The CardBoard
What? Stanford's not doomed? - 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: What? Stanford's not doomed? (/thread-3297.html)


What? Stanford's not doomed? - yvonne - 05-08-2012

This video didn't make the Pac-12 or Stanford ESPN blogs. It's a roundtable that's by and large optimistic about the team's chances next season.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/61143/video-top-20-roundtable-stanford

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - Farm93 - 05-08-2012

Those that might search the available "Way Too Early Top 25 Rankings" at various sites will find that Stanford routinely is located in the #7 - #15 range.  While that might not translate into a BCS Bowl season, at least not for a private school from the Pac-12, it would represent a decent season.

Luck's departure is the biggest recent test yet, but most "experts" seem to agree that it is far from a glass 1/2 full situation.

But the real news is that ESPN commentators actually know the Stanford program now.  None of those "Cardinals" or "Their OL" or "The new QB" type language that seemed to plague Stanford a few years ago.  Throughout the conversation there was a real ability by multiple people to recall specific players and coaches, and throughout the discussion they had ample ESPN footage to feature key points.  Ahhh.... :)

College Football Live Round Table: Stanford Football - Hank 91 - 05-08-2012

A pretty in-depth Stanford preview. They didn't uncover anything new ("It's going to be hard to replace Andrew Luck..."), but they make some good points. Most interesting, they talk a bit about how Stanford has actually become a national power, not just a team that had the stars align for a year or two. Of course, Jesse Palmer thinks Ryan Hewitt is the #2 wide receiver, but in general they do a good job. It's six minutes long, and definitely worth your time.

http://tinyurl.com/6o7zgs3

Re: College Football Live Round Table: Stanford Football - Hank 91 - 05-08-2012

Sorry, Yvonne -- just noticed that you had already posted a link to this. You're much too quick.

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - yvonne - 05-08-2012

No worries. It sure took ESPN long enough to add it to the Stanford blog.

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - ChicagoCard - 05-09-2012

Herbstreit calls out the secondary. So just what is it going to look like? I think cornerback could be improved but that is based on the hope that an unproven player steps in and does really well (i.e. Lyons). I personally felt good about Terrence Brown last year but he seemed to always be under the radar screen. I thought safeties were over-rated. Have hope not only for Lyons but Jordan Richards. No clue about other safety.

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - pcgoode - 05-09-2012

For me, the biggest issue with the secondary last season was tackling in space, particularly vs the run.  While there were injuries in the secondary last year, even when they had a full complement of starters or close to it, the secondary was just not making the tackles they needed to when opposing offences broke through the front seven.  The Cardinal secondary needs to improve substantially in this regard.  I am not as concerned about pass coverage as some others.  The defense only gave up over 300 yards passing once (Fiesta Bowl).  Would have been difficult to completely shut down Weedon-Blackmon combo completely - they were going to get some decent yards whoever was in the secondary. 

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - ChicagoCard - 05-09-2012

(05-09-2012, 12:11 PM)pcgoode link Wrote:For me, the biggest issue with the secondary last season was tackling in space, particularly vs the run.  While there were injuries in the secondary last year, even when they had a full complement of starters or close to it, the secondary was just not making the tackles they needed to when opposing offences broke through the front seven.  The Cardinal secondary needs to improve substantially in this regard.  I am not as concerned about pass coverage as some others.  The defense only gave up over 300 yards passing once (Fiesta Bowl).  Would have been difficult to completely shut down Weedon-Blackmon combo completely - they were going to get some decent yards whoever was in the secondary.

You're right. Except, and I hate to re-visit this, even though you're right about Weedon-Blackmon and OK St's offense, even a little more pressure on them by a more capable secondary would have forced a few more stops and tipped the balance. So looking forward, for S.U. this year their front seven could be really, really good but they'll still be burned a bit by the likes of Oregon, USC and whoever they might play in a bowl game unless their secondary somehow is better. Personally, I am hopeful about T. Brown and W. Lyons and keeping my fingers crossed that others emerge at safety. Can you imagine what the Washington game last year would have looked like if S.U. had had a good secondary?

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - pcgoode - 05-09-2012

No doubt SC will have a very good passing attack this year, but they did last year as well.  Playing at home vs the Cardinal in 2011 they were under 300 yards passing (284 to be exact, and I believe that total included the triple overtime yardage, so not as impressive as the numbers would otherwise indicate). This year they face the Cardinal at Stanford without a proven left tackle and some serious depth issues on both sides of the ball, and Stanford's front seven on D are looking really good.  Oregon didn't pass much against the Cardinal in the 2011 game - a grand total of 155 yards.  The Ducks have lost their starting QB and LMJ - hard for me to imagine that doesn't effect them at all (although admittedly KB and DT are pretty amazing athletes). 

My own optimistic scenario is that the Cardinal win either against SC or Oregon this year (I realize this is a tall order, but the Card have had SC's number for a few years now, and it wasn't that long ago that the Card beat the Ducks in Eugene), and run the table vs the rest of their opponents.  This might be enough to get back into the BCS.  For this to happen the front seven on the Card D will have to consistently shut down the run and passes that take some time to develop.  The secondary will have to make tackles in space more consistently than they did last year.  I am hopeful that the secondary can improve their tackling, as I think that can be coached for those who have the right attitude (vs. not having enough speed, which I don't think is as much of an issue as others think).  The offence will need to develop cohesion on the O-line pretty quickly for the power running game, and Nottingham/Nunes will need to be able to run play action effectively to keep opposing D's off balance.

My less optimistic scenario is that the Card lose to both SC and Oregon but run the table vs everyone else.  The two teams that some others have been giving others pause, Washington and ND, have had a number of issues in the off-season, so I would be disappointed if they lost to either of them, even on the road.  I doubt this kind of record would get the Card back into the BCS, but given what we lost in the NFL draft, would still be a good season.  In my mind anything more than two losses in the regular season in 2012 would be a bit disappointing.       

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - 97fan - 05-09-2012

pcgoode -- Your less-optimistic scenario sounds fantastic to me. 10-2 the year after our All-American QB leaves? That would be tremendous.

What's fun about this off-season is that there's a more uncertainty about our team than in other recent years. Quarterback is obviously up for grabs. At left tackle, right guard, and wide receiver, first-year players may be in the mix for serious playing time. At each of those spots, guys could emerge and just blow the coaches out of the water, but we could also end up disappointed.

Cornerback is another key spot. No one's been talking much about Alex Carter, but I think he could make a big difference in our secondary, even as a freshman. Carter was the #57 recruit in the nation according to Rivals. Only three DBs in the country were rated higher than he was. In the defensive backfield, recruits rated this high often contribute as true freshmen. If Carter emerges as a quality starter, I have to believe that would free up Wayne Lyons for a switch to safety, which would provide a boost to both units. I think Carter is the key to whether our secondary can be a strength, rather than merely adequate, next year.

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - pcgoode - 05-09-2012

97fan - totally agree on Carter. Shaw has said a few times he will play corner, and I am hopeful he will develop relatively quickly. I think he will do reasonably well in coverage - the real trick will be his tackling. The other freshman on D that I am keen on is Shittu. He has the size and quickness to be a good one - seems to be a real character as well. I think a lot of the other recruits on D will be good eventually, but won't see a lot of action in 2012.

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - yvonne - 05-09-2012

Stanny Boys!

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - washingtonismoney - 05-09-2012

(05-09-2012, 12:11 PM)pcgoode link Wrote:I am not as concerned about pass coverage as some others.  The defense only gave up over 300 yards passing once (Fiesta Bowl).  Would have been difficult to completely shut down Weedon-Blackmon combo completely - they were going to get some decent yards whoever was in the secondary.

That's a very deceptive stat. Raw yardage isn't necessarily relevant to assessing a team defense. Per-play statistics are more relevant. And in that respect we were decidedly mediocre last year: http://www.ruleoftree.com/2012/4/20/2962961/how-good-can-we-expect-the-defense-to-be-anyway

That said, it's too simple to attribute the blame solely on the defensive backs--linebackers have coverage responsibilities too. Jarek Lancaster was a good tackler, both in space and in a phone booth, but he got a few glaring pass penalties (which may or may not be a sign of overall deficiencies).

It's hard to know what to expect overall from the defensive backs. Brown is a credible CB. But Browning played above Lyons in the spring game; perhaps the hype came a little too early for him? I feel fairly good about Jordan Richards at safety, but the other spot is a question mark. Hopefully Alex Carter can come in and make an impact at corner--he's certainly really talented.

Re: What? Stanford's not doomed? - pcgoode - 05-09-2012

Statistics can be made to show just about anything you want - context is important. On that note, remember that the Cardinal did not trail in a game in 2011 until they played SC. Teams that are trailing will usually throw the ball more than they would otherwise, which I think makes the Cardinal numbers vs the pass look better.  Also, remember this is the PAC 12, aka the conference of quarterbacks, which may make their defensive stats vs the pass look a little more impressive compared to other teams outside the conference.

On the down side, the Cardinal D didn't exactly overwhelm its opposition with interceptions in 2011. I think I saw one of the coaches (Shaw?) in a post-season interview as saying this would need to improve.