The CardBoard
Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - 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: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places (/thread-16239.html)

Pages: 1 2

Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - GoodGrief - 08-06-2018

https://deadspin.com/if-stanfords-defense-can-hold-the-line-the-cardinal-ar-1828089969

Opening sentence: "I sure hope Stanford fans are soaking up every season they get with David Shaw."

Also: "Bryce Love is A Guy You Should Already Know. He’s the best running back in all of college football and, for some wonderful reason, we get to watch him zip through college defenses for an entire extra season."

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - Langdude - 08-06-2018

Some good observations, and also some personnel comments that made me wonder how much he actually knows about the team and its players.

-m.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - TinderForMidgets - 08-06-2018

This writer really thinks we're pretentious for some reason. He took a Shaw quote out of context and some Duane Akina's old crazy man rants on twitter to call us pretentious.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - ChicagoCard - 08-06-2018

(08-06-2018, 02:49 PM)GoodGrief Wrote:  https://deadspin.com/if-stanfords-defense-can-hold-the-line-the-cardinal-ar-1828089969
"I sure hope Stanford fans are soaking up every season they get with David Shaw."

What an obnoxious *&%^*.

Edit: Sorry. Thanks, software.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - Phogge - 08-06-2018

I remember a time when a sportswriter didn’t have to use a swear word.

Another guy who doesn’t realize that Palma didn’t get many snaps last year. His defense predictions could have been gleaned from, say about 500 articles written since January.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - Griffins78 - 08-06-2018

(08-06-2018, 05:52 PM)ChicagoCard Wrote:  
(08-06-2018, 02:49 PM)GoodGrief Wrote:  https://deadspin.com/if-stanfords-defense-can-hold-the-line-the-cardinal-ar-1828089969
"I sure hope Stanford fans are soaking up every season they get with David Shaw."
What an obnoxious *&%^*.
This guy is not worth reading. He makes a “total ass” of himself attacking and trying to denigrate Shaw repeatedly. It is the main point he tries to make. Skip the article and don’t give him clicks. There’s nothing new and his opinion is worthless.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - winflop - 08-06-2018

While the headline is accurate, the article is a POS from someone who didn't do a lot of research
- Calling Shaw an a-hole...yeah not gonna win over a lot of people. Show the man some respect ffs
- Calling the recruting plan "playing small-ball" shows a complete lack of ignorance of the fact that the pool of kids whose academic and athletic credentials are good enough for a Stanford scholarship is pretty damn small to begin with, typically <100 per year
- Losing Palma is not an issue. He didn't start, even when Barton went down
- Costello not a game-changer. Did he watch ANY of last year's games, especially UCLA?
- Love did not "test NFL waters" but he assumes that if a guy that good doesn't go pro after his third year in the program it has to be because he tested poorly
- If Perez is starting, we're screwed. It needs to be Barton alongside Okereke

This guy is pretty much an a**hat.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - SamuelMcF - 08-06-2018

(08-06-2018, 09:05 PM)winflop Wrote:  While the headline is accurate, the article is a POS from someone who didn't do a lot of research
- Calling Shaw an a-hole...yeah not gonna win over a lot of people. Show the man some respect ffs
- Calling the recruting plan "playing small-ball" shows a complete lack of ignorance of the fact that the pool of kids whose academic and athletic credentials are good enough for a Stanford scholarship is pretty damn small to begin with, typically <100 per year
- Losing Palma is not an issue. He didn't start, even when Barton went down
- Costello not a game-changer. Did he watch ANY of last year's games, especially UCLA?
- Love did not "test NFL waters" but he assumes that if a guy that good doesn't go pro after his third year in the program it has to be because he tested poorly
- If Perez is starting, we're screwed. It needs to be Barton alongside Okereke

This guy is pretty much an a**hat.

Here's more:
- Forgot that Dylan Jackson is a returning starter on the DL
- Said Buncom and Simmons are "new talent" despite having multiple years of game experience each

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - Hulk01 - 08-07-2018

The writer;s lack of knowledge of Stanford football becomes obvious when he mentions Ryan Beecher's health as an issue for Stanford at ILB.

And yes, Frank Buncom begins his fourth year in the program and has six career pass breakups and four interceptions.  Far from being even a relative newcomer.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - CTcard - 08-07-2018

I ended up liking that article much more than I expected to after reading the comments here. Maybe it is just the contrarian in me. 

Of course there were annoying things. It appears that this Nick Martin guy thinks his schtick is being the sarcastic, annoying guy. I guess it worked - he was annoying. 

He's also apparently totally bought into the standard sports-reporter line that college sports should be professional sports. He apparently hasn't bothered to figure out what Shaw is trying to say about the issue (and I would note that Shaw so clear on the matter, but I think I understand his position). Mr. Martin might still disagree with Shaw, but his disagreement would carry more weight if he bothered to understand what Shaw's position actually is. 

The third really annoying thing (to me), is that he uses phrases in a manner different than their standard meaning. As far as I can tell, he calls Stanford's recruiting approach "small-ball" not because Stanford isn't trying to recruit the very best, but rather simply that they put out a smaller number of offers and the offers tend to be real. [Or at least that is what the article he links to says. His own following sentence meant to back up his statement refers to a small Stanford incoming class - which is an entirely different thing associated with Stanford not running off many players.] It would seem that was meant to be a compliment. 


But, after the annoying parts, he does describe Stanford's football situation in a manner that is roughly correct and may be useful to the rather broad college football audience that does not follow Stanford in particular. 

Most likely, Stanford will be led by its offense this year, and the offense will feature Love. Stanford's offense should be "one of the best offenses it has fielded since the time when Andrew Luck could still throw a football." [Of course that is a bit of a minimalist statement, it doesn't take all that much to be "one of" the best offenses at Stanford in the past six years.]
I take some exception to his description of Costello's potential, but he is correct that QB play is probably Stanford's biggest open question on offense. 

The defense, at the least, has to find some answers up front. The author had some issues discussing Stanford's personnel - and he's a little too dependent upon what 247sports designated recruits' positions rather than checking what Stanford viewed their position to be - but he is correct that Stanford has had some LB recruiting issues (which will be more of an issue starting next year than this). 


And if you want faint praise, this article is better than his 2015 preview of Stanford where he claimed that the team had no chance to win 10 games, would be a defense-only team, and just maybe that McCaffrey guy could manage 700 yards on the season.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - ChicagoCard - 08-07-2018

(08-07-2018, 08:49 AM)CTcard Wrote:  The third really annoying thing (to me), is that he uses phrases in a manner different than their standard meaning.

In other words he's semiliterate.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - Hulk01 - 08-07-2018

Surprised that a writer with a good (Duke) education would call a wringer a ringer. 

The talk that Shaw doesn't think well of Southerners?  His dad's from Alabama and his mom's from Louisiana.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - stupac2 - 08-07-2018

(08-07-2018, 10:17 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:  Surprised that a writer with a good (Duke) education wouldn't call a wringer a ringer. 

The talk that Shaw doesn't think well of Southerners?  His dad's from Alabama and his mom's from Louisiana.

I think this is just a Deadspin thing. Their schtick is being edgy. My guess is other previews are written similarly. It's usually annoying when it's your team, but sometimes it's amusing (I always like Drew Magary's "Why Your Team Sucks" NFL previews).

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - Langdude - 08-07-2018

(08-07-2018, 06:14 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:  The writer;s lack of knowledge of Stanford football becomes obvious when he mentions Ryan Beecher's health as an issue for Stanford at ILB.

Yes, I caught that, too. That comment, along with not mentioning Dylan Jackson, assuming Barton will not start, and calling Buncom a "newcomer" were the biggest red flags that this dude does not do sufficient research. HOT TAKE: STANFORD IS ELITIST! HOT TAKE: YOUNG QUARTERBACKS ARE UNKNOWN QUANTITIES! HOT TAKE: IT IS DIFFICULT TO REPLACE ALL-AMERICANS! HOT TAKE: BRYCE LOVE IS GOOD! AND I AM GOING TO MIX IN SOME IRREVERENCE AND SWEARS, AND I'LL PROMOTE PAYING ATHLETES, WITHOUT ENGAGING ARGUMENTS, AS IF IT IS A SETTLED ISSUE! I'M SO EDGY!

-m.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - CornFed - 08-07-2018

This article was essentially clickbait.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - Hulk01 - 08-07-2018

(08-07-2018, 02:14 PM)CornFed Wrote:  This article was essentially clickbait.

That describes almost everything article available online about college football.  No one knows as much about Stanford football, or writes as intellligently about it, as the members of these Stanford message boards.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - CornFed - 08-07-2018

I find this article much more interesting.  That is probably because there has been limited discussion in detail here about the effect that Osiris-Brown might have on our O.  Sounds like it might be the effect that folks here were hoping Donald Stewart might have, which really hasn't materialized.

https://www.ruleoftree.com/2018/8/5/17535302/position-preview-why-the-wide-receivers-will-be-different

Reading this, a peripheral thought occurred to me.  If Brown (or someone) had this effect, would it be marginally mitigated by reduced explosiveness from Bryce Love.  If the X receiver were this impactful, it would presumably be more than worth it.  By a lot.  I am hopeful that Brown could be that guy.  The author ends with a mighty audacious assessment.  I've got my fingers crossed.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - winflop - 08-08-2018

(08-07-2018, 10:42 AM)stupac2 Wrote:  
(08-07-2018, 10:17 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:  Surprised that a writer with a good (Duke) education wouldn't call a wringer a ringer. 

The talk that Shaw doesn't think well of Southerners?  His dad's from Alabama and his mom's from Louisiana.

I think this is just a Deadspin thing. Their schtick is being edgy. My guess is other previews are written similarly. It's usually annoying when it's your team, but sometimes it's amusing (I always like Drew Magary's "Why Your Team Sucks" NFL previews).

Being edgy is fine. Just do your friggin homework.

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - CTcard - 08-08-2018

(08-07-2018, 03:07 PM)CornFed Wrote:  I find this article much more interesting.  That is probably because there has been limited discussion in detail here about the effect that Osiris-Brown might have on our O.  Sounds like it might be the effect that folks here were hoping Donald Stewart might have, which really hasn't materialized.

https://www.ruleoftree.com/2018/8/5/17535302/position-preview-why-the-wide-receivers-will-be-different

I agree that the article is interesting in a "wouldn't it be nice" kind of way. 

However, that author provides no actual evidence that Brown will be that guy - or will be this year, ignores evidence to the contrary, and just gets a ton of things wrong. 

First off, it seems to be from the same guy who wrote an article about Costello we were discussing about a week ago. What bugs me most is that he keeps saying that Stanford mostly passes out of the pistol formation. As far as I can tell, the pistol is about the only formation Stanford doesn't use (or at least rarely uses). He seems to be referring to Stanford's relatively standard shotgun formation, with the back more or less beside the QB. I guess it's just terminology and by itself doesn't matter much. 

More substantively, Stanford has a deep threat of a sort already, or sort of two. 
The main one is JJAW. He is not a burner, but I'd say faster than most people seem to give him credit for. Fast or slow, he gets down the field. He averaged 16.27 yds/catch last year, which not only was 3rd in the conference among guys who caught enough passes to be eligible (2 per game - and JJAW had a lot more catches than the two guys ahead of him), but that is a bigger number than Montgomery ever put up who was the example of a deep threat used by the author. While Montgomery was fast enough, his big strength was … strength - and he had notorious difficulties hauling in the long ball. JJAW's yds/catch is the third largest number a qualifying WR has put up at Stanford over the past decade, just beaten out by Rector in 2015 (16.44) and twice by Cajuste 2014 (16.38) and 2013 (22.93). 
The second deep threat, of a somewhat different type, is at TE. Stanford has made deep threats out of its TEs for years, notably Fleener in 2011 (19.62). Last year Smith averaged a substantial 18.00 yds/catch, but was  5 catches short of qualifying (he had 23). 

The next issue is Brown himself. He might be fast on the scale of Stanford's WRs, but I cannot find much indication that he is a real burner. 
The good news is that there were reports out of spring camp that Brown was beating everybody deep, though I don't remember seeing that in the spring game (is that just my memory?). Obviously I hope it's true, but hard to know what to make of each and every positive comment floating out of training camp. 
The recruiting services analysis of Osiris included comments like "great hands" "great route runner" "good length". The comments I could find on speed included "things to work on: speed" or "has surprising speed" (which could be either good or a back-handed compliment). 

Also on Brown, while he may end up an excellent deep threat and I have high hopes he'll be a star in the future, I haven't heard anything that suggests he is going to emerge as a dominant receiver this year. Certainly not at the scale the author is talking about. (which is a little confusing, as he says Stanford hasn't had a dominant receiver since Zach Ertz, but also is looking for somebody to be like Ty Montgomery who was playing two years after Ertz). I suspect that our dominant receiver this year will be JJAW, though he may not be a dominant receiver to the level the author is looking for. 

Finally, I don't think anything is going to keep opponents from stacking the box against us this year, Love is just too good. What I hope will happen is that we will then make teams par for that stacking by hitting big plays over the top (clearly something that Shaw likes to do - though we've been hit or miss on how successful we've been at it).

RE: Deadspin: If Stanford defense holds, the Cardinal is going places - OutsiderFan - 08-08-2018

All Publicity is good publicity.  A decade ago, no national outlets would be writing articles about Stanford football.