The CardBoard
How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - 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: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team (/thread-7540.html)

Pages: 1 2

How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - Hulk01 - 08-18-2014

First, sorry for the font issues that follow.  Perplexing.

Garvin recently echoed a popular belief that our Orange Bowl team was Stanford’s best ever.

There’s a good case for it, of course, although the final half of that game may distort some perceptions.  The first half was not pretty, highlighted by the famous Luck to Derek Hall pass for a safety. 

But Garvin's post made me wonder: How does this roster—entering this season—compare to that team as it entered its big year?

The 2010 defense was coming off a year so ugly that Harbaugh ditched his DB and brought in Vic Fangio.  And it faced a shortage at linebacker so acute that Vic asked his starting fullback to play inside linebacker alongside Shayne Skov.

I decided to compare that defense with the current one by speculating on a likely two-deep of the combined teams, 2010 and this years:

First team
DE: Henry Anderson. The star of the combined team.
DE: Matt Masifilo.  But not that he had not been a starter before 2010.
NT:  Sione Fua

ILB: Shayne Skov
ILB: A.J. Tarpley
OLB: James Vaughters[/b]
OLB: Chase Thomas
NB:  Zach Hoffpauir

CB: Alex Carter
CB: Richard Sherman
S:  Jordan Richards
S:  Delano Howell

The Orange Bowl team holds up well, it appears.  But note that Skov and Thomas were just sophomores and not the finished products they became.

Where this year’s defense looks stronger is when you go to the second team, bearing in mind that any chance of beating Oregon in 2010 depended on rotating in players to avoid a later-game collapse

DE:  Asiz Shittu
DE:  Blake Lueders
NT:  David Parry

The Orange Bowl teams’ top backup DL was Brian Bulcke.

ILB: Blake Martinez
ILB: Kevin Palma , Noor D
I cannot imagine a two-way Owen Marecic being preferred to a much fresher combination of the three players above, particularly by mid-season. Amajoyi or Bergen? No.

CB: Wayne Lyons
CB: Ronnie Harris/Terrence Alexander
NB: Wayne Lyons
  I don’t think Corey Gatewood or Johnson Bademosi would crack this group. 

S:  Michael Thomas
S: Kodi Whitfield, Kyle Olugbode

---

Offense seems a bit trickier, with an edge to the Orange Bowl team and a bigger edge when you consider the Orange Bowl quarterback

QB:  Andrew Luck
Backup:  Ryan Burns
Backup: Keller Chryst
Backup: Alex Loukas

FB: Owen Marecic
Backups: Lee Ward, Patrick Skov, Geoff Meinken
Meinken was a total unknown entering that season.

RB: Stepfan Taylor or Kelsey Young

This is a legitimate /or/.  Taylor was a sophomore and it was not clear he would become Stepfan Taylor.
Backups: Jeremy Stewart/Barry Sanders/Christian McCaffrey Tyler Gaffney

This one isn’t clear, either.  Stewart was primarily a short yardage specialist who broke a big run in the Orange Bowl that made us ask, Where has he been?  Gaffney was entering his second year as a highly-rated fullback prospect.

Y-TE: Coby Fleener.  Fleener was coming off a modest 266 yard season (20 yards per game) and was not a blocker yet.
X-TE: Austin Hooper or Levine Toilolo.  I am hedging here because I think we may see that Hooper is a better blocker than Toillolo was as a true sophomore.

WR: Ty Montgomery.  The elite athlete in the WR group
WR: Ryan Whalen.  Mr. Move The Chains.  And a very good downfield blocker
Backup WRs: Chris Owusu, Devon Cajuste, Mike Rector, Doug Baldwin. 
Baldwin had not played the year before nor showed any signs of stardom in his sophomore year. 
And note that this was it for receivers on the Orange Bowl team.
Griff Whalen entered that season with only seven receptions the year before.

LT: Austin Peat (So)
OG: Joshua Garnett (So)
C:  Chase Beeler (Sr)
OG: David DeCastro (So)
RT: Jonathan Martin (So)

Backups
LT: Kyle Murphy (So)
OG: Johnny Caspers (So)
C: Graham Shuler (So)
OG: Andrew Phillips
OT: Nick Davidson/Brandon Austin/Casey Tucker

The backup OLs on the Orange Bowl team were Tyler Mabry and James McGillicuddy.

Kicker: Jordan Williamson  His soaring kickoffs and range should break any tie with Nate Whitaker.
Punter: Ben Rhyne But David Green was capable.
KOR: Ty Montgomery or Chris Owusu.  Arguably, the two best KORs in college football, on the same team.
PR:  ?  Sophomore Drew Terrel looked capable entering the 2010 season and probably deserves the nod here. Sanders or McCaffrey, however, could prove more explosive and perhaps more effective.
Special Teams: 2014.  Stanford special teams have improved significantly in the past three years.

I leave it to others to make any final comparisons. 

Obviously, that Luck offense was explosive—and had Luck, who is invaluable.  Marecic was a phenomenal lead—the fastest first step—for whoever trailed behind him, and the young tight ends eventually proved to be NFL-worthy.  Not least of all, DeCastro gave the team the trifecta for running power: a great blocking fullback, excellent blocking tight end (Levine), and a wonderful pulling guard. 

This year’s team matches up very well otherwise.  It looks much deeper on defense front-to-back, and Anderson creates brobdingnagian challenges for opposing teams all by himself.  And this year’s team looks stronger on special teams, including what might be the nation’s best kickoff.and kickoff return teams. 

What do you all think?

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - TrumpCard - 08-18-2014

This is an interesting analysis.  I am not a talent evaluating guru so I will defer to you on that front.  I think a couple of additional factors are worth mentioning: (1) the coaching staff; and (2) team chemistry.  I expect the coaching staff and team chemistry to be very good this year, but I don't know if they can match 2010.  In particular, if last year's offense is a good indicator, I think Bloomgren may be unable to match the combination of Roman/Shaw/Luck running the offense in 2010. 

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - Hulk01 - 08-18-2014

Another difference is that every guy on this roster has been through an entire college career of S&C work with Shannon Turley. 

That may be reflected in the fact that this team is bigger than the Orange Bowl team.  That team didn't have linebackers the size of Vaughers and Palma, a DE as big as Henry, or DBs as big--almost man for man--as this one.  And we never dreamed of a guy like Ty Montgomery, although he clearly is unusual period.

As a result, this teams reminds me of seeng that  Chicago Bears' championship defense (Dent, McMichael, Singletary, Fencik) for the first time they took the field at the Metrodome.  They just looked impenetrable--long, tall, massiv

The other apparent effect of Turley, perhaps bigger, has been on injuries.  These teams suffer fewer injuries than past ones, and are healthier game-by-game than previous teams. 

Once more: I am betting big this season.

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - Spiny_Norman - 08-18-2014

Aren't teams more than just the sum total of the individual piece parts?  The 2010 team (playing in an even numbered year) had similar schedule challenges as this year's team.  The schedule included back-to-back trips to South Bend and Eugene followed by a home game vs. USC.  A brutally tough run.

The team recorded 3 conference shutouts, including 2 on the road (last done in 1935).  They dominated the Domers in South Bend and also won at Tempe.  The team got better as the season progressed and capped it off with a convincing victory over the ACC champs.  You can do player-by--player analyses, but that does not tell you about a team's motivation, how they will play under pressure, their resilience, coaching decisions, etc. 

I don't think that you can foretell this season's results based on comparison to 2010.  Like many here, I am excited at the prospects!  Stanford seems like they should be in the hunt for a conference championship.  But we'll just have to wait and see what this team does on the field.

Btw, say what you want about Nate Whitaker, but no kicker could have done better than this right here:
http://youtu.be/CzdqOWUwNJs?t=1m27s#aid=P-IEIeHIxA4

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - washingtonismoney - 08-18-2014

(08-18-2014, 12:30 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:The 2010 team (playing in an even numbered year) had similar schedule challenges as this year's team.  ...

But I think Hulk is doing it from the perspective of preseason. And preseason, the Pac-10 looked a lot friendlier then than now. Here were our conference + ND opponents preseason of 2010:
#11 Oregon
#14 SC
#24 Oregon State

That's not too bad at all. Of course, as it turned out, it was slightly more difficult. Sagarin ranked SOS #9 that year, but that there was some disagreement -- Football Outsiders' FEI had us 31st, for example. But obviously it's too early to compare that element.

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - Cardinal96 - 08-18-2014

Thanks for this.  It made me pause and think.

In my mind, the difference in QB between the 2010 and 2014 team is so deep that I would take the 2010 team without hesitation.  You also had a much more proven and experienced offensive line on average.  That 2010 offense was potent and I don't think the 2014 team will be near that level.  Note, that is not to say I don't think the 2014 offesne will be an improvement over 2013.  I think it will be.  But the 2010 offense was on another level.

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - Hulk01 - 08-18-2014

Most of us will compare this team to 2014’s by beginning, “But 2014 had Andrew Luck, and that’s a brobdingnagian difference.”

Here are those guys' respective stats for their preceding (2009 for Luck, 2013 for Hogan) seasons:

Luck:
56% completion. 8.9 yards per attempt, 13-4 TD/int; 364 yards rushing, 5.7 pet attempt, 2 TDs

Hogan:
61% completion, 8.9 yards per attempt, 20-10 TD/Int; 347 yards rushing, 4.2 yards per attempt, 2 TDs

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - yvonne - 08-18-2014

*Andrus Peat

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - gocard14 - 08-18-2014

(08-18-2014, 12:30 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Aren't teams more than just the sum total of the individual piece parts?  The 2010 team (playing in an even numbered year) had similar schedule challenges as this year's team.  The schedule included back-to-back trips to South Bend and Eugene followed by a home game vs. University of Spoiled Children .  A brutally tough run.

The Pac 10(12) was much, much weaker in 2010.  UCLA and UW had not yet emerged as contenders.  USC was mired in mediocrity. ASU had Dennis Erickson, WSU couldn't beat anybody, and Arizona was in the downward trend of the Bob Stoops era.

The only teams that were better then compared to now are Cal and (IMO) Oregon.  Mariota is far better then Darron Thomas, but the top to bottom talent level on the UO team (and presence of Chip Kelly) made them a much scarier opponent.

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - FarmBoy - 08-18-2014

The only obvious person missing is Zach Ertz from the 2010 team.

Comparing Luck '09 vs. Hogan '13 is a bit unfair as well, considering that Hogan was a couple of years older and effectively had a half season of starting experience under his belt before '13.

Are you missing the impact of coaches (head and assistant)? I would take the 2010 Stanford roster over the current iteration in almost all areas.

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - washingtonismoney - 08-18-2014

(08-18-2014, 02:33 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:The only obvious person missing is Zach Ertz from the 2010 team.

Hulk is comparing the pre-season expectations and assessments of the team, I believe, rather than how they turned out. (Feel free to correct me here.) Ertz was not exactly well-known at the time, though perhaps insiders knew better (or claim they know better in retrospect.) At any rate, Ertz didn't play a brobdingnagian role on the 2010 team -- only 190 yards.

Speaking of which, here's an interesting broader question. The 2010 team featured probably the most balanced passing attack in recent Stanford history. Here's the yardage distribution:
WRs: 2026
TEs: 872
RBs: 466

Do you go over or under on each yardage total for the 2014 team? (I'll go OVER, a bit UNDER, and well UNDER.)

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - teejers1 - 08-18-2014

As for all-time great Stanford teams, the Seattle Bowl squad gets overlooked because of . . . well . . . the abomination that was the Seattle Bowl.  But that team was great on offense and very good on defense, and was "this close" - some might say a dropped TD pass right in the basket by a certain WR against WSU (not I, though, as there were many other single plays that would have turned the outcome of that game) - from playing in the national title game.  Seriously.

Ty's "mail it in" prep for the Seattle Bowl - combined with the natural let down of the team being relegated to a lesser bowl than it thought it deserved - combined to sully the legacy of an otherwise tremendous team.

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - Treebound - 08-18-2014

Aside from the QB factor that has been pointed out - the positive beta on Luck and his leadership versus Hogan, I think the big factor in comparing 2010 to this year is the level of the competition.  We shut out UCLA, UW and OSU n 2010.  I don't see that happening this year as each of those teams is significantly better.  The Pac12 is arguably the best Conference.  Our schedule is much tougher and we are missing two of the bottom teams in the Pac12.  I too, am betting big, but I think the schedule will make it hard for us to get through the Pac12 without 1-2 losses.     

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - Hulk01 - 08-18-2014

Definitely a tougher schedule this year. The toughest in memory.

But I like this team in tough games.  Hogan--and his Stanford teams--are 10-1 vs, ranked opponents. 
.
I'm not projecting or predicting a record season for wins.  I only am trying to assess the quality of these players against our best recent teams.

I do think this talent is far superior to that Seattle Bowl team that came "this close."  And I knew/know the 71 and 71 Rose Bowl teams well, and think that Siemon might be the most dominant defensive player we have had, but those teams were prone to hideous games--Duke, Air Force, Cal, and San Jose State to name four of six.  Few Stanford teams were as capable as playing down to their opposition.





Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - washingtonismoney - 08-18-2014

I can't say I was watching Stanford teams back in 2001, but it's hard to take the view that the Seattle Bowl team was anywhere close to the 2009-13 standard seriously.

The team went 2-1 against ranked teams. That's solid, but here's how it compares from 2009-13 period:
2009: 3-0
2010: 2-1
2011: 3-2
2012: 5-1
2013: 6-1

So the 2001 team was close to the bottom in terms of number of ranked teams and number of wins. Was it especially dominant? Here's the average margin of victory:
2001: 6.92 ppg
2009: 9 ppg
2010: 22.9 ppg
2011: 20.4 ppg
2012: 10.7 ppg
2013: 13.3 ppg

Here's how Sagarin stacks them up, in his PREDICTOR ranking:
2001: #20
2009: #24
2010: #1
2011: #5
2012: #11
2013: #4

The 2001 team was solid, sure, but nowhere near the standard set through most of the Harbaugh and Shaw era. There'd be extremely polite rioting in the streets of Palo Alto if Shaw trotted out a team as lowly at the 2001 team, given the criticism he's gotten for the 2013 team.

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - 81alum - 08-18-2014

It is very hard to argue that at least one of the teams from this recent run was Stanford's best modern team, but in my book you have to win your final game on the biggest stage to be considered, so that narrows it to 2010 or 2012.  The 2010 team won more convincingly and lost one fewer game than the 2012 team, so it gets my vote.

That said, I would love to know how these teams would stack up against the 1940 Wow boys.  Clark Shaughnessy's team was 10-0, ending the season by beating previously undefeated Nebraska in the Rose Bowl.  We wound up ranked 2nd in the nation but the poll was taken before the Rose Bowl was played or else we were a cinch for 1st.  In effect, we were cheated of a national championship.

Our defense did not allow more than 14 points all season and we were 5-0 against ranked teams.  We were led by Frankie Albert, one of the great quarterbacks of the first half of the twentieth century.

Oh, and we were 1-7-1 the previous season.  Shaughnessy essentially went from a one win season to a national championship in one year.

How did he do it?  See if this story sounds familiar.  Shaughnessy installed an archaic formation, the T formation, which had been  out of use and was considered obsolete.  Everyone had switched to wing formations.  He tweaked the old T and completely surprised teams and coaches who were not prepared to stop yesterday's formation.  Even Pop Warner was not supportive.  He thought Shaughnessy was crazy.  One of Shaughnessy's plays was a plunge into the line by a back without a blocker that went against every concept current at the time.  But the plays were very deceptive and defenses had a very hard time figuring out who had the ball. 

I half expected when researching this to discover that Shaughnessy's favorite expression was "Enthusiasm Unknown to Man" but Shaughnessy was much more like Walsh than he was like Harbaugh.  In fact, Shaughnessy was a University of Chicago Professor who quit to be able to continue coaching and referred to himself as a "Professor of Football."

By the end of the 1940s, 250/350 teams had installed the T formation.  Like Walsh, Shaughnessy changed the game.

So, I will stick with the 1940 team.  Until Shaw gets us an undefeated season and a national championship, which I hope is coming!

Here is a little bit of video from that Rose Bowl:
http://pac-12.com/videos/great-rose-bowl-moments-1941-stanford-vs-nebraska

Here is a longer silent film showing our game vs. ranked Washington State.  We are white.  You can really see the drastically different play styles and formations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k0nKitJsbs



Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - teejers1 - 08-18-2014

WIM, does your analysis include or exclude the bowl games for the respective seasons?

I didn't say the 2001 team was the best ever, I said it gets no run in such a discussion because of the hideous way it ended.  I fully admit that Stanford's roster of late is more talented than anything we've seen in the last 3 decades.  But relatively speaking, that Stanford team was damn good and the closest to playing for a national championship than any other team in my memory.  They were closer than 2010 (even though the loss to Oregon was much closer than final score) and even last year (but Stanford should have beaten both Utah and SC - and who knows, maybe just getting one of those Ws puts Stanford in the title game).

Anyway, just one fan's opinion.

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - washingtonismoney - 08-19-2014

(08-18-2014, 11:27 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:WIM, does your analysis include or exclude the bowl games for the respective seasons?

I didn't say the 2001 team was the best ever, I said it gets no run in such a discussion because of the hideous way it ended.  I fully admit that Stanford's roster of late is more talented than anything we've seen in the last 3 decades.  But relatively speaking, that Stanford team was damn good and the closest to playing for a national championship than any other team in my memory.  They were closer than 2010 (even though the loss to Oregon was much closer than final score) and even last year (but Stanford should have beaten both Utah and SC - and who knows, maybe just getting one of those Ws puts Stanford in the title game).

Anyway, just one fan's opinion.

Closeness to the national title game isn't a great metric. N.D. made the national title game and they were, at best, the...sixth or seventh best team that year? Getting to the national title game is one part actual quality and three parts luck.

Even without considering the bowl game, I think it's pretty clear the 2001 team was well below the 2009-13 era: only 8.45 ppg as a margin of victory. It was a fine team, but if it's well below the 2009-13 standard, it's certainly well off the all-time standard by extension.

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - JohnR34231 - 08-19-2014

In 1969 we were really three plays away from being undefeated. Purdue's two point conversion (to add insult to injury the receiver is a Stanford Biz school graduate), the U$C last second field goal (after we failed to hold them earlier in the drive on 4th and long), and our blocked field goal against UCLA.

Re: How good might we be? Revisting the "best-ever" team - Rally - 08-19-2014

(08-19-2014, 08:11 AM)JPRI link Wrote:In 1969 we were really three plays away from being undefeated. Purdue's two point conversion (to add insult to injury the receiver is a Stanford Biz school graduate), the U$C last second field goal (after we failed to hold them earlier in the drive on 4th and long), and our blocked field goal against UCLA.

We were at that 1969 game in the Colleseum, and I well remember the heartbreak of SC's final drive with only 57 seconds left.  Has kept me from ever getting excited about a Standord win until the final whistle has blown.  Unlike the ridiculousness of the Big Game more recently, that one was legit.