the game.
[/quote]

I'll agree with you here from an objective standpoint. "Great" probably is a stretch.

I'm using "great" as a relative term... the QB who got hurt less than a quarter into the game was responsible for more points (I'll give him credit for the ensuing field goal since he got us down there on the run where he was hurt) than the QB who played the entire rest of the game...10-9. (Should've been 10-12 actually, but Conrad missed a FG somewhere in there.) IMHO, while the defense definitely did win us the game, we would've won by 2+ scores had Chryst not been hurt.