[lex24]

Ah the cute little McFredo line again. As for the 99 team , excellent offense. But if you look at Willimghams years his offenses were very inconsistent. A couple good years. And some very bad ones. That 99 team had excellent talent.  Good QB. Great WR. 2 other good WR A solid good running back.  And a good o line. 
Btw here are Stanford’s ranks in scoring under Willingham:  95: 32d  96. 79th. 97. 60th. 98. 62nd. 99th. 9th. 00 70th. 01. 12th.

4 bad years. 1 ave 2 excellent. I’m curious did he learn to coach those two years and forget in the others.? And he must have really forgot everything between ‘99 and ‘00. Maybe he was concerned about the fake millennial.

I liked that 2000 team a lot also. One of the reason is it came out of nowhere Lost the opener by about a 100. There were no expectations. Thus a major surprise. It helped that it was not a strong Pac 10 that year. But that doesn’t matter. They gave us the first RB in 28 years. Pretty cool stuff


quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18293.msg217988#msg217988 date=1513041386]
And the numbers provided by CTC do not account for roster talent - it assumes a constant.  I'd say the more recent teams are WAY more talented - heck, I give Shaw kudos for recruiting well and riding the Stanford wave of popularity well.  But that's what makes it all the more infuriating.

The 2000 Rose Bowl team lost its starting center and it was a freaking turn style up the gut.  And that doesn't include Walters with a bad arm and Howard with nothing on the DL.

For the most recent Sun Bowl, yes Stanford didn't have McFredo (but we know Love is great - and he was real good that game, too, including catching a wheel route for a TD).  But I'll give Shaw a bit of a pass on that game (against a not-very-good D) if only because Burns was totally unprepared to play the game.  Some of that may be on coaching, but I put most of that on a player who didn't expect to play; practiced accordingly; and then went full on deer-in-headlights when called upon.
[/quote]

[lex24]

Ah the cute little McFredo line again. As for the 99 team , excellent offense. But if you look at Willimghams years his offenses were very inconsistent. A couple good years. And some very bad ones. That 99 team had excellent talent.  Good QB. Great WR. 2 other good WR A solid good running back.  And a good o line. 
Btw here are Stanford’s ranks in scoring under Willingham:  95: 32d  96. 79th. 97. 60th. 98. 62nd. 99th. 9th. 00 70th. 01. 12th.

4 bad years. 1 ave 2 excellent. I’m curious did he learn to coach those two years and forget in the others.? And he must have really forgot everything between ‘99 and ‘00. Maybe he was concerned about the fake millennial.

I liked that 2000 team a lot also. One of the reason is it came out of nowhere Lost the opener by about a 100. There were no expectations. Thus a major surprise. It helped that it was not a strong Pac 10 that year. But that doesn’t matter. They gave us the first RB in 28 years. Pretty cool stuff


quote author=teejers1 link=topic=18293.msg217988#msg217988 date=1513041386]
And the numbers provided by CTC do not account for roster talent - it assumes a constant.  I'd say the more recent teams are WAY more talented - heck, I give Shaw kudos for recruiting well and riding the Stanford wave of popularity well.  But that's what makes it all the more infuriating.

The 2000 Rose Bowl team lost its starting center and it was a freaking turn style up the gut.  And that doesn't include Walters with a bad arm and Howard with nothing on the DL.

For the most recent Sun Bowl, yes Stanford didn't have McFredo (but we know Love is great - and he was real good that game, too, including catching a wheel route for a TD).  But I'll give Shaw a bit of a pass on that game (against a not-very-good D) if only because Burns was totally unprepared to play the game.  Some of that may be on coaching, but I put most of that on a player who didn't expect to play; practiced accordingly; and then went full on deer-in-headlights when called upon.
[/quote]