The CardBoard
14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - 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: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching (/thread-6516.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - StanFan88 - 01-02-2014

This was one of the most talented teams in the country that was let down by its offensive coaching staff

All three losses were mostly due to poor offensive gameplans and playcalling, with yesterday bein the worst by far because it lasted for an entire half if not 3 quarters. The win against Oregon St only happened because the defense played out of its mind

Yesterday was by far the worst coaching of the Shaw era. Stanford had superior speed and great WR blocking. WHERE WERE THE JET SWEEPS? WHERE WERE THE SWING PASSES?  WHERE WERE THE BUBBLE SCREENS?  WHERE WAS THE READ OPTION?

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - washingtonismoney - 01-02-2014

Let me helpfully list the teams that have 14-0 talent:

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Hulk01 - 01-02-2014

Washington, your list of teams with 14-0 talent was at least two teams too long. :)



Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - OutsiderFan - 01-02-2014

Actually, I think Florida State and Alabama both have 14-0 talent.  No, Alabama did not go undefeated, and Florida State has yet to, but those are the teams that have the talent in 2014 to have done it. 

Stanford doesn't have 14-0 talent, and probably never will.  Florida State and Alabama are just as talented as Stanford in the trenches, and better at QB, WR, TE, DB, and probably RB too when you get down to it. 

Stanford in reality has 10-3 or 11-2 talent right now and probably maximized the potential of its talent as well as any team in the country the last two seasons.  Yes, the Rose Bowl play calling could have been a little more wide open, but Stanford doesn't have 14-0 talent.  Suggesting so is naive at best.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - washingtonismoney - 01-02-2014

(01-02-2014, 12:13 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Actually, I think Florida State and Alabama both have 14-0 talent. 

I would take the radical position that no team, ever has 14-0 talent. Teams have, like, 13-1 or 12-2 (or whatever) talent and end up getting lucky on the path to being undefeated.

Take for instance Nick Saban, Pete Carroll and Urban Meyer. Indisputably great coaches (if oft-questionably ethically.) They've got a grand total of... three undefeated seasons in AQ conferences. Yet some of these teams were absurdly talented. As a matter of math, it's absurdly difficult to go undefeated. Expecting, ever, to go undefeated is an act of insanity.

(It's especially insane when you play against a top-10, top-5 schedule, as the computers say Stanford did.)

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - OutsiderFan - 01-02-2014

I think the question is who has the talent potential to go 14-0, not necessarily who absolutely will.  The examples of teams that have gone undefeated demonstrates it takes loaded (exceptionally talented) teams to go undefeated.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Cardinal96 - 01-02-2014

I question the underlying premise that we have 14-0 talent.  If anything, I think we have 10-4 talent and 12-2 coaching.  I think we overachieved to make the Rose Bowl the last two years in a row.

Overall, I believe this team is less physically talented than the 2010 and 2011 squads by a decent margin.  The biggest difference is Andrew Luck but you also had better outside skill talent on those squads.  There is a very good chance not a single Stanford player is drafted in the first round of the upcoming draft.  Yankey may; it will be close.  QB Hogan likely goes undrafted.  The only outside skill talent I currently see playing in the pros is Montgomery.

Florida State and Alabama unquestionably have better overall talent than we do.  You can make an argument that Auburn, Oregon, UCLA, Georgia, Michigan State, Ohio State and LSU also have more overall talent.

I just don't get the heat that Shaw gets.  I see a guy coaching a team with obvious weaknesses and doing everything in his power to mask those weaknesses and give us the best chance to win each week.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - jacketree - 01-02-2014

I think we have 11-3 talent and/or coaching.  I mean, just based on the evidence at hand.  :P

2-10 - Hulk01 - 01-02-2014

We sure have a lot of 2-10 fans.

Re: 2-10 - OutsiderFan - 01-02-2014

(01-02-2014, 02:41 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We sure have a lot of 2-10 fans.

Stanford fans seem much more objective about their team than other fan bases are about theirs.  In general Stanford fans are less sanguine.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - StanFan88 - 01-02-2014

(01-02-2014, 12:13 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Actually, I think Florida State and Alabama both have 14-0 talent.  No, Alabama did not go undefeated, and Florida State has yet to, but those are the teams that have the talent in 2014 to have done it. 

Stanford doesn't have 14-0 talent, and probably never will.  Florida State and Alabama are just as talented as Stanford in the trenches, and better at QB, WR, TE, DB, and probably RB too when you get down to it. 

Stanford in reality has 10-3 or 11-2 talent right now and probably maximized the potential of its talent as well as any team in the country the last two seasons.  Yes, the Rose Bowl play calling could have been a little more wide open, but Stanford doesn't have 14-0 talent.  Suggesting so is naive at best.

There was not a single game this year where I thought the opposing team had better players, and I consider Stanford's talent equal to FSU and Alabama.  They might have better players at some of the skill positions, but our OL and D front 7 are the best in the nation.  The gap that needs the most attention is OC.  The gameplanning and playcalling has been too hit and miss this year.

I have no problems with the 4th & 1 call.  I have a problem with the 20+ previous playcalls that put the team in a position where they needed to convert that 4th & 1 to have a chance to win.

Re: 2-10 - Mick - 01-02-2014

(01-02-2014, 02:41 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We sure have a lot of 2-10 fans.

I don't know that we have a lot of them, but they tend to be vocal and visible.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - martyup - 01-02-2014

I want to be that 14-0 fan no matter how good the team may be.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - Cardinal96 - 01-02-2014

(01-02-2014, 04:39 PM)StanFan88 link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9313.msg80440#msg80440 date=1388689990]
Actually, I think Florida State and Alabama both have 14-0 talent.  No, Alabama did not go undefeated, and Florida State has yet to, but those are the teams that have the talent in 2014 to have done it. 

Stanford doesn't have 14-0 talent, and probably never will.  Florida State and Alabama are just as talented as Stanford in the trenches, and better at QB, WR, TE, DB, and probably RB too when you get down to it. 

Stanford in reality has 10-3 or 11-2 talent right now and probably maximized the potential of its talent as well as any team in the country the last two seasons.  Yes, the Rose Bowl play calling could have been a little more wide open, but Stanford doesn't have 14-0 talent.  Suggesting so is naive at best.

There was not a single game this year where I thought the opposing team had better players, and I consider Stanford's talent equal to FSU and Alabama.  They might have better players at some of the skill positions, but our OL and D front 7 are the best in the nation.  The gap that needs the most attention is OC.  The gameplanning and playcalling has been too hit and miss this year.

I have no problems with the 4th & 1 call.  I have a problem with the 20+ previous playcalls that put the team in a position where they needed to convert that 4th & 1 to have a chance to win.
[/quote]

I am not sure where to begin with the Alabama and FSU comparison.  In terms of skill talent, the discrepancy is vast.  Let's take FSU.  They have Jameis Winston who is a virtual lock for number 1 overall whenever he declares.  They have two NFL-ready wide receivers to throw to.  Their secondary is elite.  The OL and DL are chock full of NFL prospects, higher rated than Stanford's.  I gauge NFL draft prospects as the best proxy for talent.  And on that measure it isn't a contest.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - DC - 01-02-2014

I'd say we have 12-2 talent and 11-3 coaching.  A little more variety on offense, even with our limitations,  would have increased our expected wins by 1 to 1.5 

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - CowboyIndian - 01-02-2014

If we hang onto those two missed interceptions and a couple of first down drops...how's our coaching look then?

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - DC - 01-02-2014

we can´t get all the breaks.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - CowboyIndian - 01-02-2014

Those are not breaks; those are opportunities...and easy ones at that...that present themselves during the course of the game. Players didn't make the plays that were there to be made. MSU did.

A break is K. Anderson missing that INT and the ball landing in the MSU receiver's hands.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - CowboyIndian - 01-02-2014

Those are not breaks; those are opportunities...and easy ones at that...that present themselves during the course of the game. Players didn't make the plays that were there to be made. MSU did.

A break is K. Anderson missing that INT and the ball landing in the MSU receiver's hands.

Re: 14-0 talent, 10-4 coaching - StanFan88 - 01-03-2014

(01-02-2014, 07:09 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:If we hang onto those two missed interceptions and a couple of first down drops...how's our coaching look then?

Defense played well enough to win, holding MSU to 24 points.  Not their finest game, but certainly good enough.  Net was 17 points with the pick six.

Offense scored 3 points in the final 3 quarters.  That is where the blame lies for this loss.